Studies in Theology - Monergism in Th… · 2. christian supernaturalism 3. the idea of systematic...

StudiesinTheology

byB.B.Warfield

TableofContents

1.APOLOGETICS2.CHRISTIANSUPERNATURALISM3.THEIDEAOFSYSTEMATICTHEOLOGY4.THETASKANDMETHODOFSYSTEMATICTHEOLOGY5.GOD6.PREDESTINATIONINTHEREFORMEDCONFESSIONS7.ONTHEANTIQUITYANDUNITYOFTHEHUMANRACE8.ATONEMENT9.MODERNTHEORIESOFTHEATONEMENT10.IMPUTATION11.ONFAITHINITSPSYCHOLOGICALASPECTS12.THEARCHAEOLOGYOFTHEMODEOFBAPTISM13.THEPOLEMICSOFINFANTBAPTISM14.THEDEVELOPMENTOFTHEDOCTRINEOFINFANTSALVATION15.ANNIHILATIONISM16.THETHEOLOGYOFTHEREFORMATION17. THE NINETY-FIVE THESES IN THEIR THEOLOGICALSIGNIFICANCE18.EDWARDSANDTHENEWENGLANDTHEOLOGY19.CHARLESDARWIN'SRELIGIOUSLIFE20.THELATESTPHASEOFHISTORICALRATIONALISM21.MYSTICISMANDCHRISTIANITYLISTOFOTHERSTUDIESINTHEOLOGY

Apologetics

byBenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield

[Reprinted from "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of ReligiousKnowledge,"edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson, D.D., LL.D., i. pp. 232-238(copyrightbyFunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1908).]

I.SIGNIFICANCEOFTHETERM

Since Planck (1794) and Schleiermacher (1811), "apologetics" has beentheacceptednameofoneofthetheologicaldisciplinesordepartmentsoftheological science. The term is derived from the Greek apologeisthai,whichembodiesasitscentralnotiontheideaof"defense."Initspresentapplication,however,ithassomewhatshifteditsmeaning,andwespeakaccordinglyofapologeticsandapologiesincontrastwitheachother.Therelation between these two is not that of theory and practice (so e.g.Düsterdieck),noryetthatofgenusandspecies(soe.g.Kübel).Thatistosay, apologetics is not a formal science in which the principlesexemplifiedinapologiesareinvestigated,astheprinciplesofsermonizingareinvestigatedinhomiletics.Norisitmerelythesumofallexistingorallpossibleapologies,ortheirquintessence,ortheirscientificexhibition,asdogmaticsisthescientificstatementofdogmas.ApologiesaredefensesofChristianity,initsentirety,initsessence,orinsomeoneorotherofitselements or presuppositions, as against either all assailants, actual orconceivable, or some particular form or instance of attack; though, ofcourse,asgooddefensestheymayriseabovemeredefensesandbecomevindications. Apologetics undertakes not the defense, not even thevindication,buttheestablishment,not,strictlyspeaking,ofChristianity,but rather of that knowledge of God which Christianity professes toembody and seeks to make efficient in the world, and which it is thebusiness of theology scientifically to explicate. It may, of course, enterintodefenseandvindicationwhenintheprosecutionofitstaskitmeetswithopposingpointsofviewandrequirestoestablishitsownstandpoint

or conclusions. Apologies may, therefore, be embraced in apologetics,and formancillaryportions of its structure, as theymay also do in thecaseofeveryothertheologicaldiscipline.It is,moreover, inevitablethatthis or that element or aspect of apologetics will be more or lessemphasizedandcultivated,astheneedofitisfromtimetotimemoreorless felt.Butapologeticsdoesnotderive itscontentsor take its formorborrowitsvaluefromtheprevailingopposition;butpreservesthroughallvarying circumstances its essential character as a positive andconstructivesciencewhichhastodowithoppositiononly-likeanyotherconstructivescience-astherefutationofopposingviewsbecomesfromtimetotimeincidenttoconstruction.Solittleisdefenseorvindicationofthe essence of apologetics that there would be the same reason for itsexistenceandthesamenecessityforitswork,weretherenooppositionintheworldtobeencounteredandnocontradictiontobeovercome.Itfindsitsdeepestground,inotherwords,notintheaccidentswhichaccompanytheeffortsof true religion toplant, sustain, andpropagate itself in thisworld;noteveninthatmostpervasiveandmostportentousofall theseaccidents,theaccidentofsin;butinthefundamentalneedsofthehumanspirit.Ifitisincumbentonthebelievertobeabletogiveareasonforthefaith that is in him, it is impossible for him to be a believerwithout areasonforthefaiththatisinhim;anditisthetaskofapologeticstobringthisreasonclearlyoutinhisconsciousness,andmakeitsvalidityplain.Itis, in other words, the function of apologetics to investigate, explicate,and establish the grounds on which a theology - a science, orsystematizedknowledgeofGod - ispossible; andon thebasisofwhicheverysciencewhichhasGodforitsobjectmustrest,ifitbeatruesciencewithclaimstoaplacewithinthecircleofthesciences.Itnecessarilytakesitsplace,therefore,attheheadofthedepartmentsoftheologicalscienceandfindsitstaskintheestablishmentofthevalidityofthatknowledgeofGodwhich forms thesubject-matterof thesedepartments; thatwemaythen proceed through the succeeding departments of exegetical,historical, systematic, and practical theology, to explicate, appreciate,systematize,andpropagateitintheworld.

II.PLACEAMONGTHETHEOLOGICALDISCIPLINES

Itmustbeadmittedthatconsiderableconfusionhasreignedwithrespect

to the conception and function of apologetics, and its place among thetheological disciplines.Nearly everywriter has a definition of his own,anddescribesthetaskofthedisciplineinafashionmoreorlesspeculiartohimself;andthereisscarcelyacornerinthetheologicalencyclopediainto which it has not been thrust. Planck gave it a place among theexegeticaldisciplines;otherscontend that itsessence ishistorical;mostwishtoassigniteithertosystematicorpracticaltheology.Nösseltdeniesitallrightofexistence;Palmerconfesses inability to classify it;Räbigercasts it formally out of the encyclopedia, but reintroduces it under thedifferentnameof"theoryofreligion."Tholuckproposedthatitshouldbeapportioned through the several departments; and Cave actuallydistributesitsmaterialthroughthreeseparatedepartments.Muchofthisconfusionisduetoapersistentconfusionofapologeticswithapologies.Ifapologeticsisthetheoryofapology,anditsfunctionistoteachmenhowto defend Christianity, its place is, of course, alongside of homiletics,catechetics,andpoimenicsinpracticaltheology.Ifitissimply,bywayofeminence, the apology of Christianity, the systematically organizedvindication of Christianity in all its elements and details, against allopposition-orinitsessentialcoreagainsttheonlydestructiveopposition- it of course presupposes the complete development of Christianitythrough the exegetical, historical, and systematic disciplines, andmusttake its place either as the culminating department of systematictheology, or as the intellectualistic side of practical theology, or as anindependent discipline between the two. In this case it can be onlyartificiallyseparatedfrompolemictheologyandothersimilardisciplines-iftheanalysisispushedsofarastocreatethese,asisdonebyF.Duilhéde Saint-Projet who distinguishes between apologetical, controversial,andpolemictheology,directedrespectivelyagainstunbelievers,heretics,and fellow believers, and by A. Kuyper who distinguishes betweenpolemics, elenctics, and apologetics, opposing respectively heterodoxy,paganism, and false philosophy. It will not be strange, then, if, thoughseparatedfromthesekindreddisciplinesit,orsomeofit,shouldbeagainunitedwith them, or some of them, to form a largerwhole towhich isgiventhesameencyclopedicposition.ThisisdoneforexamplebyKuyperwho joins polemics, elenctics, and apologetics together to form his"antitheticdogmatological"groupofdisciplines;andbyF.L.Pattonwho,afterhavingdistributedthematerialofapologeticsintothetwoseparate

disciplines of rational or philosophical theology, to which as a theticdiscipline a place is given at the outset of the system, and apologetics,joins the latter with polemics to constitute the antithetical disciplines,while systematic theology succeeds both as part of the syntheticdisciplines.

III.SOURCEOFDIVERGENTVIEWS

Muchofthediversityinquestionisduealso,however,tovaryingviewsofthe thing which apologetics undertakes to establish; whether it be, forexample, the truth of the Christian religion, or the validity of thatknowledge of God which theology presents in systematized form. Andmore of it still is due to profoundly differing conceptions of thenatureandsubject-matterofthat"theology,"adepartmentofwhichapologeticsis.Ifwethinkofapologeticsasundertakingthedefenseorthevindicationoreventhejustificationofthe"Christianreligion,"thatisonething;ifwethink of it as undertaking the establishment of the validity of thatknowledge of God, which "theology" systematizes, that may be a verydifferentthing.Andevenifagreementexistsuponthelatterconception,thereremainthedeeplycuttingdivergenceswhichbesetthedefinitionof"theology" itself. Shall it be defined as the "science of faith"? or as the"scienceof religion"?oras the "scienceof theChristianreligion"?orasthe"scienceofGod"?Inotherwords,shallitberegardedasabranchofpsychology, or as a branch of history, or as a branch of science?Manifestlythosewhodifferthuswidelyastowhattheologyis,cannotbeexpected to agree as to the nature and function of any one of itsdisciplines.If"theology"isthescienceoffaithorofreligion,itssubject-matteristhesubjectiveexperiencesofthehumanheart;andthefunctionofapologeticsistoinquirewhetherthesesubjectiveexperienceshaveanyobjective validity. Of course, therefore, it follows upon the systematicelucidation of these subjective experiences and constitutes theculminatingdisciplineof"theology."Similarly,if"theology"isthescienceof theChristianreligion, it investigates thepurelyhistoricalquestionofwhatthosewhoarecalledChristiansbelieve;andofcoursethefunctionof apologetics is to follow this investigation with an inquiry whetherChristians are justified in believing these things. But if theology is thescience of God, it deals not with amass of subjective experiences, nor

withasectionofthehistoryofthought,butwithabodyofobjectivefacts;and it isabsurd tosay that these factsmustbeassumedanddevelopedunto their utmost implications before we stop to ask whether they arefacts.Sosoonasitisagreedthattheologyisascientificdisciplineandhasas its subject-matter the knowledge of God, we must recognize that itmustbeginbyestablishingtherealityasobjectivefactsofthedatauponwhich it is based. One may indeed call the department of theology towhich this task is committed by any name which appears to himappropriate: it may be called "general theology," or "fundamentaltheology," or "principial theology," or "philosophical theology," or"rational theology," or "natural theology," or any other of theinnumerablenameswhichhavebeenused todescribe it.Apologetics isthenamewhichmostnaturallysuggestsitself,anditisthenamewhich,withmoreor lessaccuracyofviewas to thenatureandcompassof thediscipline, has been consecrated to this purpose by a large number ofwritersfromSchleiermacherdown(e.g.Pelt,Twesten,Baumstark,Swetz,Ottiger, Knoll, Maissoneuve). It powerfully commends itself as plainlyindicating the nature of the discipline, while equally applicable to itwhatevermaybe thescopeof the theologywhich itundertakes toplantonasecurebasis.WhetherthistheologyrecognizesnootherknowledgeofGodthanthatgivenintheconstitutionandcourseofnature,orderivesitsdata from the full revelationofGod asdocumented in theChristianScriptures,apologeticsoffersitselfwithequalreadinesstodesignatethediscipline by which the validity of the knowledge of God set forth isestablished.Itneedimplynomorethannaturaltheologyrequiresforitsbasis; when the theology which it serves is, however, the completetheologyoftheChristianrevelation,itguardsitsunityandprotectsfromthefatallydualisticconceptionwhichsetsnaturalandrevealedtheologyoveragainsteachotherasseparableentities,eachwithitsownseparatepresuppositionsrequiringestablishment-bywhichapologeticswouldbesplit intotwoquitediversedisciplines,givenverydifferentplacesinthetheologicalencyclopedia.

IV.THETRUETASKOFAPOLOGETICS

It will already have appeared how far apologetics may be defined, inaccordance with a very prevalent custom (e.g. Sack, Lechler, Ebrard,

Kübel,Lemme)as"thesciencewhichestablishesthetruthofChristianityastheabsolutereligion."ApologeticscertainlydoesestablishthetruthofChristianityastheabsolutereligion.Butthequestionofimportancehereishowitdoesthis.ItcertainlyisnotthebusinessofapologeticstotakeupeachtenetofChristianityinturnandseektoestablishitstruthbyadirectappealtoreason.Anyattempttodothis,nomatteronwhatphilosophicalbasis the work of demonstration be begun or by what methods it bepursued, would transfer us at once into the atmosphere and betray usintothedeviousdevicesoftheoldvulgarrationalism,theprimaryfaultofwhichwasthatitaskedforadirectrationaldemonstrationofthetruthofeachChristianteachinginturn.ThebusinessofapologeticsistoestablishthetruthofChristianityastheabsolutereligiondirectlyonlyasawhole,and in its details only indirectly. That is to say,we are not tobeginbydeveloping Christianity into all its details, and only after this task hasbeenperformed,tardilyaskwhetherthereisanytruthinallthis.WearetobeginbyestablishingthetruthofChristianityasawhole,andonlythenproceed to explicate it into its details, each of which, if soundlyexplicated,has its truth guaranteed by its place as a detail in an entityalready established in its entirety. Thus we are delivered from what isperhapsthemostdistractingquestionwhichhasvexedthewholehistoryof the discipline. In establishing the truth of Christianity, it has beenperenniallyasked,arewetodealwithallitsdetails(e.g.H.B.Smith),ormerelywiththeessenceofChristianity(e.g.Kübel).Thetrueanswer is,neither. Apologetics does not presuppose either the development ofChristianity into itsdetails,or theextraction from itof its essence.ThedetailsofChristianityareall contained inChristianity: theminimumofChristianity is just Christianity itself. What apologetics undertakes toestablish is just this Christianity itself - including all its "details" andinvolvingits"essence"-initsunexplicatedanduncompressedentirety,astheabsolutereligion.Ithasforitsobjectthelayingofthefoundationsonwhichthetempleoftheologyisbuilt,andbywhichthewholestructureoftheologyisdetermined.Itisthedepartmentoftheologywhichestablishestheconstitutiveandregulativeprinciplesoftheologyasascience;andinestablishing these it establishes all the details which are derived fromthem by the succeeding departments, in their sound explication andsystematization.Thus it establishes thewhole, though it establishes thewholeinthemass,sotospeak,andnotinitsdetails,butyetinitsentirety

andnotinsomesingleelementdeemedbyusitscore,itsessence,or itsminimumexpression.

V.DIVISIONOFAPOLOGETICS

Thesubject-matterofapologeticsbeingdetermined,itsdistributionintoits parts becomes very much a matter of course. Having definedapologetics as the proof of the truth of the Christian religion, manywritersnaturallyconfineittowhatiscommonlyknownsomewhatlooselyas the "evidences of Christianity." Others, defining it as "fundamentaltheology,"equallynaturallyconfineittotheprimaryprinciplesofreligionin general. Others more justly combine the two conceptions and thusobtainatleasttwomaindivisions.ThusHermannSchultzmakesitprove"the right of the religious conception of the world, as over against thetendencies to thedenial of religion, and the right ofChristianity as theabsolutely perfect manifestation of religion, as over against theopponents of its permanent significance." He then divides it into twogreat sections with a third interposed between them: the first, "theapologyofthereligiousconceptionoftheworld";thelast,"theapologyofChristianity";whilebetween the two stands "thephilosophyof religion,religion in its historical manifestation." Somewhat less satisfactorily,becausewith a less firmhold upon the idea of the discipline,HenryB.Smith, viewing apologetics as "historico-philosophical dogmatics,"chargedwith the defense of "the whole contents and substance of theChristianfaith,"divided thematerial tomuchthesameeffect intowhathecalls fundamental,historical,andphilosophicalapologetics.The firstof these undertakes to demonstrate the being and nature of God; thesecond, the divine origin and authority of Christianity; and the third,somewhatlamelyasaconclusiontosohighanargument,thesuperiorityof Christianity to all other systems. Quite similarly Francis R. Beattiedivided into (1) fundamental or philosophical apologetics, which dealswith the problem of God and religion; (2) Christian or historicalapologetics, which deals with the problem of revelation and theScriptures;and(3)appliedorpracticalapologetics,whichdealswiththepracticalefficiencyofChristianityintheworld.Thefundamentaltruthofthese schematizations lies in the perception that the subject-matter ofapologeticsembracesthetwogreatfactsofGodandChristianity.Thereis

some failure inunityof conception,however, arisingapparently fromadeficient grasp of the peculiarity of apologetics as a department oftheological science, and a consequent inability to permit it as such todetermineitsowncontentsandthenaturalorderofitsconstituentparts.

VI.THECONCEPTIONOFTHEOLOGYASASCIENCE

Iftheologybeascienceatall,thereisinvolvedinthatfact,asinthecaseofallothersciences,atleastthesethreethings:therealityofitssubject-matter, the capacity of the human mind to receive into itself andrationally to reflect this subjectmatter, the existence of media ofcommunication between the subject-matter and the percipient andunderstanding mind. There could be no psychology were there not amindtobe investigated,amindto investigate,anda self-consciousnessby means of which the mind as an object can be brought under theinspection of the mind as subject. There could be no astronomy werethere no heavenly bodies to be investigated, no mind capable ofcomprehendingthelawsoftheirexistenceandmovements,ornomeansof observing their structure and motion. Similarly there can be notheology, conceived according to its very name as the science of God,unlessthereisaGodtoformitssubject-matter,acapacityinthehumanmind toapprehendandso far tocomprehendGod,andsomemediabywhichGodismadeknowntoman.Thatatheology,asthescienceofGod,mayexist, therefore, itmustbeginbyestablishing theexistenceofGod,the capacity of the humanmind to knowHim, and the accessibility ofknowledgeconcerningHim.Inotherwords,theveryideaoftheologyasthescienceofGodgivesthesethreegreattopicswhichmustbedealtwithin its fundamentaldepartment, bywhich the foundations for thewholestructure are laid - God, religion, revelation. With these three factsestablished, a theology as the science of God becomes possible; withthem,therefore,anapologeticmightbecomplete.Butthat,onlyprovidedthatinthesethreetopicsalltheunderlyingpresuppositionsofthescienceof God actually built up in our theology are established; for example,provided that all the accessible sources andmeansof knowingGodareexhausted.Nosciencecanarbitrarilylimitthedatalyingwithinitsspheretowhichitwillattend.Onpainofceasingtobethescienceitprofessestobe,itmustexhaustthemeansofinformationopentoit,andreducetoa

unitarysystemtheentirebodyofknowledgeinitssphere.Nosciencecanrepresent itself as, astronomy, for example, which arbitrarily confinesitselftotheinformationconcerningtheheavenlybodiesobtainablebytheunaidedeye,orwhichdiscards,withoutsoundgrounddulyadduced,theaidof,say,thespectroscope.InthepresenceofChristianityintheworldmakingclaimtopresentarevelationofGodadaptedtotheconditionandneedsofsinners,anddocumentedinScriptures,theologycannotproceedastepuntilithasexaminedthisclaim;andiftheclaimbesubstantiated,thissubstantiationmust formapart of the fundamental department oftheologyinwhicharelaidthefoundationsforthesystematizationoftheknowledgeofGod.Inthatcase,twonewtopicsareaddedtothesubject-matterwithwhichapologeticsmustconstructivelydeal,Christianity-andtheBible.Itthusliesintheverynatureofapologeticsasthefundamentaldepartmentof theology, conceivedas the scienceofGod, that it shouldfinditstaskinestablishingtheexistenceofaGodwhoiscapableofbeingknownbymanandwhohasmadeHimselfknown,notonlyinnaturebutin revelationsofHis grace to lost sinners, documented in theChristianScriptures.Whenapologeticshasplacedthesegreatfactsinourhands-God,religion,revelation,Christianity,theBible-andnottillthenarewepreparedtogoonandexplicatetheknowledgeofGodthusbroughttous,trace the history of its workings in the world, systematize it, andpropagateitintheworld.

VII.THEFIVESUBDIVISIONSOFAPOLOGETICS

The primary subdivisions of apologetics are therefore five, unless forconvenience of treatment it is preferred to sink the third into its mostclosely related fellow. (1) The first, which may perhaps be calledphilosophical apologetics, undertakes the establishment of the being ofGod, as a personal spirit, the creator, preserver, and governor of allthings. To it belongs the great problem of theism, with the involveddiscussionoftheantitheistictheories.(2)Thesecond,whichmayperhapsbecalledpsychologicalapologetics,undertakes theestablishmentof thereligiousnatureofmanandthevalidityofhisreligioussense.Itinvolvesthe discussion alike of the psychology, the philosophy, and thephenomenologyofreligion,andthereforeincludeswhatis looselycalled"comparativereligion"orthe"historyofreligions."(3)Tothethirdfalls

theestablishmentoftherealityofthesupernaturalfactorinhistory,withtheinvolveddeterminationoftheactualrelationsinwhichGodstandstoHisworld,andthemethodofHisgovernmentofHisrationalcreatures,andespeciallyHismodeofmakingHimselfknowntothem.It issues inthe establishment of the fact of revelation as the condition of allknowledgeofGod,whoasapersonalSpiritcanbeknownonlysofarasHeexpressesHimself;sothattheologydiffersfromallothersciencesinthatinittheobjectisnotatthedisposalofthesubject,butviceversa.(4)The fourth, which may be called historical apologetics, undertakes toestablishthedivineoriginofChristianityasthereligionof revelation inthespecialsenseofthatword.Itdiscussesallthetopicswhichnaturallyfallunderthepopularcaptionofthe"evidencesofChristianity."(5)Thefifth, which may be called bibliological apologetics, undertakes toestablish the trustworthiness of the Christian Scriptures as thedocumentationoftherevelationofGodfortheredemptionofsinners.Itis engaged especially with such topics as the divine origin of theScriptures;themethodsofthedivineoperationintheirorigination;theirplace in the series of redemptive acts of God, and in the process ofrevelation;thenature,mode,andeffectofinspiration;andthelike.

VIII.THEVALUEOFAPOLOGETICS

Theestimatewhich isputuponapologeticsby scholarsnaturally varieswiththeconceptionwhichisentertainedofitsnatureandfunction.Inthewake of the subjectivism introduced by Schleiermacher, it has becomevery common to speak of such an apologetic as has just been outlinedwith no little scorn. It is an evil inheritance, we are told, from the oldsupranaturalismus vulgaris, which "took its standpoint not in theScripturesbutabove theScriptures, and imagined it could,with formalconceptions, develop a 'ground for the divine authority of Christianity'(Heubner), and therefore offered proofs for the divine origin ofChristianity, the necessity of revelation, and the credibility of theScriptures"(Lemme).TorecognizethatwecantakeourstandpointintheScripturesonly afterwe have Scriptures, authenticated as such, to takeour standpoint in, is, it seems, an outworn prejudice. The subjectiveexperience of faith is conceived to be the ultimate fact; and the onlylegitimate apologetic, just the self-justification of this faith itself. For

faith, it seems,afterKant, canno longerbe lookeduponasamatterofreasoninganddoesnot rest on rational grounds,but is an affair of theheart,andmanifestsitselfmostpowerfullywhenithasnoreasonoutofitself (Brunetiere). If repetition had probative force, it would long agohavebeenestablishedthat faith,religion, theology, liewhollyoutsideoftherealmofreason,proof,anddemonstration.

It is,however, fromthepointofviewofrationalismandmysticismthatthe value of apologetics is most decried. Wherever rationalisticpreconceptions have penetrated, there, of course, the validity of theapologetic proofs has been in more or less of their extent questioned.Wherever mystical sentiment has seeped in, there the validity ofapologeticshasbeenwithmoreorlessemphasisdoubted.Atthepresentmoment, the rationalistic tendency ismost active, perhaps, in the formgiven it by Albrecht Ritschl. In this form it strikes at the very roots ofapologetics,bythedistinctioniterectsbetweentheoreticalandreligiousknowledge. Religious knowledge is not the knowledge of fact, but aperception of utility; and therefore positive religion, while it may behistoricallyconditioned,hasno theoreticalbasis,and isaccordinglynotthe object of rational proof. In significant parallelism with this, themysticaltendencyismanifestingitselfatthepresentdaymostdistinctlyin a widespread inclination to set aside apologetics in favor of the"witnessoftheSpirit."TheconvictionsoftheChristianman,wearetold,are not the product of reason addressed to the intellect, but theimmediate creation of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Therefore, it isintimated,wemaydoverywellwithoutthesereasons,ifindeedtheyarenot positively noxious, because tending to substitute a barrenintellectualismforavitalfaith.Itseemstobeforgottenthatthoughfaithbeamoralactand the gift ofGod, it is yet formally convictionpassingintoconfidence;andthatall formsofconvictionsmustrestonevidenceas their ground, and it is not faith but reason which investigates thenature and validity of this ground. "He who believes," says ThomasAquinas, inwordswhichhavebecomecurrentasanaxiom, "wouldnotbelieveunlesshesawthatwhathebelieves isworthyofbelief."ThoughfaithisthegiftofGod,itdoesnotintheleastfollowthatthefaithwhichGodgivesisanirrationalfaith,thatis,afaithwithoutcognizablegroundin right reason.Webelieve inChrist because it is rational to believe in

Him,noteven though itbe irrational.Ofcoursemerereasoningcannotmake a Christian; but that is not because faith is not the result ofevidence,butbecauseadeadsoulcannotrespondtoevidence.Theactionof theHoly Spirit in giving faith is not apart from evidence, but alongwithevidence;andinthefirstinstanceconsistsinpreparingthesoulforthereceptionoftheevidence.

IX.RELATIONOFAPOLOGETICSTOCHRISTIANFAITH

ThisisnottoarguethatitisbyapologeticsthatmenaremadeChristians,but that apologetics supplies to Christian men the systematicallyorganizedbasis onwhich the faith ofChristianmenmust rest. All thatapologeticsexplicatesintheformsofsystematicproofisimplicitineveryact of Christian faith. Whenever a sinner accepts Jesus Christ as hisSaviour,thereisimplicatedinthatactalivingconvictionthatthereisaGod,knowabletoman,whohasmadeHimselfknowninarevelationofHimselfforredemptioninJesusChrist,asissetdownintheScriptures.It is not necessary for his act of faith that all the grounds of thisconvictionshouldbedrawnintofullconsciousnessandgiventheexplicitassent of his understanding, though it is necessary for his faith thatsufficientgroundforhisconvictionbeactivelypresentandworkinginhisspirit.Butit isnecessaryforthevindicationofhisfaithtoreasonintheform of scientific judgment, that the grounds on which it rests beexplicatedandestablished.Theologyasascience,thoughitincludesinitsculminating discipline, that of practical theology, an exposition of howthatknowledgeofGodwithwhichitdealsobjectivelymaybestbemadethe subjective possession of man, is not itself the instrument ofpropaganda;what it undertakes to do is systematically to set forth thisknowledgeofGodastheobjectofrationalcontemplation.Andasithastosetitforthasknowledge,itmustofcoursebeginbyestablishingitsrighttorankassuch.Diditnotdoso,thewholeofitsworkwouldhangintheair,andtheologywouldpresenttheoddspectacleamongthesciencesofclaiming a place among a series of systems of knowledge for anelaborationofpureassumptions.

X.THEEARLIESTAPOLOGETICS

Seeing that it thus supplies an insistent need of the human spirit, the

worldhas,ofcourse,neverbeenwithoutitsapologetics.Whenevermenhave thought at all they have thought about God and the supernaturalorder; and whenever they have thought of God and the supernaturalorder,therehasbeenpresenttotheirmindsavarietyofmoreorlesssolidreasons for believing in their reality. The enucleation of these reasonsinto a systematically organized body of proofs waited of course uponadvancing culture. But the advent of apologetics did not wait for theadvent of Christianity; nor are traces of this department of thoughtdiscoverable only in the regions lit up by special revelation. Thephilosophical systems of antiquity, especially those which derive fromPlato,arefarfromemptyofapologeticalelements;andwheninthelaterstages of its development, classical philosophy became peculiarlyreligious, express apologetical material became almost predominant.WiththecomingofChristianityintotheworld,however,asthecontentsofthetheologytobestatedbecamericher,sotheeffortstosubstantiateitbecamemore fertile in apologetical elements.Wemustnot confuse theapologies of the early Christian ages with formal apologetics. Like thesermonsoftheday,theycontributedtoapologeticswithoutbeingit.Theapologetic material developed by what one may call the morephilosophical of the apologists (Aristides, Athenagoras, Tatian,Theophilus,Hermias,Tertullian)wasalreadyconsiderable;itwaslargelysupplemented by the theological labors of their successors. In the firstinstanceChristianity,plungedintoapolytheisticenvironmentandcalledupon to contend with systems of thought grounded in pantheistic ordualisticassumptions,requiredtoestablishitstheisticstandpoint;andasover against thebitternessof theJewsand themockeryof theheathen(e.g.Tacitus,Fronto,Crescens,Lucian),toevinceitsowndivineoriginasa gift of grace to sinful man. Along with Tertullian, the greatAlexandrians, Clement and Origen, are the richest depositaries of theapologetic thought of the first period. The greatest apologists of thepatristic age were, however, Eusebius of Caesarea amd Augustine. Theformerwasthemostlearnedandthelatterthemostprofoundofallthedefenders of Christianity among the Fathers. And Augustine, inparticular, not merely in his "City of God" but in his controversialwritings, accumulated a vastmass of apologeticalmaterialwhich is farfromhavinglostitssignificanceevenyet.

XI.THELATERAPOLOGETICS

Itwasnot,however,until thescholasticagethatapologeticscametoitsrights as a constructive science. The whole theological activity of theMiddleAgeswassofarancillarytoapologetics,thatitsprimaryeffortwasthe justification of faith to reason. It was not only rich in apologists(Agobard, Abelard, Raymund Martini), but every theologian was in asenseanapologist.Anselmat itsbeginning,Aquinasat its culmination,are types of the whole series; types in which all its excellencies aresummed up. The Renaissance, with its repristination of heathenism,naturally called out a series of new apologists (Savonarola, MarsiliusFicinus,LudovicusVives),buttheReformationforcedpolemics intotheforeground and drove apologetics out of sight, although, of course, thegreattheologiansoftheReformationerabroughttheirrichcontributiontotheaccumulatingapologeticalmaterial.When,intheexhaustionoftheseventeenth century, irreligion began to spread among the people andindifferentismripeningintonaturalismamongtheleadersofthought,thestream of apologetical thoughtwas oncemore started flowing, to swellintoagreatfloodastheprevalentunbeliefintensifiedandspread.Withaforerunner in Philippe deMornay (1581), HugoGrotius (1627) becamethetypicalapologistoftheearlierportionofthisperiod,whileitsmiddleportion was illuminated by the genius of Pascal (d. 1662) and theunexampledrichnessofapologeticallaborinitslateryearsculminatedinButler's great "Analogy" (1736) and Paley's plain but powerfulargumentation.As theassaultagainstChristianityshifted itsbasis fromtheEnglishdeismoftheearlyhalfoftheeighteenthcenturythroughtheGerman rationalism of its later half, the idealismwhich dominated thefirsthalfof thenineteenthcentury,andthence to thematerialismof itslateryears,periodafterperiodwasmarkedinthehistoryofapology,andthe particular elements of apologetics which were especially cultivatedchanged with the changing thought. But no epoch was marked in thehistoryofapologeticsitself,untilundertheguidanceofSchleiermacher'sattempttotracetheorganismofthedepartmentsoftheology,K.H.Sackessayed to set forth a scientifically organized "Christian Apologetics"(Hamburg,1829;ed.2,1841).Sincethenanunbrokenseriesofscientificsystemsofapologeticshasflowedfromthepress.Thesediffer fromoneanother in almost every conceivable way; in their conception of the

nature, task, compass, and encyclopedic place of the science; in theirmethodsofdealingwith itsmaterial; in theirconceptionofChristianityitself; and of religion and ofGod and of the nature of the evidence onwhich belief in one or the other must rest. But they agree in thefundamentalpoint thatapologetics is conceivedbyallalikeasa specialdepartment of theological science, capable of and demanding separatetreatment. In this sense apologetics has come at last, in the last two-thirdsofthenineteenthcentury,toitsrights.Thesignificantnamesinitsdevelopment are such as, perhaps, among the Germans, Sack, Steudel,Delitzsch,Ebrard,Baumstark,Tölle,Kratz,Kübel,Steude,Frank,Kaftan,Vogel,Schultz,Kähler;towhommaybeaddedsuchRomanistsasDrey,Dieringer,Staudenmeyer,Hettinger,Schanz,andsuchEnglish-speakingwritersasHetherington,H.B.Smith,Bruce,Rishell,andBeattie.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists of literature will be found in F. R. Beattie's"Apologetics, or the Rational Vindication of Christianity," Richmond,1903;inA.Cave,"IntroductiontoTheology,"Edinburgh,ed.2,1896;inG. R. Crooks and J. F. Hurst, "Theological Encyclopaedia andMethodology," New York, 1884, pp. 411-413; in P. Schaff, "TheologicalPropædeutic," 2 parts, New York, 1892-1893. Consult F. L. Patton, inPrinceton Theological Review, ii. 1904, pp. 110 ff.; Presbyterian andReformedReview,vii.1896,pp.243ff.(orpp.49ff.ofthisvolume).Onthe history of apologetics and apologetic method: H. G. Tzschirner,"Geschichte der Apologetiek," Leipzig, 1805; G. H. van Senden,"Geschichte der Apologetiek," 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1846; K. Werner,"Geschichte der apologetischen und polemischen Literatur," 5 vols.,Schaffhausen, 1861-1867 (Roman Catholic); W. Haan, "Geschichte derVertheidigung des Christenthums," Frankenberg, 1882 (popular). ForearlyChristianapologiesconsult"Ante-NiceneFathers"and"NiceneandPostNicene Fathers"; for discussions of these, F. Watson, "TheAnteNicene Apologies: their Character and Value," Cambridge, 1870(Hulsean essay) ; W. J. Bolton, "The Evidences of Christianity asexhibited in the . . . Apologists down to Augustine," Cambridge, 1853(Hulseanessay) ;F.R.Wynne, "TheLiteratureof theSecondCentury,"London, 1891 (popular but scholarly) ; A. Seitz, "Die Apologie desChristentumsbeidenGriechendesIV.undV.Jahrhunderts,"Würzburg,

1895. On special phases in the history of apologetics: L. Noack, "DieFreidenker in der Religion, oder die Repräsentanten der religiösenAufklärung in. England, Frankreich und Deutschland," 3 vols., Bern,1853-1855; A. S. Farrar, "Critical History of Free Thought," New York,1863;K.R.Hagenbach,"GermanRationalism,initsRise,Progress,andDecline," Edinburgh, 1865; A. Viguie, "Histoire de l'apologetique dansl'eglise reformee française," Geneva, 1858; H. B. Smith, "Apologetics,"New York, 1882 (appendix contains sketches of German apologeticworks) ; J. F. Hurst, "History of Rationalism," New York, 1902; A. H.Huizinga,"SomeRecentPhasesofChristianApologetics,"inPresbyterianandReformedReview,vii. 1896,pp.34 ff.Apologetical literature:F.R.Beattie, "Apologetics, or the Rational Vindication of Christianity,"Richmond, 1903; W. M. Hetherington, "Apologetics of the ChristianFaith,"Edinburgh,1867;J.H.A.Ebrard,"Apologetik,"Gütersloh,ed.2,1878-1880, English translation, "Apologetics: or the ScientificVindication of Christianity," 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1886-1887; A. Mair,"Studies in the Christian Evidences," Edinburgh, 1883; G. F. Wright,"LogicofChristianEvidences,"Andover, 1880;F.H.R.Frank, "SystemderchristlichenGewissheit,"Erlangen,1870-1873(ed.2,1884),E.T.(ofed.2),"SystemoftheChristianCertainty,"Edinburgh,1886;P.Schanz,"Apologie des Christentums," 3 vols., Freiburg, 1887-1888, E.T."Christian Apology," 3 vols., New York and Cincinnati, ed. 2, 1896(RomanCatholic);L.F.Stearns,"TheEvidenceofChristianExperience,"NewYork,1890(thebestbookonthesubject);A.B.Bruce,"Apologetics;or, Christianity Defensively Stated," Edinburgh, 1892; H. Wace,"Students' Manual of the Evidences of Christianity," London, 1892; J.Kaftan, "Die Wahrheit der christlichen Religion," Basel, 1888, E.T. 2vols., Edinburgh, 1894; C. W. Rishell, "Foundations of the ChristianFaith,"NewYork,1899;W.Devivier,"Coursd'apologetiquechretienne,"Paris, 1889, E. T. "Christian Apologetics," 2 vols., New York, 1903; A.Harnack,"WhatisChristianity?"London,1901;J.T.Bergen,"Evidencesof Christianity,"Holland,Mich., 1902;A.M. Randolph, "Reason, FaithandAuthorityinChristianity,"NewYork,1902;theBoyleandBamptonlectureseriesdealexclusivelywithsubjectsinapologetics;seealsounder"Agnosticism";"Antitrinitarianism";and"Atheism."

ChristianSupernaturalism

BenjaminBreckinridgeWarfield

OpeningaddressdeliveredbeforetheFacultyandstudentsofPrincetonTheological Seminary, September 18, 1896. Reprinted from ThePresbyterianandReformedReview,viii.1897,pp.58-74.

Dr. JohnBascomhas lately toldus afresh and certainly, aswe shall allagree,most truly, that "the relation of the natural and supernatural" isthe"questionofquestionswhichunderliesourrationallife.""Thefactofsucharelation,"he justlyadds, "is themostpatentandomnipresent inthehistoryofthehumanmind."Wecannotthinkatallwithoutfacingthegreat problems which arise out of the perennial pressure of this mostpersistent of intellectual questions. From the first dawn of intelligenceeach humanmind has busied itself instinctively with their adjustment.Thehistoryofhumanthoughtineveryracefromitsearliestbeginningsischieflyconcernedwith thevaryingrelationswhichmen- in thisor thatstage of culture, or under the influence of this or that dominatingconception-haveconceivedtoexistbetweenthenaturalworldinwhichtheylivedandthatsupernaturalworldwhichtheyhaveeverbeenproneto conceive to lie above and beyond it. Themost elaborate systems ofphilosophydiffer innothing in this respect fromthe tentativeeffortsofuntutoredthinking.Forthem,too,theproblemofthesupernaturalistheprime theme of their investigation: and the solutions which havecommendedthemselvestothemtoohavebeenthemostvariedpossible,running through the entire series from the one-sided assertion of thenatural as absolute and complete, with the exclusion of allsupernaturalism,totheequallyone-sidedaffirmationoftherealityofthesupernatural alonewith the entire exclusion of all that canproperly becalled natural. Between these two extremes of atheistic naturalism andsuperstitious supernaturalism nearly every possible adjustment of therelation of the two factors has found some advocates. So that there issomecolortoDr.Bascom'splaintthat,thoughtheproperappreciationof

theirrelationconstitutes"thesummationofsoundphilosophy,""itsfinalconceptionandstatementeludeusall."

Somecolor,butnotathoroughjustification.For,amidallthevarietyandconfusion of men's ideas on this great subject, there are not lackingcertain lines of direction leading to one assured goal, broadly outlinedonly it may be and seen only dimly through the mist of innumerableerrorsofdetail,withinwhichitisdemonstrablethattheæonianthinkingoftheraceisalwaystraveling:withinwhichalso it isclearthatthebestandmostvitalofthathigh,consciousthinkingwhichwecallphilosophyfindsthelimitsofitsconceptionsandthepathwayofitsadvance.Wemaynotfancythateveryconceivableconceptionoftherelationofthenaturaland supernatural has found equal favor in theunsophisticatedmind ofman, or has won equal support from the criticized elaborations ofphilosophic contemplation. No one who will permit to pass before hismental vision the long procession of world-conceptions which havedominated the human race in its several stages of development willimagine that humanity at large has ever been tempted to doubt,muchlesstodeny,therealityorthesignificancetoitofeitherthenaturalorthesupernatural. On any adequate survey of the immanent thought of theworldasexpressed in its systemsofpopularbelief, atheisticnaturalismand exclusive supernaturalism exhibit themselves as alike inhuman.Atheistshaveexisted,whoknewandwouldknownothingbeyondwhattheir five senses immediately gave them, and naturalistic atheism hasfound expression in elaborate systems which have warped theconceptions of large masses of men: and in like manner a debasedsuperstitionhas fallen like a pall over entire communities and for ageshasdarkenedtheirmindsandcursedtheirwholelife.Sotherehave,fromtime to time, appeared among men both ascetic solitaries andcommunistic socialists, though God has set mankind in families. Theband of camp-followers on either wing of an army confuses no man'sjudgment as to the whereabouts of the army itself, but rather pointsdirectly to its position. Similarly a general consideration of the greatphilosophical systems of the world will leave us in no doubt as to thetrendofdeliberateponderinguponthissubject.Somewherebetweenthetwo extremes of a consistent naturalism and an exclusivesupernaturalism we shall assuredly find the center of gravity of the

thinkingof the ages - thepoint onwhichphilosophy rests all themorestablythatonbothsideswingsstretchthemselvesfarbeyondallsupportandhangovertheabyss.Preciselywhere,betweenthetwoextremes,thisstablecenter is tobe found, itmaybemoredifficult todetermine -ourinstruments ofmeasurement are not always "implements of precision."Assuredly, however, it will not be found where either the purelysupernaturalorthepurelynaturalisexcluded,andinanycaseitismuchtoknowthatitliessomewherebetweenthetwoextremes,andthatitisasunphilosophicalas it is inhuman todenyordoubt either thenaturalorthesupernatural.

It is not to be gainsaid, of course, that from time to time, strongtendenciesofthoughtsetintothisdirectionortothat;and,forawhile,itmayseemasifthewholeworldwererushingtooneextremeortheother.A special type of philosophizing becomes temporarily dominant and itsconceptions run burning over the whole thinking world. At such timesmenarelikelytofancythatthegreatproblemoftheagesissettled,andtofelicitatethemselvesuponthe facilitywithwhichtheysee throughwhattomenofothertimeswerecloudsofgreatdarkness.SuchaperiodvisitedEuropean thought in the last century, when English Deism set thesupernaturalsofarofffromtheworldthatFrenchAtheismthoughtitaneasythingtodispensewith italtogether."Downwiththe infamy!"criedVoltaire, and actually thought the world had hearkened to hiscommandment. The atheistic naturalism of the eighteenth century haslongsincetakenup itsabodewiththeowlsandbats;but theworldhasnotyetlearneditslesson.Anevenmorepowerfulcurrentseemstohaveseizedthemodernworld,andtobehurlingitbyaverydifferentpathwayto practically the same conclusion. It is to be feared that it cannot bedeniedthatweare to-day in themidstofavery strongdrift away fromfrankrecognition of the supernatural as a factor in human life. To thisalsoDr.Bascommaybe cited as awitness. "The taskwhich the bolderthinking of our time has undertaken," he tells us, is "to curb thesupernatural, to bring it into the full service of reason." "To curb thesupernatural"-yes, that is the laborwithwhichthethinkersofourdayhaveburdenedthemselves.Thetap-rootofthismovementisfirmlysetinapantheisticphilosophy,towhich,ofcourse,thereisnosuchdistinctionpossibleasthatbetweenthenaturalandsupernatural:toitallthingsare

natural, the necessary product of the blind interaction of the forcesinherentinwhatwecallmatter,butwhichthepantheistcalls"God"andthinkshehastherebygivennotonlyduebutevensolerecognitiontothesupernatural. But it has reached out and embraced in its ramifiednetwork of branches the whole sphere of human thinking through themagic watchword of "evolution," bymeans of which it strives to breakdown and obliterate all the lines of demarcationwhich separate thingsthatdiffer,andthustoreduceallthatexiststobutvaryingformstaken,throughnaturalprocesses,by the one life that underlies themall.Howabsolutely determinant the conception of evolution has become in thethinkingofourage,therecanbenoneedtoremindourselves.Itmaynotbeamiss,however,torecalltheanti-supernaturalisticrootandtheanti-supernaturalistic effects of the dominance of this mode of conceivingthings; and thus to identify in it the cause of the persistent anti-supernaturalismwhichatpresentcharacterizestheworld'sthought.Therecognitionofthesupernaturalistoodeeplyintrenchedinhumannatureevertobeextirpated;manisnotabrute,andhediffersfromthebrutesinnothingmoremarkedlyormoreineradicablythaninhiscorrelationwithan unseen world. But probably there never was an era in which thethinkingofthemoreorlesseducatedclasseswasmoredeeplytingedwithan anti-supernatural stain than at present. Even when we confess thesupernaturalwithourlipsandlookforitandfinditwithourreasons,ourinstincts as modern men lead us unconsciously to neglect and in allpracticalwaystodisallowandeventoscoutit.

It would be impossible that what we call specifically Christian thoughtshould be unaffected by such a powerful trend in the thinking of theworld. Christian men are men first and Christians afterwards: andtherefore their Christian thinking is superinduced on a basis of world-thinking.Theologyaccordingly ineachage isstampedwith the traitsofthephilosophyrulingatthetime.ThesupernaturalistheverybreathofChristianity's nostrils and an anti-supernaturalistic atmosphere is to itthedeadliestmiasma.Anabsolutelyanti-supernaturalisticChristianityistherefore a contradiction in terms. Nevertheless, immersed in an anti-supernaturalisticworld-atmosphere,Christianthinkingtendstobecomeas anti-supernaturalistic as is possible to it. And it is indisputable thatthis is the characteristic of the Christian thought of our day. As Dr.

Bascomputsit,thetaskthathasbeensetthemselvesbythosewhowouldfain be considered the "bolder thinkers of our time" is "to curb thesupernatural,tobringitintothefullserviceofreason."Therealquestionwith themseems tobe,notwhatkind andmeasure of supernaturalismdoes the Christianity of Christ andHis apostles recognize and require;but,howlittleofthesupernaturalmaybeadmittedandyetmencontinuetocallthemselvesChristians.TheeffortisnottoChristianizetheworld-conceptionoftheage,butspecificallytodesupernaturalizeChristianitysoastobringitintoaccordwiththeprevailingworld-view.

Theeffectsoftheadoptionofthispointofviewareallaboutus.This istheaccounttogive, forexample,of thatspeculativetheismwhichposesunder thenameof "non-miraculousChristianity"andseeks toconvincetheworldthroughreasonerslikePfleidererandtowooitthroughnovelslike "Robert Elsmere." This is also the account to give of that oddpositivisticreligionofferedusby the followersofAlbrechtRitschl,who,under color of a phenomenalismwhich knows nothing of "the thing initself," profess to hold it not to be a matter of serious importance toChristianitywhetherGodbeaperson,orChristbeGod,orthesoulhaveany persistence, and to find it enough to bask in the sweet impressionwhich ismadeon theheart by the personality of theman Jesus, dimlyseenthroughthemistsofcriticalhistory.Thisistheaccountagaintogiveofthegrowingdisbeliefanddenialofthevirgin-birthofourLord;oftheincreasingly numerous and subtle attempts to explain awayHis bodilyresurrection;and,infarwidercircles,oftheeverrenewedandconstantlyvaryingeffortsthatpositivelyswarmaboutustoreduceHismiraclesandthoseofHispredecessorsandfollowers-theGod-endowedprophetsandapostles of the twoTestaments - to natural phenomena, the product ofnaturalforces,thoughtheseforcesmaybeheldtobeasyetundiscoveredorevenentirelyundiscoverablebymen.ThisalsoistheaccounttogiveofthevoguewhichdestructivecriticismoftheBiblicalbookshasgainedinour time; and it is also the reason why detailed refutations of thenumerouscriticaltheoriesoftheoriginoftheBiblicalwritings,thoughsorepeatedlycompleteandlogicallyfinal,havesolittleeffectinabolishingdestructivecriticism.Itsrootsarenot set in itsdetailedaccountsof theoriginof theBiblicalwritings,but in itsanti-supernaturalisticbias:andsolongasitstwofixedpointsremaintoit-itsstartingpointinunbelief

in the supernatural and its goal in a naturalistic development of thereligionofIsraelanditsrecord- iteasilyshiftsthepathwaybywhichitproceedsfromonetotheother,accordingtoitsvaryingneeds.Itisofaslittlemomenttoithowitpassesfromonepointtotheother,asitistotheelectricianwhatcoursehiswireshallfollowafterhehassecureditsendattachments. Therefore theory follows theory with bewildering rapidityand - shall we not say it? - with equally bewildering levity, while theconclusionremainsthesame.Andfinallythisistheaccounttogiveoftheendlesslyvaryingschemesofself-salvationofferedtheworldinourday,and of the practical neglect and not infrequent open denial of thepersonalworkof theHolySpirit on theheart. In everyway, in aword,and in every sphere of Christian thought, the Christian thinking of ourtimeiscurbed,limited,confinedwithinunnaturalboundsbydoubtandhesitation before the supernatural. In wide circles the reality of directsupernaturalactivityinthisworldisopenlyrejected:inwidercirclesstillit is doubted: almost everywhere its assertion is timid and chary. It issignificantofmuchthatoneofthebrightestofrecentChristianapologistshas found it necessary to prefix to his treatment of Christiansupernaturalism a section on "the evasion of the supernatural" amongChristianthinkers.

ItiscertainlytobeallowedthatitisnolighttaskforaChristianmantoholdhisanchorageintherushofsuchacurrentofanti-supernaturalisticthought. We need not wonder that so many are carried from theirmoorings.Howshallwesofirmlybraceourselvesthat,asthefloodoftheworld's thought beats upon us, it may bring us cleansing andrefreshment, but may not sweep us away from our grasp on Christiantruth?How,butbyconstantly remindingourselvesofwhatChristianityis,andofwhatasChristianmenwemustneedsbelieveastothenatureandmeasureof the supernatural in its impact on the life of theworld?ForthisnatureandmeasureofthesupernaturalwehavealltheevidencewhichgivesusChristianity.And surely themassof that evidence is fartoo great tobe shaken by any current of theworld's thoughtwhatever.Christian truth is a rock too securely planted to go down before anystorm.Letusattachourselvestoitbysuchstrongcables,andletusknowsowellitspromontoriesofvantageandsecurehiding-places,thatthoughthewatersmaygooverusweshallnotbemoved.Tothisenditwillnot

be useless to recall continually the frankness of Christianity'scommitment to the absolute supernatural. And itmay be thatwe shallfind profit in enumerating at this time a few of the points, at least, atwhich, as Christian men, we must recognize, with all heartiness, theintrusionofpuresupernaturalismintoourconceptionofthings.

I. The Christian man, then, must, first of all, give the heartiest andfrankest recognition to the supernatural fact. "God,"we call it.But it isnot enough for us to say "God." The pantheist, too, says "God," andmeansthisuniversal frame: forhimaccordingly thesupernatural isbutthemore inclusive natural.When the Christian says "God," hemeans,and if he is to remainChristianhemustmean, a supernaturalGod - aGodwhoisnotentangledinnature,isnotonlyanothernamefornaturein its coordinatedactivities, or for thatmysterywhich lies beneath andthrobsthroughtheAll;butwhoisabovenatureandbeyond,whoexisted,theLivingGod,beforenaturewas,andshouldnatureceasetobewouldstill exist, the Everlasting God, and so long as this universal frameenduresexistsaboveandoutsideofnatureasitsLord,itsLawgiver,anditsAlmightyKing.

No Christian man may allow that the universe, material and spiritualcombined, call it infinite if you will, in all its operations, be they asmyriadasyouchoose,sumsupthebeingortheactivitiesofGod.Beforethisuniversewas,Godwas,theoneeternalOne,richininfiniteactivities:andwhilethisuniversepersists,outsideandbeyondandaboveitGodis,the one infinite One, ineffably rich in innumerable activitiesinconceivable,itmaybe,tothewholeuniverseofderivedbeing.HeisnotimprisonedwithinHisworks: the lawswhichHehasordainedforthemexpressindeedHischaracter,butdonotcompassthepossibilitiesofHisaction.TheApostlePaulhasnodoubt toldus that "inHimwe liveandmoveandhaveourbeing,"butnoaccreditedvoicehasdeclared that inthe universeHe lives andmoves and hasHis being.No, the heaven ofheavenscannotcontainHim;andwhatHehasmadeistowhatHeisonlyas the smallest moisture-particle of the most attenuated vapor to themightyexpanseoftheimmeasurablesea.

ThedivineimmanenceisafacttotheChristianman.ButtotheChristianmanthis factof thedivine immanence isnot theultimateexpressionof

his conception of God. Its recognition does not operate for him as alimitationofGodinbeingoractivities;itdoesnotresultinenclosingHimwithin His works and confining the possibilities of His action to thecapacitiesoftheirlaws.ItisrathertheexpressionoftheChristian'ssenseofthecomparativelittlenessoftheuniverse-toeverypartandactivityofwhich God is present because the whole universe is to Him as themustard seed lying in the palm of aman. An immanent God, yes: butwhatisHisimmanenceineventhisimmenseuniversetoaGodlikeours?God in nature, yes: but what is God in nature to the inconceivablevastnessoftheGodabovenature?TotheChristianconception,sofar isthe immanentGodfromexhaustingthe ideaofGod, that it touchesbutthe skirt of His garment. It is only when we rise above the divineimmanencetocatchsomefaintglimpseoftheGodthattranscendsalltheworks ofHis hands - to the truly supernatural God - that we begin toknowwhoandwhat theChristianGod is.Letus say, then,with all theemphasisthatwearecapableof,thattheChristian'sGodisbeforeallelsethe transcendent God - a God so great that though He be truly thesupporterof thiswholeuniverseaswellas itsmaker,yetHisactivityasgroundofexistenceandgovernorofallthatmoves,isasnothingtothatgreater activity which is His apart from and above what is to us theinfiniteuniversebuttoHimaninfinitesimalspeckofbeingthatcannotinany way control His life. The Christian's God is no doubt the God ofnatureandtheGodinnature:butbeforeandaboveallthisHeistheGodabovenature-theSupernaturalFact.AsChristianmenwemustseetoitthatweretainaworthyconceptionofGod:andanexclusivelyimmanentGod is, after all, a very little and belittling notion to hold of Him theproductofwhosesimplewordallthisuniverseis.

II. The Christian man, again, must needs most frankly and heartilybelieve inthesupernaturalact.Belief in thesupernaturalact is, indeed,necessarilyincludedinbeliefinthesupernaturalfact.Ifimmanenceisaninadequate formula for the being of God, it is equally inadequate as aformulaforHisactivities.ForwhereGodis,thereHemustact:andifHeexists above and beyond nature He must act also above and beyondnature.ThesupernaturalGodcannotbutbeconceivedasasupernaturalactor. He who called nature into being by a word cannot possibly besubject to the creature of His will in themode of His activities. He to

whomallnatureisbutaspeckofderivedanddependentbeingcannotbethoughtofas, inthereachofHisoperations,boundwithinthelimitsofthelawswhichoperatewithinthisgranuleandholdittogether.

Before all that we call nature came into existence God was, in infinitefullnessoflifeandoftheinnumerableactivitieswhichinfinitefullnessoflife implies:and thatnaturehascome intoexistence isdue toanactofHis prenatural power. Nature, in other words, has not come intoexistenceatall:ithasbeenmade.Andifitwasmadeitmusthavebeenbyasupernaturalact.TheChristianconceptionofcreationinvolvesthusthefrankestrecognitionofthesupernaturalact.TotheChristianmannaturecannot be conceived either as self-existent or as self-made or as anecessaryemanationfromthebasalBeingwhichwecallGod,noryetasamere modification in form of the one eternal substance. It is amanufacturedarticle, theproduct of an act of power.God spoke and itwas: and the God that thus spoke nature into being, is necessarily asupernatural God, creating nature by a supernatural act. As Christianmen,wemustatallhazardspreservethissupernaturalisticconceptionofcreation.

There are voices strong and subtle which would woo us from it. Onewouldhaveusbelievethatinwhatwecallcreation,Goddidbutgiveformand law to a dark Somewhat, which from all eternity lay besideHim -chainingthusbyHisalmightypowertherealmofinimicalmattertothedivine chariot wheels of order and progress. Or, if that crass dualismseemstoogross,theoutlyingrealmofdarknessissubtlyspokenofastheNothing, the power it exerts is affirmed to be simply a dull and inertresistance,whileyetthecharacteroftheproductofGod'screativepoweris representedasconditionedby the "Nothing"outofwhich it ismade.Another would have us believe that what we call nature is of thesubstance of God Himself, and what we call creation is but themodificationof formandmanifestationwhichtakesplace intheeternalsystoleanddiastoleof thedivine life.Or, if this crasspantheismseemstoogross,asubtleontologyiscalledin,matterisresolvedintoitsatoms,the atoms are conceived as mere centers of force, and this force isassertedtobe thepurewillofGod:so thatafterallnosubstanceexistsexceptthesubstanceofGod.Asoveragainstallsuchspeculations,gross

andsubtlealike,theChristianmanisboundtomaintainthatGodcreatedtheheavens and the earth - that this great act bywhichHe called intobeingallthatiswasinthestrictestsenseofthewordsacreation,andthatin thisactof creationHeproduced in thestrictest senseof thewordsasomewhat.Itwasanactofcreation:notameremoldingororderingofapreëxistentsubstance-notamereevolutionormodificationofHisownsubstance.AndinitHeproducedasomewhat-notamereappearanceorsimulacrum, but being, derived and dependent being, but just as realbeing as His own infinite essence. In creation, therefore, the Christianmanisboundtoconfessafranklysupernaturalact-anactabovenature,independent of nature, by which nature itself and all its laws werebroughtintoexistence.

Norcanheconfinehimselftotheconfessionofthisonesupernaturalact.TheChristian'sGodnotonlyexistedbeforenatureandisitsCreator,butalsoexistsabovenatureandisitsGovernorandLord.ItisinconceivablethatHeshouldbeactiveonlyinthatspeckofbeingwhichHeHimselfhascalledintoexistencebyanactofHisindependentpower.ItexistsinHim,not He in it; and just because it is finite and He is infinite, the greatsphere of His life and activity lies above it and beyond. It is equallyinconceivable that His activities with reference to it, or even within it,shouldbe confined to theoperationof the lawswhichHehasordainedfor the regulation of its activities and not ofHis.What power has thislittlespeckofderivedbeingtoexcludetheoperationuponitandwithinitofthatalmightyforcetowhoseenergyitowesbothitsexistenceanditspersistence in being? Have its forces acquired such strength as toneutralizethepowerwhichcalleditintobeing?Orhasitframedforitselfacrustsohardastoisolateitfromtheomnipotencewhichplaysaboutitandsuccessfullytoresistthepowerthatmadeit,thatitmaynotcrushitorpierceitatwillthroughandthrough?CertainlyhewhoconfessestheChristian'sGodhasnogroundfordenyingthesupernaturalact.

Now nothing is further from the Christian's thought than to doubt therealityandtheefficiencyofsecondcauses.JustbecausehebelievesthatincreationGodcreatedasomewhat-realsubstanceendowedwith realpowers-hebelievesthatthesepowersreallyactandreallyproducetheireffects. He thinks of nothing so little, to be sure, as to doubt the

immanenceofGodinthesesecondcauses.ItishisjoytoseethehandofGodinallthatoccurs,andtobelievethatitisnotonlybyHispreservingcare,butinaccordancewithHisdirection,thateveryderivedcauseactsand every effect is produced. But least of all men has the Christian adesiretosubstitutetheimmediateenergyofGodforHismediateactivityin His ordinary government of the universe which He has made. Justbecausehebelievesthattheuniversewaswellmade,hebelievesthattheforces with which it was endowed are competent for its ordinarygovernmentandhetracesintheiractionthedivinepurposeunrollingitsfaultless scroll.TheChristianman, then, is frankly ready to accredit tosecondcausesallthatsecondcausesarecapableofproducing.Heisfreetotracetheminalltheproductsoftime,andtolendhiseartothepoetswhentheytellhimthat

Thissolidearthwhereonwetread,Intractsoffluentheatbegan,Andgrewtoseemingrandomforms,Theseemingpreyofcyclicstorms,Tillatthelastarosetheman.

He only insists that in all this great process by which, he is told, theordered world was hacked and hewn out by the great forces andconvulsionsofnature,we shallperceive, alsowith thepoets, that thosegreatartificers,"HackandHew,werethesonsofGod,"andstood

OneatHisrighthandandoneatHisleft,ToobeyasHetaughtthemhow.

Let us open our eyes wide to the grandeur and perfection of God'sprovidentialgovernment;andletusnotneglecttonotethatheretooisasupernaturalism,and that in theorderedprogressof theworld towardsthatonefar-offdivineeventwecantracetheveryfingerofGod.

But letusnot fancy,ontheotherhand, that theprovidenceofGodanymorethantheimmanenceofGodisaformulaadequatetosumupallHisactivities.God is theGodofprovidence:butHe ismuchmore than theGod of providence. The universe is but a speck in His sight: and itsprovidentialgovernmentisscarcelyanincidentintheinfinitefullnessof

Hislife.ItiscertainthatHeactsininfinitelyvariedmodes,otherwiseandbeyondprovidence,andthereisnoreasonwecangivewhyHeshouldnotact otherwise and beyond providence even in relation to the universewhichHehasmade.InourconceptionofasupernaturalGod,wedarenoterectHisprovidentialactivityintoanexclusivelawofactionforHim,andrefusetoallowofanyothermodeofoperation.Whocansay,forexample,whethercreationitself,inthepurityandabsolutenessofthatconception,maynotbeprogressive,andmaynotcorrelateitselfwithandfollowtheprocessoftheprovidentialdevelopmentoftheworld,intheplanofsucha God - so that the works of creation and providence may interlacethrough all time in the production of this completed universe? Whatwarrant,then,cantherebetoassumebeforehandthatsomewaymustbefound for "evolution" to spring the chasms in the creative process overwhich even divinely led second causes appear insufficient to build abridge?And if for any reason - certainly not unforeseen by God, or incontradiction toHis ordering - there should a "rift appear in the lute,"whodareassertthatthesupernaturalGodmaynotdirectlyinterveneforitsmending,butmustneedsbeatoutHismusiconthebrokenstringsorlettheirdiscordjardowntheagestoalleternity?ThelawsofnaturearenotbondsbywhichGodistiedsothatHecannotmovesavewithintheirlimits:theyarenotinHissightsuchgreatandholythingsthatitwouldbesacrilegeforHimnottohonortheminallHisactivities.Hisreallifeisaboveandbeyond them: there isno reasonwhyHemaynotatwill actindependentlyofthemevenindealingwithnatureitself:andiftherebereason why He should act apart from them we may be sure that thesupernaturalGodwill so act.The frank recognitionof thepossibilityofthesupernaturalact,andofitsprobablerealityonadequateoccasion,isinanyeventapartoftheChristianman'sheritage.

III. And this leads us to recognize next that the Christian man mustcherish a frank and hearty faith in a supernatural redemption. Ascertainly as the recognitionof the great fact of sin is an element intheChristian'sworld-conception,theneedandthereforetheactualityof thedirectcorrectiveactofGod-ofmiracle, inaword-enters ineradicablyintohisbelief.Wecannotconfessourselvessinners-radicallyatbreachwithGod and broken and deformed in ourmoral and spiritual being -and look to purely natural causes or to simply providential agencies,

whichactonlythroughnaturalcausesandthereforeneverbeyond theirreach,forourrecoverytoGodandtomoralandspiritualhealth.Andinproportionaswerealizewhatsinis-what,intheChristianconception,isthe nature of that bottomless gulf which it has opened between thesinningsoulandtheall-holyandfaultlesslyjustGod,thesinglesourceofthesoul'slife,andwhatistheconsequentmortalcharacterofthewoundwhich sin has inflicted on the soul - in that proportion will it becomemoreandmoreplaintousthatthereisnoabilityinwhatwefondlycallthe remedial forces of nature, no capacity in growth, however skillfullyledbyevenanall-wiseprovidence, toheal thishurt.A seedof lifemayindeedbedevelopedintoaboundinglife:butnowiseleadingcandirectaseed of death into the ways of life. Dead things do not climb. As wellexpectdead anddecayingLazarus through the action of natural forces,howeverwisely directed, to put on the fresh firmness of youthful fleshandstandforthasoundandlivingman,asasouldeadinsintorisebynaturalpowersintonewnessoflife.No,theworldknowsthatdeadmendonotliveagain:andtheworld'ssingers,ontheplaneofnature,rightlydeclare,

Onethingiscertain,andtherestislies;Theflowerthatoncehasblown,foreverdies.

IfnosupernaturalvoicehadcriedatthedoorofLazarus'tomb,"Lazarus,comeforth!"itwouldhavebeentrueofhim,too,whattherebelliouspoetshoutsintheearsoftherestofmen,

Oncedead,younevershallreturn.

And if there be no voice of supernatural power to call dead souls backuntolife,thosewhoaredeadinsinmustneedsfesterintheircorruptiontotheeternityofeternities.

One might suppose the supernaturalness of redemption to be tooobviouslytheveryheartofthewholeChristiansystem,andtoconstitutetoofundamentallytheveryessenceoftheChristianproclamation,forittobepossibleforanyoneclaimingtheChristiannametolosesightofitforamoment.Assuredlythenoteof thewholehistoryofredemptionis thesupernatural. To see this we do not need to focus our eyes on the

supernaturalmanwhocametoredeemsinners-the"manfromheaven,"asPaulcallsHim,whowasindeedoftheseedofDavidaccordingtothefleshbutatthesametimewasGodoverall,blessedforever,andbecamethuspooronlythatbyHispovertywemightbemaderich-theWordwhowas in the beginning with God and was God, as John calls Him, whobecame fleshanddweltamongmen,exhibiting to their astonishedeyesthegloryofanonly-begottenoftheFather-theOnesentoftheFather,whomtohaveseenwastoseetheFatheralso,asHeHimselfwitnessed,whoisbeforeAbrahamwas,andwhileonearthabidesstill inHeaven-whocame toearthbyanobviously supernaturalpathway,breakingHisway through a virgin's womb, and lived on earth an obviouslysupernatural life, with the forces of nature and powers of disease anddeath subject to His simple word, and left the earth in an obviouslysupernaturalascensionafterhavingburstthebondsofthegraveandledcaptivity captive. The whole course of preparation for His coming,extending through centuries, is just as clearly a supernatural history -sown with miracle and prophecy, and itself the greatest miracle andprophecyofthemall:andthewholecourseofgarneringthefruitsofHiscoming in the establishment of a Church through the apostles He hadchosen for the task, is supernatural to the core. Assuredly, if theredemptive process is not a supernatural operation, the entireproclamation of Christianity is a lie: as Paul declared with specificreference tooneof its supernatural items,we,asChristians, "are foundfalse-witnesses of God," "our preaching is vain," and "our faith is alsovain."

Nevertheless, inconceivable as it would appear, there are many voicesraisedaboutuswhichwouldfainpersuadeus,intheprofessedinterestsof Christianity itself, to attenuate or evacuate the supernatural even inredemption.ThatsupernaturalhistoryofpreparationfortheRedeemer,we are asked, did it indeed all happen as it is there recorded by thesimple-minded writers? Are we not at liberty to read it merely as therecordofwhatpioushearts,meditatingonthegreatpast, fanciedoughtto have occurred,whenGodwaswith the fathers; and to dig out frombeneaththestrataofitsdevoutimaginations,asveritablehistory,onlyasobernarrativeofhowIsraelwalkedinthefeltpresenceofGodandwasledbyHisprovidencetoeverclearerandhigherconceptionsofHisHoly

Being and of itsmission as His chosen people? And that supernaturalfigurewhichtheevangelistsandapostleshavelimnedforus,diditindeedeverwalkthissin-strickenearthofours?Arewenotboundtoseeinit,weareasked,merelytheprojectionof thehopesandfearsswallowedupinhope of His devoted followers, clothing with all imaginable heavenlyvirtuesthedeadformoftheirMastersnatchedfromtheirsight-ofwhomtheyhad"hoped that itwasHewhoshoulddeliver Israel"?Andarewenot bound reverently to draw aside the veil laid by such tender handsover the dead face, that we may see beneath it the real Jesus, deadindeed,butamanofinfinitesweetnessoftemperanddepthoffaith,fromwhose holy life we may even yet catch an inspiration and receive animpulse for good? And Peter and Paul and John and the rest of thosewhoseheartsweresetonfirebythespectacleofthatgreatandnoblelife,arewereallytotaketheirenthusiasmastheruleofourthought?Arewenotbound,weareasked, thoughhonoringthepurityof their finehero-worship, to curb the extravaganceof their assertions; and to follow thefaith quickened in them by theMaster's example while we correct theexuberanceoftheirfancyinattributingtoHimsuperhumanqualitiesandperformances?Inaword-forletusputitatlengthplainly-arewenotatliberty,arewenotbound,toeviscerateChristianityofallthatmakesitaredemptivescheme,ofallthathasgivenitpowerintheearth,ofallthathasmadeitamessageofhopeandjoyto,lostmen,ofallthatbelongstoits very heart's blood and essence, as witnessed by all history and allexperience alike, and yet claim still to remain Christians? No, let ouranswer be: as Christian men, a thousand times, no! When the anti-supernaturalistic bias of this age attacks the supernatural in the veryprocessofredemption,andseeks toevaporate it intoasetofplatitudesabout the guidinghandofGod inhistory, thepower of themanJesus'purefaithoverHisfollowers'imaginations,andtheimitationbyusofthereligionofJesus - it has assaultedChristianity in the very citadel of itslife. As Christianmenwemust assert with all vigor the purity and theabsolutenessofthesupernaturalinredemption.

IV.Andletusaddatonce,further,thatasChristianmenwemustretainafrankandheartyfaithinasupernaturalrevelation.Forhowshouldwebeadvantaged by a supernatural redemption of which we knew nothing?Who is competent to uncover to us themeaning of this great series of

redemptiveactsbutGodHimself?Itiseasytotalkofrevelationbydeed.Buthow little is capableofbeing revealedby even themightiest deeds,unaccompaniedbytheexplanatoryword?Twothousandyearsagoachildwas born in Bethlehem, who throve and grew up nobly, lived a life ofpovertyandbeneficence,wascruellyslainandrosefromthedead.Whatisthattous?Afteralittle,asHisfollowerssatwaitinginJerusalem,therewas a rush as of amighty wind, and an appearance of tongues of firedescendingupontheirheads.Strange:butwhatconcernhaveweinitall?Werequiretherevealingwordtotelluswhoandwhatthisgoodlychildwas,whyHelivedandwhatHewroughtbyHisdeath,whatitmeantthatHecouldnotbeholdenof the grave, andwhat those cloven tonguesofflame signified - before they can avail as redemptive facts to us. Noearthlypersonknew,orcouldknow,theirimport.Noearthlyinsightwascapableofdiviningit.Noearthlyauthoritycouldassuretheworldofanypresumedmeaningattachedtothem.NonebutGodwasinapositiontoknoworassert theirrealsignificance.Only, then,asGodspakethroughHisservants,theprophetsandapostles,couldthemightydeedsbywhichHewouldsavetheworldbegivenavoiceandamessage-betransformedinto a gospel. And so the supernatural word receives its necessaryposition among the redemptive acts as their interpretation and theircomplement.

WecannotmissthefactthatfromthebeginningthewordofGodtookitshonorable place among the redemptive deeds of God. "God spake,"declares the recordas significantly andas constantly as it declares that"God did." And we cannot miss the fact that God's word, giving theirmeaning,theirforce,andtheirvaluetoHisgreatredemptiveacts,entersas vitally into our Christian faith and hope as the acts themselves. AsChristianmenwecannotletslipourfaithintheonewithoutlosingalsoour graspupon the other.And this is the explanationboth, on the onehand,oftheconstancyoftheholdwhichChristianityhaskeptupontheWordofGod,and,on theother,of thepersistencyof theassaultwhichhasbeenmadeuponitintheinterestsofananti-supernaturalisticworld-view.Itisnoidletaskwhichhasbeensetitselfbynaturalisticcriticism,when it has undertaken to explain away the supernaturalism of thisrecordofGod'sredemptivework,whichwecalltheBible.ThisistherockuponwhichallitseffortstodesupernaturalizeChristianitybreak.Itisno

otiosetraditionalismwhichleadstheChristianmantoclingtothisWordofthelivingGodwhichhascomedowntohimthroughtheages.ItishissoleassurancethattherehasbeenaredemptiveactivityexercisedbyGodintheworld-thesingleAriadne'sthreadbywhichheisenabledtotracethecourseofredemptionthroughtheages.IfGoddidnotsospeakofoldtothefathersbytheprophets, ifHehasnot intheendof thesedayssospokentousinHisSon-Hemayindeedhaveintervenedredemptivelyintheworld,buttous itwouldbeas ifHehadnot.OnlyasHisvoicehaspierced to us to declare His purpose, can we read the riddle of Hisoperations:onlyasHeinterpretstoustheirsignificanceicanwelearnthewonder of His ways. And just in proportion as our confidence in thisinterpretativewordshallwane, in just thatproportionshallwe loseourholduponthefactofaredemptiveworkofGodintheworld.Thatwemaybelieveinasupernaturalredemption,wemustbelieveinasupernaturalrevelation,bywhichalonewecanbeassuredthatthisandnotsomethingelsewaswhatoccurred,andthatthisandnotsomethingotherwaswhatitmeant.TheChristianmancannotaffordtorelaxintheleastdegreehisentireconfidenceinasupernaturalrevelation.

V. And finally, we need to remind ourselves that as Christianmen wemustcherishafrankandheartyfaithinasupernaturalsalvation.Itisnotenoughtobelieve thatGodhas intervened in thisnaturalworldofoursandwroughtasupernaturalredemption:andthatHehasHimselfmadeknowntomenHismightyactsandunveiledto themthesignificanceofHisworking.ItisuponafieldofthedeadthattheSunofrighteousnesshasrisen,andtheshoutsthatannounceHisadventfallondeafears:yea,even though themorning stars shouldagain sing for joy and the air bepalpitantwith the echoof thegreatproclamation, their voice couldnotpenetratetheearsofthedead.Aswesweepoureyesovertheworldlyingin its wickedness, it is the valley of the prophet's vision which we seebefore us: a valley that is filled with bones, and lo! they are very dry.What benefit is there in proclaiming to dry bones even the greatest ofredemptions?Howshallwestandandcry,"Oyedrybones,hearyetheword of the Lord!" In vain the redemption, in vain its proclamation,unlesstherecomeabreathfromheaventobreatheupontheseslainthattheymay live.TheredemptionofChrist is thereforenomorecentral totheChristianhope than thecreativeoperationsof theHolySpirit upon

theheart: and the supernatural redemption itselfwould remain amerename outside of us and beyond our reach, were it not realized in thesubjectivelifebyanequallysupernaturalapplication.

Yethoweasyitis,immersedinananti-supernaturalisticworld;toforgetthisoursoundconfession!Arewenotmen?weareasked:andisnottheindividualityofeveryhumanbeingasacredthing?Mustnoteachbethearchitectofhisownfortunes, thecreatorofhisownfuture-not indeedapart from the influence of the Holy Spirit, but certainly without Hiscompulsion?Isitnotmerefanaticismtodreamthattheverypenetraliumofourpersonality is invadedbyanalienpower,and thewhole trendofour lives reversed in an instant of time, independently of our previouschoice?Led,ledcertainlywemaybebytheHolySpirit:butassuredlyourmanhoodisrespectedandnonon-ethicalcataclysmsarewroughtinourlivesbyintrusivepowers,notfirstsoughtandthenyieldedtoatourownproper motion. But alas! alas! dead things are not led! Of course, theChristian is ledby theHolySpirit - and letus see to it thatweheartilyacknowledge it and fully recognize this directive supernaturalismthroughout theChristian life.But that itmaybecomeChristian, and socomeundertheleadingoftheSpirit,thedeadsoulneedssomethingmorethan leading. It needs reanimation, resurrection, regeneration, re-creation.So theScripturesunwearyingly teachus.And so theChristianmust,withallfranknessandemphasis,constantlymaintain.

TheChristianmanisnottheproductoftheregenerativeforcesofnatureunder however divine a direction; he is not an "evolution" out of thenaturalman:heisanewcreation.Hehasnotmadehimselfbyhoweverwaryawalk,lettingtheapeandtigerdieandcherishinghishigheridealsuntil they be come dominant in his life; he is notmerely the oldmanimproved: he is a newman, recreated in Christ Jesus by the almightypoweroftheHolySpirit-byapowercomparableonlytothatbywhichGodraisedJesusChristfromthedead.AswellmightitbecontendedthatLazarus,notonlycame forth fromthe tomb,but rose fromthedeadbyhisownwillandathisownmotion,asthattheChristianmannotonlyofhis own desire works out his salvation with fear and trembling, in theknowledgethatitisGodwhoisworkinginhimboththewillingandthedoing according to His own good pleasure, but has even initiated that

salvation in his soul by an act of his ownwill and accord.He lives byvirtueof the life thathasbeengivenhim, andprior to the inceptionofthat life, of course, he has no power of action: and it is of the utmostimportancethatasChristianmenweshouldnot lowerourtestimonytothis true supernaturalnessof our salvation.We confess that itwasGodwhomadeusmen:letusconfesswithequalheartinessthatitisGodwhomakesusChristians.

Of such sort, then, is the supernaturalism which is involved in theconfessionofChristians.WehavemadeitnopartofourpresenttasktoenumerateallthewaysinwhichthefrankrecognitionofthesupernaturalentersintotheveryessenceofChristianity.Muchlessdoweessayheretodiscriminate between the several modes of supernatural action whichChristianthoughtisboundtoadmit.Wehavefancieditwell,however,tobring together a few of the instances in which themaintenance of theoccurrenceoftheabsolutesupernaturalisincumbentoneveryChristianman.Thuswemayfortifyourselvesagainstthatunconsciousyieldingofthe citadelofour faith towhicheveryone is exposedwhobreathes theatinosphereofourunbelievingandencroachingworld.TheconfessionofasupernaturalGod,whomayanddoesactinasupernaturalmode,andwhoactinginasupernaturalmodehaswroughtoutforusasupernaturalredemption,interpretedinasupernaturalrevelation,andappliedbythesupernatural operations of His Spirit - this confession constitutes thecoreoftheChristianprofession.OnlyhewhoholdsthisfaithwholeandentirehasafullrighttotheChristianname:onlyhecanhopetoconservethe fullness of Christian truth. Let us see to it that under whateverpressureandamidwhateverdifficulties,wemakeitheartilyandfranklyourconfession,andthinkandlivealikeinitsstrengthandbyitslight.Sodoing, we shall find ourselves intrenched against the assaults of theworld'santi-supernaturalism,andablebyGod'sgracetowitnessagoodconfessioninthemidstofitsmostinsidiousattacks.

TheIdeaofSystematicTheology1


Theterm"SystematicTheology"haslongbeeninsomewhatgeneraluse,especiallyinAmerica,todesignateoneofthetheologicaldisciplines.And,on the whole, it appears to be a sufficiently exact designation of thisdiscipline. Ithasnot, of course, escaped criticism.Themain faults thathavebeenfoundwith itaresuccinctlysummedupbyarecentwriter inthefollowingcompactphrases:

Theexpression"systematic theology" is really an impertinenttautology.It is a tautology, in so far as a theology that is not systematic ormethodicalwouldbenotheology.Theideaofrationalmethodliesintheword logos, which forms part of the term theology. And it is animpertinence, in so far as it suggests that there are other theologicaldisciplinae,ordepartmentsoftheology,whicharenotmethodical.2

Isnotthis,however,justashadehypercritical?Whatismeantbycallingthisdiscipline"SystematicTheology"isnotthatitdealswithitsmaterialinasystematicormethodicalway,andtheotherdisciplinesdonot;butthatitpresentsitsmaterialintheformofasystem.Otherdisciplinesmayuse a chronological, a historical, or some othermethod: this disciplinemust needs employ a systematic, that is to say, a philosophical orscientific method. It might be equally well designated, therefore,"PhilosophicalTheology,"or"ScientificTheology."Butweshouldnotbythe adoption of one of these terms escape the ambiguities which arecharged against the term "Systematic Theology." Other theologicaldisciplines may also claim to be philosophical or scientific. If exegesisshould be systematic, it should also be scientific. If history should bemethodical, it should also be philosophical. An additional ambiguitywould also be brought to these terms from their popular usage. Therewould be danger that "Philosophical Theology" should bemisapprehended as theology dominated by some philosophical system.There would be a similar danger that "Scientific Theology" should be

misunderstoodastheologyreducedtoanempiricalscience,ordependentupon an "experimental method." Nevertheless these terms also wouldfairlydescribewhatwemeanby"SystematicTheology."Theytoowoulddiscriminate it fromitssisterdisciplines,as thephilosophicaldisciplinewhich investigates from the philosophical standpoint the matter withwhich all the disciplines deal. And they would keep clearly before ourminds themain fact in the case, namely, that Systematic Theology, asdistinguished from its sister disciplines, is a science, and is to beconceivedasascienceandtreatedasascience.

The two designations, "Philosophical Theology" and "ScientificTheology,"arepracticallysynonyms.Buttheydifferintheirconnotationas the terms "philosophy" and "science"differ. Thedistinction betweenthesetermsinareferencelikethepresentwouldseemtobethatbetweenthe whole and one of its parts. Philosophy is the scientia scientiarum.Whatasciencedoesforadivisionofknowledge,thatphilosophyessaystodo for the mass of knowledge. A science reduces a section of ourknowledge to order and harmony: philosophy reduces the sciences toorder and harmony. Accordingly there aremany sciences, and but onephilosophy. We, therefore, so far agree with Professor D. W. Simon(whomwe have quoted above in order to disagreewith him),when hesaysthat"whatascienceproperlyunderstooddoesforasubsystem;that,philosophyaimstodo for thesystemwhich the subsystemsconstitute.""Itsfunctionissotograspthewholethateverypartshallfinditsproperplace therein, and the parts, that they shall form an orderly organicwhole":"sotocorrelatethereals,whichwiththeirinteractivitiesmakeuptheworldortheuniverse,thatthewholeshallbeseeninitsharmonyandunity; and that to every individual real shall be assigned the place inwhichitcanbeseentobedischargingitsproperfunctions."3This,aswillbeatonceperceived,isthefunctionofeachscienceinitsownsphere.Tocall "Systematic Theology" "Philosophical Theology" or "ScientificTheology"wouldthereforebealloneinessentialmeaning.Only,whenwecall it "PhilosophicalTheology,"we shouldbeconceiving it asa scienceamong the sciences and should have our eye upon its place in theuniversalsumofknowledge:while,whenwecallit"ScientificTheology,"ourmindshouldbeoccupiedwithitinitself,asitwereinisolation,andwiththepropermodeofdealingwith itsmaterial.Ineithercaseweare

affirming that it deals with its material as an organizable system ofknowledge;thatitdealswithitfromthephilosophicalpointofview;thatitis,inotherwords,initsessentialnatureascience.

It ispossible that the implicationsof thisdetermination are not alwaysfully realized.Whenwe havemade the simple assertion of "SystematicTheology" that it is in its essential nature a science, we have alreadydeterminedmostof the vexingquestionswhichariseconcerning it in aformalpointofview.Inthissinglepredicateisimplicitlyincludedaseriesof affirmations,which,when taken together, will give us a rather clearconceptionnotonly ofwhatSystematicTheology is, but also ofwhat itdealswith,whenceitobtainsitsmaterial,andforwhatpurposeitexists.

I.Firstofall,then,letusobservethattosaythatSystematicTheologyisascience is to deny that it is a historical discipline, and to affirm that itseeks to discover, not what has been or is held to be true, butwhat isideally true; in other words, it is to declare that it deals with absolutetruthandaimsatorganizing intoaconcatenatedsystemall thetruth initssphere.Geologyisascience,andonthatveryaccounttherecannotbetwogeologies; itsmatter isall thewell-authenticatedfacts in itssphere,anditsaimistodigestallthesefactsintooneall-comprehendingsystem.Theremayberivalpsychologies,whichfilltheworldwithvainjangling;buttheydonotstrivetogetherinorderthattheymayobtaintherighttoexistsidebysideinequalvalidity,butinstrenuousefforttosupplantandsupersedeoneanother:therecanbebutonetruescienceofmind.Inlikemanner,justbecausetheologyisasciencetherecanbebutonetheology.Thisall-embracingsystemwillbrooknorivalinitssphere,andtherecanbetwotheologiesonlyatthecostofoneorbothofthembeingimperfect,incomplete,false.Itisbecausetheology,inaccordancewithasomewhatprevalentpointofview,isoftenlookeduponasahistoricalratherthanascientificdiscipline,thatitissofrequentlyspokenofanddefinedasifitwerebutoneofmanysimilarschemesofthought.ThereisnodoubtsuchathingasChristiantheology,asdistinguishedfromBuddhisttheologyorMohammedan theology; and men may study it as the theologicalimplicationofChristianityconsideredasoneoftheworld'sreligions.Butwhen studied from this point of view, it forms a section of a historicaldisciplineandfurnishesitsshareoffactsforahistoryofreligions;onthe

datasuppliedbywhichascienceorphilosophyofreligionmayinturnbebased.Wemay also, no doubt, speak of the Pelagian and Augustiniantheologies,orof theCalvinisticandArminian theologies;but,again,weare speaking as historians and from a historical point of view. ThePelagian andAugustinian theologies are not two coordinate sciences oftheology; theyarerival theologies. Ifone is true, justso far theother isfalse,andthereisbutonetheology.Thiswemayidentify,asanempiricalfact, with either or neither; but it is at all events one, inclusive of alltheological truthandexclusiveofallelseas falseornotgermane to thesubject.

Inassertingthattheologyisascience,then,weassertthat,initssubject-matter,itincludesallthefactsbelongingtothatsphereoftruthwhichwecalltheological;andwedenythatitneedsorwilladmitoflimitationbyadiscriminating adjectival definition. We may speak of it as Christiantheologyjustaswemayspeakofitastruetheology,ifwemeantherebyonlymorefullytodescribewhat,asamatteroffact,theologyisfoundtobe; but not, if we mean thereby to discriminate it from some otherassumedtheologythuserectedtoacoordinatepositionwith it.Wemaydescribeourmethodofprocedureinattemptingtoascertainandorganizethetruthsthatcomebeforeusforbuildingintothesystem,andsospeakof logical or inductive, of speculative or organic theology; or we mayseparatetheonebodyoftheologyintoitsmembers,and,justaswespeakofsurfaceandorganicgeologyorofphysiologicalanddirectpsychology,so speakof the theologyof grace andof sin, or ofnatural andrevealedtheology.But all thesearebutdesignationsofmethodsofprocedure indealing with the one whole, or of the various sections that togetherconstitute the one whole, which in its completeness is the science oftheology,andwhich,asascience,isinclusiveofallthetruthinitssphere,howeverascertained,howeverpresented,howeverdefended.

II.Thereismuchmorethanthisincluded,however,incallingtheologyascience. For the very existence of any science, three things arepresupposed:(1) therealityof itssubject-matter; (2) thecapacityof thehuman mind to apprehend, receive into itself, and rationalize thissubject-matter; and (3) somemedium of communication by which thesubject-matter is brought before the mind and presented to it for

apprehension.There couldbenoastronomy, for example, if therewerenoheavenlybodies.Andthoughtheheavenlybodiesexisted,therecouldstillbenoscienceofthemweretherenomindtoapprehendthem.Factsdonotmakeascience;evenfactsasapprehendeddonotmakeascience;theymustbenotonlyapprehended,butalsosofarcomprehendedastobe rationalized and thus combined into a correlated system. Themindbringstoeverysciencesomewhatwhich,thoughincludedinthefacts,isnot derived from the facts considered in themselves alone, as isolateddata,orevenasdataperceived in somesortof relation tooneanother.Though they be thus known, science is not yet; and is not born savethrough the efforts of the mind in subsuming the facts under its ownintuitions and forms of thought. No mind is satisfied with a barecognition of facts: its very constitution forces it on to a restless energyuntil it succeeds in working these facts not only into a network ofcorrelated relations among themselves, but also into a rational body ofthought correlated to itself and its necessary modes of thinking. Theconditionofscience,then,isthatthefactswhichfallwithinitsscopeshallbesuchasstandinrelationnotonlytoourfaculties,sothattheymaybeapprehended;butalsotoourmentalconstitutionsothattheymaybesofarunderstoodastoberationalizedandwroughtintoasystemrelativetoour thinking. Thus a science of aesthetics presupposes an aestheticfaculty, anda scienceofmorals amoralnature, as trulyasa scienceoflogicpresupposesalogicalapprehension,andascienceofmathematicsacapacitytocomprehendtherelationsofnumbers.Butstillagain,thoughthefactshadrealexistence,andthemindwerefurnishedwithacapacityfortheirreceptionandforasympatheticestimateandembracingofthemintheirrelations,nosciencecouldexistweretherenomediabywhichthefacts should be brought before and communicated to the mind. Thetransmitterand intermediatingwireare as essential for telegraphingasthemessage and the receiving instrument. Subjectively speaking, senseperception is the essential basis of all science of external things; self-consciousness,ofinternalthings.Butobjectivemediaarealsonecessary.Forexample,therecouldbenoastronomy,weretherenotremblingetherthrough whose delicate telegraphy the facts of light and heat aretransmitted tous fromthesunsandsystemsof theheavens. Subjectiveandobjective conditionsof communicationmustunite, before the factsthat constitute thematerial of a science can be placed before themind

thatgivesititsform.Thesenseofsightisessentialtoastronomy:yetthesenseofsightwouldbeuselessforforminganastronomyweretherenoobjectiveetherealmessengerstobringusnewsfromthestars.Withthesean astronomy becomes possible; but how meager an astronomycompared with the new possibilities which have opened out with thediscoveryofanewmediumofcommunicationinthetelescope,followedby still newer media in the subtle instruments by which our moderninvestigators not only weigh the spheres in their courses, but analyzethemintotheirchemicalelements,mapouttheheavens inachart,andseparatethesunsintotheirprimaryconstituents.

Like all other sciences, therefore, theology, for its very existence as ascience, presupposes the objective reality of the subject-matter withwhich it deals; the subjective capacity of the human mind so far tounderstand this subject-matter as to be able to subsume it under theformsofitsthinkingandtorationalizeitintonotonlyacomprehensive,butalsoacomprehensiblewhole;andtheexistenceoftrustworthymediaof communication by which the subject-matter is brought to themindandpresentedbeforeitforperceptionandunderstanding.Thatistosay:(1)TheaffirmationthattheologyisasciencepresupposestheaffirmationthatGodis,andthatHehasrelationtoHiscreatures.WeretherenoGod,therecouldbeno theology;norcould therebea theology if, thoughHeexisted,HeexistedoutofrelationwithHiscreatures.Thewholebodyofphilosophicalapologeticsis,therefore,presupposedinandunderliesthestructure of scientific theology. (2) The affirmation that theology is asciencepresupposestheaffirmationthatmanhasareligiousnature,thatis, a nature capable of understandingnot only thatGod is, but also, tosome extent,whatHe is; not only thatHe stands in relationswithHiscreatures,butalsowhatthoserelationsare.Hadmannoreligiousnaturehemight, indeed,apprehendcertainfactsconcerningGod,buthecouldnotsounderstandHiminHisrelationstomanastobeabletorespondtothose facts ina trueandsympatheticembrace.The totalproductof thegreat scienceof religion,which investigates thenature andworkings ofthis element inman'smental constitution, is therefore presupposed inandunderliesthestructureofscientifictheology.(3)TheaffirmationthattheologyisasciencepresupposestheaffirmationthattherearemediaofcommunicationbywhichGodanddivine things arebroughtbefore the

minds of men, that they may perceive them and, in perceiving,understand them. In other words, when we affirm that theology is ascience,weaffirmnotonlytherealityofGod'sexistenceandourcapacityso far to understand Him, but we affirm that He has made Himselfknowntous-weaffirmtheobjectiverealityofarevelation.WeretherenorevelationofGodtoman,ourcapacity tounderstandHimwould liedormantandunawakened;andthoughHereallyexisteditwouldbetousasifHewerenot.TherewouldbeaGodtobeknownandamindtoknowHim;buttheologywouldbeasimpossibleasiftherewereneithertheonenor theother.Notonly, then,philosophical,butalso thewholemassofhistorical apologetics by which the reality of revelation and itsembodiment in the Scriptures are vindicated, is presupposed in andunderliesthestructureofscientifictheology.

III.Inthusdevelopingtheimplicationsofcallingtheologyascience,wehavealreadygonefartowardsdeterminingourexactconceptionofwhattheology is. We have in effect, for example, settled our definition oftheology. A science is defined from its subject-matter; and the subject-matter of theology is God in His nature and in His relations with Hiscreatures.Theology is therefore that sciencewhich treatsofGodandofthe relations between God and the universe. To this definition mosttheologians have actually come.And thosewho define theology as "thescienceofGod,"meanthetermGodinabroadsenseasinclusivealsoofHis relations; while others exhibit their sense of the need of thisinclusivenessbycallingit"thescienceofGodandofdivinethings";whilestillothersspeakofit,moreloosely,as"thescienceofthesupernatural."Thesedefinitionsfailratherinprecisionoflanguagethanincorrectnessofconception.

Others, however, go astray in the conceptionitself.Thus theologians ofthe school of Schleiermacher usually derive their definition from thesources rather than the subject-matter of the science - and so speak oftheology as "the science of faith" or the like; a thoroughly unscientificprocedure, even though our view of the sources be complete andunexceptionable,whichiscertainlynotthecasewiththisschool.Quiteasconfusingisittodefinetheology,asisverycurrentlydoneandoftenasanoutgrowthof thissamesubjective tendency,as "thescienceof religion,"

oreven-pressingtoitsgreatestextremethehistoricalconception,whichasoftenunderliesthistypeofdefinition-as"thescienceoftheChristianreligion."Theologyandreligionareparallelproductsofthesamebodyoffactsindiversespheres;theoneinthesphereofthoughtandtheotherinthe sphere of life. And the definition of theology as "the science ofreligion"thusconfoundstheproductofthefactsconcerningGodandHisrelationswithHiscreaturesworkingthroughtheheartsandlivesofmen,with those facts themselves; and consequently, whenever strictlyunderstood,basestheologynotonthefactsofthedivinerevelation,but,onthefactsofthereligiouslife.Thisleadsultimatelytoaconfusionofthetwo distinct disciplines of theology, the subject-matter of which isobjective, and the science of religion, the subject-matter of which issubjective;withtheeffectofloweringthedataoftheologytothelevelofthe aspirations and imaginings of man's own heart. Wherever thisdefinition is found, either a subjective conception of theology, whichreduces it to a branch of psychology, may be suspected; or else ahistoricalconceptionofit,aconceptionof"Christiantheology"asoneofthemanytheologiesoftheworld,parallelevenifunspeakablytruerthan,the others with which it is classed and in conjunction with which itfurnishes us with it full account of religion. When so conceived, it isnaturaltotakeastepfurtherandpermitthemethodologyofthescience,aswell as its idea, tobedeterminedby itsdistinguishingelement: thustheology, in contradiction to its veryname,becomesChristocentric.Nodoubt"Christiantheology,"asahistoricaldiscipline,isChristocentric;itisbyitsdoctrineofredemptionthatitisdifferentiatedfromalltheothertheologies that the world has known. But theology as a science is andmust be theocentric. So soon as we firmly grasp it from the scientificpointofview,weseethattherecanbebutonescienceofGodandofHisrelationstoHisuniverse,andwenolongerseekapointofdiscrimination,butratheracenterofdevelopment;andwequicklyseethattherecanbebut one center about which so comprehensive a subject-matter can beorganized-theconceptionofGod.HethathathseenChrist,hasbeyonddoubt seen the Father; but it is one thing tomakeChrist the center oftheologysofarasHeisonewithGod,andanotherthingtoorganizealltheology around Him as the theanthropos and in His specificallytheanthropicwork.

IV.Not only, however, is our definition of theology thus set for us: wehavealsodeterminedinadvanceourconceptionof itssources.Wehavealreadymadeuseof the term "revelation," todesignate themediumbywhich the facts concerning God andHis relations to His creatures arebrought before men's minds, and so made the subject-matter of apossible science. The word accurately describes the condition of allknowledgeofGod. IfGodbeaperson, it followsby stringentnecessity,thatHecanbeknownonlysofarasHerevealsorexpressesHimself.Anditisbuttheconverseofthis,thatiftherebenorevelation,therecanbenoknowledge,and,ofcourse,nosystematizedknowledgeorscienceofGod.OurreachinguptoHiminthoughtandinferenceispossibleonlybecauseHecondescendstomakeHimselfintelligibletous,tospeaktousthroughworkorword,torevealHimself.Wehazardnothing,therefore,insayingthat, as the condition of all theology is a revealed God, so, withoutlimitation,thesolesourceoftheologyisrevelation.

In so speaking, however, we have no thought of doubting that God'srevelationofHimself is"indiversmanners."Wehavenodesiretodenythat He has never left man without witness of His eternal power andGodhead, or that He has multiplied the manifestations of Himself innature and providence and grace, so that every generation has hadabidingandunmistakableevidencethatHeis, thatHeis thegoodGod,andthatHeisaGodwhomarkethiniquity.Underthebroadskirtsoftheterm"revelation,"everymethodofmanifestingHimselfwhichGodusesin communicating knowledge of His being and attributes, may findshelter for itself - whether it be through those visible things of naturewherebyHisinvisiblethingsareclearlyseen,orthroughtheconstitutionofthehumanmindwithitscausaljudgmentindeliblystampeduponit,orthrough that voiceofGod thatwe call conscience,whichproclaimsHismorallawwithinus,orthroughHisprovidenceinwhichHemakesbareHis arm for the government of the nations, or through the exercisesofHis grace, our experience under the tutelage of the Holy Ghost - orwhether it be through the open visions of His prophets, the divinely-breathedpagesofHiswrittenWord,thedivinelifeoftheWordHimself.HowGod revealsHimself - inwhat diversmannersHemakesHimselfknown to His creatures - is thus the subsequent question, by raisingwhich we distribute the one source of theology, revelation, into the

variousmethodsofrevelation,eachofwhichbringsustrueknowledgeofGod,andallofwhichmustbetakenaccountofinbuildingourknowledgeintooneall-comprehendingsystem.Itistheacceptedmethodoftheologyto infer that theGodthatmadetheeyemustHimselfsee; that theGodwho sovereignly distributes His favors in the secular world may besovereigningracetoo;thattheheartthatcondemnsitselfbutrepeatsthecondemnation of the greater God; that the songs of joy in which theChristian'shappysoulvoicesitssenseofGod'sgratuitousmercyarevalidevidencethatGodhasreallydealtgraciouslywithit.ItiswithnoreservethatweacceptallthesesourcesofknowledgeofGod-nature,providence,Christian experience - as true and valid sources, thewell-authenticateddatayieldedbywhicharetobereceivedbyusasrevelationsofGod,andassuchtoheplacedalongsideoftherevelationsinthewrittenWordandwroughtwiththemintoonesystem.Asamatteroffact,theologianshavealways so dealtwith them; and doubtless they alwayswill so dealwiththem.

But toperceive, as allmustperceive, that everymethodbywhich (Godmanifests Himself, is, so far as this manifestation can be clearlyinterpreted,asourceofknowledgeofHim,andmust,therefore,betakenaccountofinframingallourknowledgeofHimintooneorganicwhole,isfar from allowing that there are no differences among these variousmanifestations- in the amount of revelation they give, the clearness oftheirmessage,theeaseandcertaintywithwhichtheymaybeinterpreted,or the importance of the special truthswhich they are fitted to convey.Farratherisitapriorilikelythatifthereare"diversmanners"inwhichGod has revealed Himself, He has not revealed precisely the samemessage through each; that these "diversmanners" correspond also todiversmessages of divers degrees of importance, delivered with diversdegrees of clearness. And the mere fact that He has included in these"diversmanners"acopiousrevelationinawrittenWord,deliveredwithan authenticating accompaniment of signs and miracles, proved byrecordedprophecieswith their recorded fulfillments, and pressed,withthegreatestsolemnity,upontheattentionandconsciencesofmenastheveryWordoftheLivingGod,whohasbyitmadeallthewisdomofmenfoolishness;nay,proclaimedascontainingwithinitselftheformulationofHis truth, the proclamation of His law, the discovery of His plan of

salvation:thismerefact,Isay,would itselfandpriortoallcomparison,raise an overwhelming presumption that all the others of "the diversmanners"ofGod'srevelationwereinsufficientforthepurposesforwhichrevelation isgiven,whetheronaccountofdefect in theamountof theircommunication or insufficiency of attestation or uncertainty ofinterpretation or fatal one-sidedness in the character of the revelationtheyareadaptedtogive.

We need not be surprised, therefore, that on actual examination, suchimperfectionsarefoundundeniablytoattachtoallformsofwhatwemay,for the sakeofdiscrimination, speakof asmeremanifestationsofGod;and that thus the revelationofGod inHiswrittenWord - inwhichareincludedtheonlyauthenticrecordsoftherevelationofHimthroughtheincarnateWord-iseasilyshownnotonlytobeincomparablysuperiortoallothermanifestationsofHiminthefullness,richness,andclearnessofitscommunications,butalsotocontainthesolediscoveryofmuchthatitismostimportantforthesoultoknowastoitsstateanddestiny,andofmuchthatismostpreciousinourwholebodyoftheologicalknowledge.Thesuperiorlucidityofthisrevelationmakesittheformofinterpretationforwhatisrevealedsomuchmoredarklythroughtheothermethodsofmanifestation.Thegloiouscharacterofthediscoveriesmadeinitthrowsallothermanifestations intocomparativeshadow.Theamazingfullnessofitsdisclosuresrenderswhattheycantellusoflittlerelativevalue.Andits absolute completeness for the needs of man, taking up andreiteratingly repeating in the clearestof languageall that can bewrungfrom their sometimes enigmatic indications, and then adding to this avast body of stillmoremomentous truthundiscoverable through them,all but supersedes their necessity. With the fullest recognition of thevalidityofalltheknowledgeofGodandHiswayswithmen,whichcanbeobtainedthroughthemanifestationsofHispoweranddivinityinnatureandhistoryandgrace;andthefrankestallowancethatthewrittenWordisgiven,nottodestroythemanifestationsofGod,buttofulfillthem;thetheologian must yet refuse to give these sources of knowledge a placealongside of the writtenWord, in any other sense than that he gladlyadmitsthatthey,alikewithit,butinunspeakablylowermeasure,dotellusofGod.Andnothingcanbeaclearerindicationofadecadenttheologyor of a decaying faith, than a tendency to neglect theWord in favor of

some(one,orofallofthelessersourcesoftheologicaltruth,asfountainsfromwhichtodrawourknowledgeofdivinethings.Thisweretopreferthe flickering rays of a taper to the blazing light of the sun; to elect todrawourwater fromamuddyrunrather than todip it from thebroadbosomofthepurefountainitself.

Nevertheless,men have often sought to still the cravings of their soulswithapurelynatural theology;and therearemen to-daywhoprefer toderivetheirknowledgeofwhatGodisandwhatHewilldoformanfromananalysisoftheimplicationsoftheirownreligiousfeelings:notstayingtoconsiderthatnature,"redintoothandclawwithravin,"canbutdirectoureyestotheGodoflaw,whosedeadlyletterkills;orthatourfeelingsmustneedspointustotheGodofourimperfectapprehensionsorofourunsanctifieddesires-nottotheGodthatis,somuchastotheGodthatwewouldfainshouldbe.Thenaturalresultofrestingontherevelationsof nature is despair; while the inevitable end of making our appeal toeventheChristianheartistomakeforourselvesrefugesofliesinwhichthere isneither truthnor safety.Wemay, indeed, admit that it is validreasoning to infer from the nature of the Christian life what are themodes of God's activities towardsHis children: to see, for instance, inconvictionofsinandthesuddenpeaceofthenew-bornsoul,God'shandin slaying that He may make alive, His almighty power in raising thespiritually dead.But how easy to overstep the limits of valid inference;and, forgetting that it is the body of Christian truth known andassimilatedthatdetermines the typeofChristianexperience,confuse inour inferenceswhat is frommanwithwhat is fromGod,andconditionandlimitourtheologybytheundevelopedChristianthoughtofthemanor his times. The interpretation of the data included in what we havelearnedtocall"theChristianconsciousness,"whetheroftheindividualorof the Church at large, is a process so delicate, so liable to error, soinevitably swayed to this side or that by the currents that flow up anddown in the soul, that probably few satisfactory inferences could bedrawn from it, had we not the norm of Christian experience and itsdogmatic implications recorded for us in the perspicuous pages of thewrittenWord.But evenwerewe to suppose that the interpretationwaseasyandsecure,andthatwehadbeforeus,inaninfallibleformulation,all the implicationsof the religiousexperienceof all themenwhohave

everknownChrist,wehavenoreasontobelieve that thewholebodyoffactsthusobtainedwouldsufficetogiveusacompletetheology.Afterall,weknowinpartandwefeelinpart;itisonlywhenthatwhichisperfectshallappearthatweshallknoworexperienceallthatChristhasinstoreforus.Withthefullestacceptance,therefore,ofthedataofthetheologyof the feelings, no less than of natural theology, when their results arevalidlyobtainedandsufficientlyauthenticatedastrustworthy,asdivinelyrevealed facts which must be wrought into our system, it, remainsnevertheless true thatwe should be confined to ameager anddoubtfultheologywerethesedatanotconfirmed,reinforced,andsupplementedbythesurerandfullerrevelationsofScripture;andthattheHolyScripturesarethesourceoftheologyinnotonlyadegree,butalsoasenseinwhichnothingelseis.

Theremay be a theologywithout the Scriptures - a theology of nature,gathered by painful, and slow, and sometimes doubtful processes fromwhatmanseesaroundhiminexternalnatureandthecourseofhistory,andwhatheseeswithinhimofnatureandofgrace.Inlikemannertheremay be and has been an astronomy of nature, gathered byman in hisnaturalstatewithouthelpfromaughtbuthisnakedeyes,ashewatchedin the fields by night. But what is this astronomy of nature to theastronomythathasbecomepossiblethroughthewonderfulappliancesofour observatories? TheWord ofGod is to theology as, but vastlymorethan,these instrumentsaretoastronomy.It is the instrumentwhich sofar increases thepossibilitiesof thescienceas to revolutionize itand toplaceituponaheightfromwhichitcannevermoredescend.Whatwouldbe thought of the deluded man, who, discarding the new methods ofresearch, should insist on acquiring all the astronomywhich he wouldadmit, from theunaidedobservationofhis ownmyopic and astigmaticeyes?Muchmoredeludedishewho,neglectingtheinstrumentofGod'sWordwritten,wouldconfinehisadmissionsoftheologicaltruthtowhathecoulddiscoverfromthebrokenlightsthatplayuponexternalnature,andthefaintgleamsofadyingorevenaslowlyrevivinglight,whichariseinhisownsinfulsoul.Ah,no!Thetelescopefirstmadearealscienceofastronomypossible:andtheScripturesformtheonlysufficingsourceoftheology.

V. Under such a conception of its nature and sources, we are led toconsider the place of Systematic Theology among the other theologicaldisciplines as well as among the other sciences in general. WithoutencroachinguponthedetailsofTheologicalEncyclopedia,wemayadoptheretheusualfourfolddistributionofthetheologicaldisciplinesintotheExegetical,theHistorical,theSystematic,andthePractical,withonlythecorrection of prefixing to them a fifth department of ApologeticalTheology. The place of Systematic Theology in this distribution isdeterminedbyitsrelationtotheprecedingdisciplines,ofwhichitisthecrownandhead.ApologeticalTheologypreparesthewayforalltheologybyestablishing itsnecessarypresuppositionswithoutwhichnotheologyis possible - the existence and essential nature of God, the religiousnatureofmanwhichenableshim to receivea revelation fromGod, thepossibility of a revelation and its actual realization in the Scriptures. Itthus places the Scriptures in our hands for investigation and study.Exegetical Theology receives these inspired writings from the hands ofApologetics,andinvestigatestheirmeaning;presentinguswithabodyofdetailed and substantiated results, culminating in a series of organizedsystems of Biblical History, Biblical Ethics, Biblical Theology, and thelike, which provide material for further use in the more advanceddisciplines.HistoricalTheologyinvestigatestheprogressiverealizationofChristianityinthelives,hearts,worship,andthoughtofmen,issuingnotonlyinafullaccountofthehistoryofChristianity,butalsoinabodyoffactswhichcomeintouseinthemoreadvanceddisciplines,especiallyinthewayofthemanifoldexperimentsthathavebeenmadeduringtheagesinChristianorganization,worship, living,andcreed-building,aswellasof the sifted results of the reasoned thinking and deep experience ofChristiantruthduringthewholepast.SystematicTheologydoesnotfailto strike its roots deeply into this matter furnished by HistoricalTheology;itknowshowtoprofitbytheexperienceofallpastgenerationsin their efforts to understand and define, to systematize and defendrevealedtruth;and it thinksofnothingso littleas lightly todiscard theconquestsofsomanyhard-foughtfields.ItthereforegladlyutilizesallthematerialthatHistoricalTheologybringsit,accountingit,indeed,theveryprecipitateoftheChristianconsciousnessofthepast;butitdoesnotuseit crudely, or at first hand for itself, but accepts it as investigated,explained, and made available by the sister discipline of Historical

Theologywhichalonecanunderstanditordrawfromititstruelessons.Itcertainlydoesnotfindinit,itschieforprimarysource,anditsrelationtoHistoricalTheologyis,inconsequence,farlessclosethanthatinwhichitstandstoExegeticalTheologywhichisitstrueandespecialhandmaid.TheindependenceofExegeticalTheology isseeninthe fact that itdoesitsworkwhollywithoutthoughtoranxietyastotheusethatistobemadeofitsresults;andthatitfurnishesavastlylargerbodyofdatathancanbeutilized by any one discipline. It provides a body of historical, ethical,liturgic,ecclesiastical facts,aswellasabodyof theological facts.Butsofar as its theological facts are concerned, it provides them chiefly thattheymay be used by Systematic Theology as material out of which tobuilditssystem.

This is not to forget the claims of Biblical Theology. It is rather toemphasizeitsvalue,andtoaffordoccasionforexplainingitstrueplaceinthe encyclopedia, and its true relations on the one side to ExegeticalTheology,andontheothertoSystematics-amatterwhichappearstobeeven yet imperfectly understood in some quarters. Biblical Theology isnot a section of Historical Theology, although it must be studied in ahistoricalspirit, andhas a historical face; it is rather the ripest fruit ofExegetics,andExegeticshasnotperformeditsfulltaskuntilitsscatteredresults in the way of theological data are gathered up into a full andarticulatedsystemofBiblicalTheology.Itistobehopedthatthetimewillcome when no commentary will be considered complete until thecapstone isplacedupon its fabricby closing chaptersgatheringup intosystematized exhibits, the unsystematized results of the continuousexegesis of the text, in the spheres of history, ethics, theology, and thelike.ThetaskofBiblicalTheology,inaword,isthetaskofcoordinatingthe scattered results of continuous exegesis into a concatenatedwhole,whether with reference to a single book of Scripture or to a body ofrelatedbooksor to thewholeScriptural fabric. Its chiefobject isnot tofinddifferencesofconceptionbetweenthevariouswriters,thoughsomerecent studentsof the subject seem to think this is somuch theirduty,thatwhentheycannotfinddifferencestheymakethem.Itistoreproducethetheologicalthoughtofeachwriterorgroupofwriters intheforminwhichitlayintheirownminds,sothatwemaybeenabledtolookatalltheir theological statements at their angle, and to understand all their

deliverancesasmodifiedandconditionedbytheirownpointofview.Itsexegeticalvalueliesjustinthiscircumstance,thatitisonlywhenwehavethusconcatenated an author's theological statements into awhole, thatwecanbesurethatweunderstandthemasheunderstoodthemindetail.A light is inevitably thrown back from Biblical Theology upon theseparatetheologicaldeliverancesastheyoccurinthetext,suchassubtlycolors them,andoften, for the first time,gives them tous in their truesetting, and thus enablesus to guard againstperverting themwhenweadapt them to our use. This is a noble function, and could students ofBiblicalTheologyonlyfirmlygraspit,onceforall,astheirtask,itwouldpreventthisimportantsciencefrombeingbroughtintocontemptthrougha tendency to exaggerate differences in form of statement intodivergencesofview,andsotoforcethedeliverancesofeachbookintoastrangeandunnaturalcombination, in theeffort tovindicatea functionforthisdiscipline.

The relation of Biblical Theology to Systematic Theology is based on atrueviewofitsfunction.SystematicTheologyisnotfoundedonthedirectandprimary results of the exegetical process; it is foundedon the finaland complete results of exegesis as exhibited in Biblical Theology. Notexegesis itself, then, but Biblical Theology, provides the material forSystematics.BiblicalTheologyisnot,then,arivalofSystematics;itisnotevenaparallelproductofthesamebodyoffacts,providedbyexegesis;itis the basis and source of Systematics. Systematic Theology is not aconcatenationofthescatteredtheologicaldatafurnishedbytheexegeticprocess;itisthecombinationofthealreadyconcatenateddatagiventoitbyBiblicalTheology.Itusestheindividualdatafurnishedbyexegesis,inaword,notcrudely,notindependentlyforitself,butonlyafterthesedatahave beenworked up into Biblical Theology and have received from ittheirfinalcoloringandsubtlestshadesofmeaning-inotherwords,onlyintheirtruesense,andafterExegeticshassaiditslastworduponthem.JustasweshallattainourfinestandtruestconceptionofthepersonandworkofChrist,notbycrudelytryingtocombinethescattereddetailsofHislifeandteachingasgiveninourfourGospelsintoonepatchworklifeand account of His teaching; but far more rationally and far moresuccessfullybyfirstcatchingMatthew'sfullconceptionofJesus,andthenMark's, and then Luke's, and then John's, and combining these four

conceptions intoone roundedwhole: sowegainour truestSystematicsnotbyatonceworkingtogethertheseparatedogmaticstatementsintheScriptures,butbycombiningthemintheirdueorderandproportionasthey stand in the various theologies of the Scriptures. Thus we areenabledtoviewthefuturewholenotonlyinitsparts,butintheseveralcombinationsoftheparts;and,lookingatitfromeveryside,toobtainatrueconceptionofitssolidityandstrength,andtoavoidallexaggerationor falsification of the details in giving them place in the completedstructure.Andthuswedonotmakeourtheology,accordingtoourownpattern, as amosaic, out of the fragments of the Biblical teaching; butratherlookoutfromourselvesuponitasagreatprospect,framedoutofthemountainsandplainsofthetheologiesoftheScriptures,andstrivetoattainapointofviewfromwhichwecanbringthewholelandscapeintoourfieldofsight.

From this point of view, we find no difficulty in understanding therelation in which the several disciplines stand to one another, withrespecttotheircontents.ThematerialthatSystematicsdrawsfromotherthanBiblical sourcesmaybehere leftmomentarilyoutofaccount. Theactual contents of the theological results of the exegetic process, ofBiblicalTheology,andofSystematics,withthislimitation,maybesaidtobe the same. The immediatework of exegesismay be compared to theworkofa recruitingofficer: itdrawsout fromthemassofmankindthemenwho are to constitute the army. Biblical Theology organizes thesemen into companies and regiments and corps, arranged in marchingorder and accoutered for service. Systematic Theology combines thesecompaniesandregimentsandcorps intoanarmy-asingleandunitarywhole,determinedbyitsownall-pervasiveprinciple.It,too,iscomposedof men - the same men which were recruited by Exegetics; but it iscomposed of these men, not as individuals merely, but in their duerelationsto theothermenof theircompaniesandregimentsand corps.The simile is far from a perfect one; but it may illustrate the mutualrelations of the disciplines, and also, perhaps, suggest the historicalelement that attaches to Biblical Theology, and the element of all-inclusivesystematizationwhichisinseparablefromSystematicTheology.Itisjustthiselement,determiningthespiritandthereforethemethodsofSystematic Theology, which, along with its greater inclusiveness,

discriminatesitfromallformsofBiblicalTheology,thespiritofwhichispurelyhistorical.

VI.Theplacethattheology,asthescientificpresentationofall thefactsthatareknownconcerningGodandHisrelations,claimsforitselfwithinthecircleofthesciencesisanequallyhighonewiththatwhichitclaimsamongthetheologicaldisciplines.Whetherweconsiderthetopicswhichittreats,intheirdignity,theirexcellence,theirgrandeur;orthecertaintywithwhichitsdatacanbedetermined;or thecompletenesswithwhichits principles have been ascertained and its details classified; or theusefulness and importance of its discoveries: it is as far out of allcomparisonaboveallothersciencesastheeternalhealthanddestinyofthesoulareofmorevaluethanthisfleetinglifeinthisworld.Itisnotsoabove them, however, as not to be also a constituent member of theclosely interrelated and mutually interacting organism of the sciences.Thereisnooneofthemallwhichisnot, insomemeasure,touchedandaffected by it, or which is not in some measure included in it. As allnature, whether mental or material, may be conceived of as only themode inwhichGodmanifestsHimself,everysciencewhichinvestigatesnatureandascertainsitslawsisoccupiedwiththediscoveryofthemodesof the divine action, and as such might be considered a branch oftheology. And, on the other hand, as all nature, whether mental ormaterial, owes its existence to God, every science which investigatesnature and ascertains its laws, depends for its foundation upon thatsciencewhichwouldmakeknownwhatGodisandwhattherelationsareinwhichHestandstotheworkofHishandsandinwhichtheystandtoHim; andmust borrow from it those conceptions throughwhich alonethematerial with which it deals can find its explanation or receive itspropersignificance.

Theology,thus,entersintothestructureofeveryotherscience.Itsclosestrelationsare,nodoubt,withthehighestoftheothersciences,ethics.AnydiscussionofourdutytoGodmustrestonaknowledgeofourrelationtoHim; and much of our duty to man is undiscoverable, save throughknowledgeofourcommonrelationtotheoneGodandFatherofall,andoneLordtheRedeemerofall,andoneSpirit theSanctifierofall -allofwhichitisthefunctionoftheologytosupply.Thisfactis,ofcourse,not

fatal to the existence of a natural ethics; but an ethics independent oftheological conceptions would be a meager thing indeed, while thetheologyoftheScripturalrevelationforthefirsttimeaffordsabasisforethicalinvestigationatoncebroadenoughandsureenoughtoraisethatsciencetoitstruedignity.Accordingly,apurelynaturalethicshasalwaysbeenanincompleteethicsevenrelativelytothe lessdevelopedformsofethicsrestingonarevealedbasis.Acarefulstudenthasrecentlytoldus,forexample,that:

BetweentheethicsofpaganantiquityandthatoftheOldTestamentthereisadifferenceof thewidestandmost radicalkind.There isno trace ofgradualtransitionfromtheonetotheother.ThatdifferenceisfirstseeninthepaganconceptionofGodandofman'sethicalrelationtoHim....It was essentially a morality betweenman andman. For where man'srelationtoapersonalGodisnotapprehended,anythingapproachinganuniversal ethics is impossible, and only individual virtues can bemanifested.Ethicswasthusdeprivedofitsunity....Moralitybecamebutacatalogueofseparatevirtues,andwasdeprivedofthatpenetratingbondof union which it receives when the realm of human personalities isboundbyinnumerablelinkstothegreatcentralpersonality,God.4

We must not, however, on the ground of this intimacy of relation,confound the two sciences of theology and ethics. Something like it inkind and approaching it in degree exists between theology and everyotherscience,nooneofwhichissoindependentofitasnottotouchandbetouchedbyit.Somethingoftheologyis implicatedinallmetaphysicsandphysics alike. It alone candetermine theoriginof eithermatter ormind,orofthemysticpowersthathavebeengrantedtothem.5Italonecanexplain thenatureof secondcausesandset theboundaries to theirefficiency. It alone is competent to declare the meaning of theineradicable persuasion of the human mind that its reason is rightreason, itsprocesses trustworthy, its intuitions true.AllsciencewithoutGodismutilatedscience,andnoaccountofasinglebranchofknowledgecan everbe completeuntil it is pushedback to find its completion andgroundinHim.IntheeloquentwordsofDr.Pusey:

GodaloneisinHimself,andistheCauseandUpholderofeverythingtowhichHehasgivenbeing.Everyfacultyofthemindissomereflectionof

His; every truth has its being from Him; every law of nature has theimpressofHishand; everythingbeautiful has caught its light fromHiseternal beauty; every principle of goodness has its foundation in Hisattributes....WithoutHim,intheregionofthought,everythingisdead;aswithoutHimeverythingwhichis,wouldatonceceasetobe.Allthingsmust speakofGod, refer toGod,or theyareatheistic.History,withoutGod, is a chaos without design, or end, or aim. Political Economy,withoutGod,wouldbeaselfishteachingabouttheacquisitionofwealth,making the larger portion of mankind animate machines for itsproduction;Physics,withoutGod,wouldbebutadullinquiryintocertainmeaninglessphenomena;Ethics,withoutGod,wouldbe a varying rule,without principle, or substance, or centre, or regulating hand;Metaphysics,withoutGod,wouldmakemanhisowntemporarygod, toberesolved,afterhisbriefhourhere, into thenothingnessoutofwhichheproceeded.6

Itisthusastrueofsciencesasitisofcreatures,thatinHimtheyall liveandmoveandhavetheirbeing.ThescienceofHimandHisrelations isthenecessarygroundofallscience.AllspeculationtakesusbacktoHim;all inquirypresupposesHim; and everyphaseof science consciously orunconsciouslyrestsateverysteponthesciencethatmakesHimknown.Theology, thus,asthesciencewhichtreatsofGod, liesat therootofallsciences.Itistrueenoughthateachcouldexistwithoutit,inasenseandinsomedegree;butthroughitalonecananyoneof themreachits truedignity.Hereinwe see not only the proof of its greatness, but also theassurance of its permanence. "What so permeates all sections andsubjects of human thought, has a deep root in human nature and animmense hold upon it. What so possesses man's mind that he cannotthinkatallwithoutthinkingof it, issoboundupwiththeverybeingofintelligencethatereitcanperish,intellectmustceasetobe."7

It is only in theology, therefore, that the other sciences find theircompletion.Theology, formally speaking, is accordingly the apex of thepyramidofthesciencesbywhichthestructureisperfected.Itsrelationtotheothersciences is, thus, in thisbroaderspherequiteanalogous to itsrelation to the other branches of the theological encyclopedia in thatnarrowersphere.Allothersciencesaresubsidiaryto it,anditbuilds its

fabric out ofmaterial supplied by them. Theology is the science whichdealswiththefactsconcerningGodandHisrelationswiththeuniverse.Suchfacts include all the facts of nature andhistory: and it is the veryfunctionoftheseveralsciencestosupplythesefactsinscientific,thatis,thoroughly comprehended form. Scientific theology thus stands at theheadofthesciencesaswellasat theheadof thetheologicaldisciplines.The several sciencesdeal eachwith its ownmaterial in an independentspirit and supply a multitude of results not immediately useful totheology.Butsofarastheirresultsstandrelatedtoquestionswithwhichtheologydeals,theyexistonlytoserveher.Dr.Flintwellsays:

Therelevantdataofnaturaltheologyareall theworksofGodinnatureand providence, all the phenomena and laws of matter, mind, andhistory, - and these can only be thoroughly ascertained by the specialsciences.Thesurestandmostadequateknowledgeofthemisknowledgein the form called scientific, and therefore in this form the theologianmustseektoknowthem.Thescienceswhichdealwithnature,mind,andhistory hold the same position towards natural theology which thedisciplinesthattreatofthecomposition,genuineness,authenticity, text,development, etc., of the Scriptures do towards Biblical theology. Theyinformus,asitwere,whatisthetruetextandliteralinterpretationofthebookofcreation.Theirconclusionsarethepremisses,oratleastthedata,ofthescientificnaturaltheologian.Allreasoningsofhiswhichdisregardthese data are ipso facto condemned. A conflict between the results ofthese sciences and the findings of natural theology is inconceivable. Itwouldbeaconflictbetweenthedataandconclusionsofnaturaltheology,and so equivalent for natural theology to self-contradiction. . . . ThereligionoftheBible...isbutoneofamultitudeofreligionswhichhaveleft traces of themselves in documents, monuments, rites, creeds,customs,institutions,individuallives,socialchanges,etc.;andthereisatheological discipline - comparative theology - which undertakes todisclose the spirit, delineate the character, trace the development, andexhibittherelationsofallreligionswiththeutmostattainableexactitude.Obviously the mass of data which this science has to collect, sift, andinterpretisenormous.Theycanonlybebroughttolightandsetintheirnaturalrelationshipsbythelaboursofhostsofspecialistsofallkinds....Christiandogmaticshas tomakeuse of the results of natural theology,

Biblicaltheology,andcomparativetheology,andtoraisethemtoahigherstagebyacomprehensivesynthesiswhichconnectsthemwiththepersonand work of Christ, as of Him in whom all spiritual truth iscomprehendedandallspiritualwantssupplied.8

The essence of the matter is here admirably set forth, though asconnectedwith somepointsof viewwhichmay requiremodification.Itwould seem to be a mistake, for example, to conceive of scientifictheology as the immediate and direct synthesis of the three sources -NaturalTheology,BiblicalTheology,andComparativeTheology-sothatit would be considered the product in like degree or even in similarmannerof the three.All three furnishdata for thecompletedstructure;but if what has been said in an earlier connection has any validity,NaturalandComparativeTheologyshouldstandinasomewhatdifferentrelationtoScientificTheologyfromthatwhichBiblicalTheologyoccupies- a relation not less organic indeed, but certainly less direct. The truerepresentation seems to be that Scientific Theology is related to thenatural and historical sciences, not immediately and independently foritself, but only indirectly, that is, through the mediation of thepreliminarytheologicaldisciplineofApologetics.TheworkofApologeticsin its three branches of Philosophical, Psychological, and Historical,resultsnotonlyinpresentingtheBibletothetheologicalstudent,butalsoinpresentingtohimGod,Religion,andChristianity.Andinsodoing, itsupplies him with the total material of Natural and ComparativeTheologyaswellaswiththefoundationonwhichexegesisistoraisethestructure of Biblical Theology. The materials thus provided ScientificTheologyutilizes,justasitutilizestheresultsofexegesisthroughBiblicalTheology, and the resultsof theage-long lifeofmenunderChristianitythrough Historical Theology. Scientific Theology rests, therefore, mostdirectly on the results of Biblical exegesis as provided in BiblicalTheology;butavailsitselflikewiseofallthematerialfurnishedbyallthepreceding disciplines, and, in the results of Apologetics as found inNaturalTheologyandComparativeTheology,of all thedatabearingonitsproblems,suppliedbyallthesciences.Butitdoesnotmakeitsdirectappeal crudely and independently to these sciences, any more than toexegesis and Christian history, but as it receives the one set of resultsfromthehandsofExegeticsandHistories,soitreceivestheothersfrom

the hand of Apologetics.9 Systematic Theology is fundamentally one ofthetheologicaldisciplines,andbearsimmediaterelationonlytoitssisterdisciplines;itisonlythroughthemthatitreachesfurtheroutandsetsitsrootsinmoreremotesourcesofinformation.

VII.Theinterpretationofawrittendocument,intendedtoconveyaplainmessage, is infinitely easier than the interpretation of the teachingembodiedinfactsthemselves.Itisthereforethatsystematictreatisesonthe several sciences are written. Theology has, therefore, an immenseadvantage over all other sciences, inasmuch as it is more an inductivestudyoffactsconveyedinawrittenrevelation,thananinductivestudyoffacts as conveyed in life. It was, consequently, the first-born of thesciences.Itwasthefirsttoreachrelativecompleteness.Anditisto-dayinastatefarnearerperfectionthananyotherscience.Thisisnot,however,todenythatitisaprogressivescience.Inexactlythesamesenseinwhichanyotherscience isprogressive, this isprogressive.It isnotmeantthatnew revelations are to be expected of truth which has not been beforewithinthereachofman.Thereisavastdifferencebetweentheprogressofascienceand increase in itsmaterial.All the factsofpsychology, forinstance,havebeen inexistence so longasmind itself has existed; andthe progress of this science has been dependent on the progressivediscovery,understanding,andsystematizationofthesefacts.Allthefactsoftheologyhave,inlikemanner,beenwithinthereachofmanfornearlytwomillenniums; and the progress of theology is dependent on men'sprogress in gathering, defining, mentally assimilating, and organizingthese facts into a correlated system. So long as revelation was notcompleted, the progressive character of theology was secured by theprogressinrevelationitself.AndsincethecloseofthecanonofScripture,theintellectualrealizationanddefinitionofthedoctrinesrevealedinit,inrelationtooneanother,havebeen,asamerematterof fact,aslow buteveradvancingprocess.

Theaffirmationthattheologyhasbeenaprogressivescienceisnomore,then, than to assert that it is a science that has had a history - and ahistory which can be and should be genetically traced and presented.First,theobjectivesideofChristiantruthwasdeveloped:pressedontheone side by the crassmonotheismof the Jews and on the other by the

coarsepolytheismoftheheathen,andurgedonbyitsowninternalneedofcomprehendingthesourcesofitslife,Christiantheologyfirstsearchedthe Scriptures that it might understand the nature and modes ofexistenceof itsGodand thepersonof itsdivineRedeemer.Then,moreandmore conscious of itself, itmore andmore fullywrought out fromthosesameScripturesaguardedexpressionof the subjective side of itsfaith;untilthroughthroesandconflictsithasbuiltupthesystemwhichweall inherit.ThusthebodyofChristiantruthhascomedowntous inthe form of an organic growth; and we can conceive of the completedstructureastheripenedfruitoftheages,astrulyaswecanthinkofitastheperfected resultof theexegeticaldiscipline.As ithas come intoourpossessionbythishistoricprocess,thereisnoreasonthatwecanassignwhyitshouldnotcontinuetomakeforitselfahistory.Wedonotexpectthe history of theology to close in our own day. However nearlycompleted our realization of the body of truth may seem to us to be;howevercertainitisthatthegreatoutlinesarealreadysecurelylaidandmostof thedetails soundlydiscoveredandarranged;noonewillassertthateverydetailisasyetperfected,andwearealllivingintheconfidencesoadmirablyexpressedbyoldJohnRobinson,"thatGodhathmoretruthyet to break forth fromHis holyWord." Just becauseGodgives us thetruthinsinglethreadswhichwemustweaveintothereticulatedtexture,all the threads are always within our reach, but the finished texture iseverandwillevercontinuetobebeforeusuntilwedareaffirmthatthereisnotruthintheWordwhichwehavenotperfectlyapprehended,andnorelation of these truths as revealed which we have not perfectlyunderstood,andnopossibilityinclearnessofpresentationwhichwehavenotattained.

The conditions of progress in theology are clearly discernible from itsnatureasascience.Theprogressivemeninanysciencearethemenwhostandfirmlyonthebasisofthealreadyascertainedtruth.Theconditionof progress in building the structures of those great cathedrals whosesplendidpilesglorifythehistoryofartintheMiddleAges,wasthateachsucceeding generation should build upon the foundations laid by itspredecessor. If each architect had begun by destroying what had beenaccomplished by his forerunners, no cathedral would ever have beenraised.10 The railroad is pushed across the continent by the simple

process of laying each rail at the end of the line already laid. Theprerequisite of all progress is a clear discrimination which as franklyacceptsthelimitationssetbythetruthalreadydiscovered,asitrejectsthefalseandbad.Constructionisnotdestruction;neitherisittheoutcomeofdestruction.Thereareabusesnodoubttobereformed;errorstocorrect;falsehoodstocutaway.But thehistoryofprogress ineveryscienceandno less in theology, is a story of impulses given, corrected, andassimilated. Andwhen they have been once corrected and assimilated,thesetruthsaretoremainaccepted.It isthentimeforanotherimpulse,andtheconditionofallfurtherprogressistoplaceourselvesinthiswell-markedlineofgrowth.Astronomy,forexample,hashadsuchahistory;and there are now some indisputable truths in astronomy, as, forinstance,therotundityoftheearthandthecentralplaceofthesuninoursystem.Idonotsaythatthesetruthsareundisputed;probablynothingisany more undisputed in astronomy, or any other science, than intheology.Atalleventshewhowishes,mayreadtheelaborateargumentsofthe"Zetetic"philosophers,astheylovetocallthemselves,whointhisyearofgracearestrivingtoprovethattheearth is flatandoccupiesthecenter of our system. Quite in the same spirit, there are "Zetetic"theologians who strive with similar zeal and acuteness to overturn theestablishedbasaltruthsoftheology-which,however,cannevermorebeshaken;andweshouldgiveaboutasmucheartothemintheonescienceas in the other. It is utter folly to suppose that progress can be madeotherwise than by placing ourselves in the line of progress; and if thetempleofGod's truth isever tobecompletelybuilt,wemustnotspendoureffortsindiggingatthefoundationswhichhavebeensecurelylaidinthe distant past, but must rather give our best efforts to rounding thearches,carvingthecapitals,andfittinginthefrettedroof.Whatifitisnotours to lay foundations? Let us rejoice that that work has been done!Happyarewe if ourGodwill permit us to bring a single capstone intoplace.Thisfabricisnotahouseofcardstobebuiltandblowndownagainahundredtimesaday,astheamusementofouridlehours:itisamiracleof art towhich all ages and landsbring their varied tribute.The subtleGreeklaidthefoundations;thelaw-lovingRomanraisedhighthewalls;and all the perspicuity of France and ideality of Germany andsystematization of Holland and deep sobriety of Britain have beenexpendedinperfectingthestructure;andsoitgrows.

We have heard much in these last days of the phrase "progressiveorthodoxy," and in somewhat strange connections. Nevertheless, thephraseitselfisnotaninaptdescriptionofthebuildingofthistheologicalhouse.Letusassertthatthehistoryoftheologyhasbeenandevermustbe a progressive orthodoxy. But let us equally loudly assert thatprogressive orthodoxy and retrogressive heterodoxy can scarcely beconvertible terms.Progressiveorthodoxy implies that first of allwe areorthodox,andsecondly thatweareprogressivelyorthodox, that is, thatweareevergrowingmoreandmoreorthodoxasmoreandmoretruthisbeingestablished.Thishasbeenandmustbethehistoryoftheadvanceof every science, and not less, among them, of the science of theology.JustinMartyr,championoftheorthodoxyofhisday,heldatheoryoftheintertrinitarianrelationshipwhich becameheterodoxy after theCouncilofNicea;theeverstrugglingChristologiesoftheearlierageswereforeversetasidebytheChalcedonFathers;Augustinedeterminedforalltimethedoctrine of grace, Anselm the doctrine of the atonement, Luther thedoctrineofforensicjustification.Inanyprogressivescience,theamountofdeparturefromacceptedtruthwhichispossible to thesoundthinkerbecomesthuseverlessandless,inproportionasinvestigationandstudyresult in theprogressiveestablishmentof anever increasingnumberoffacts.Thephysicianwhowouldbringbackto-daythemedicineofGalenwould be no more mad than the theologian who would revive thetheologyofClementofAlexandria.Bothweremenoflightandleadingintheirtime;buttheirtimeispast,anditistheprivilegeofthechildofto-daytoknowasounderphysicandasoundertheologythanthegiantsofthat far past yesterday could attain. It is of the very essence of ourpositionat theendof theages thatweareevermoreandmorehedgedaroundwithascertainedfacts,thediscoveryandestablishmentofwhichconstitute the very essence of progress. Progress brings increasinglimitation, just because it brings increasing knowledge. And as theorthodoxman ishe that teachesno other doctrine than thatwhichhasbeen established as true, the progressively orthodox man is he who isquicktoperceive,admit,andconditionallhisreasoningbyallthetruthdowntothelatest,whichhasbeenestablishedastrue.

VIII.Whenwe speak of progress our eyes are set upon a goal. And incalling theology aprogressive scienceweunavoidably raise the inquiry,

whattheendandpurposeistowardsaneverincreasingfitnesstosecurewhichitiscontinuallygrowing.Itsowncompletenessandperfectingasascience-asadepartmentofknowledge-isnaturallytheproximategoaltowardswhicheverysciencetends.Andwhenweconsiderthesurpassingglory of the subject-matter with which theology deals, it would appearthat ifeverscienceexistedfor itsownsake, thismightsurelybe trueofthisscience.ThetruthsconcerningGodandHis relationsare,aboveallcomparison, in themselves the most worthy of all truths of study andexamination. Yet we must vindicate a further goal for the advance oftheologyandthuscontendforitthatitisaneminentlypracticalscience.ThecontemplationandexhibitionofChristianityastruth,isfarfromtheend of the matter. This truth is specially communicated by God for apurpose, forwhich it isadmirablyadapted.Thatpurpose is tosaveandsanctify the soul. And the discovery, study, and systematization of thetruthisinorderthat,firmlygraspingitandthoroughlycomprehendingitinall itsreciprocalrelations,wemaybeabletomakethemostefficientuseofitforitsholypurpose.Wellworthourmostlaboriousstudy,then,as it is, for itsownsakeasmere truth, itbecomesnotonlyabsorbinglyinteresting,but inexpressiblyprecious touswhenwebear inmind thatthetruthwithwhichwethusdealconstitutes,asawhole, theengraftedWordthatisabletosaveoursouls.Thetaskofthoroughlyexploringthepages of revelation, soundly gathering from them their treasures oftheologicalteaching,andcarefullyfittingtheseintotheirdueplacesinasystem whereby they may be preserved from misunderstanding,perversion, and misuse, and given a new power to convince theunderstanding,movetheheart,andquickenthewill,becomesthusaholyduty toourownandourbrothers' soulsaswell asaneagerpleasureofourintellectualnature.

That the knowledge of the truth is an essential prerequisite to theproduction of those graces and the building up of those elements of asanctified character for theproductionofwhicheach truth isespeciallyadapted, probably few will deny: but surely it is equally true that theclearer, fuller, and more discriminating this knowledge is, the morecertainly and richlywill it produce its appropriate effect; and in this isfound a most complete vindication of the duty of systematizing theseparateelementsof truth intoasinglesoundlyconcatenatedwhole,by

whichtheessentialnatureofeachismadeasclearas itcanbemadetohuman apprehension. It is not a matter of indifference, then, how weapprehendandsystematizethistruth.Onthecontrary,ifwemisconceiveit in itspartsor in its relations,notonly do our views of truth becomeconfusedanderroneous, but also our religious life becomesdwarfedorcontorted.Thecharacterofourreligionis,inaword,determinedbythecharacterofourtheology:andthusthetaskofthesystematictheologianistoseethattherelationsinwhichtheseparatetruthsactuallystandarerightlyconceived,inorderthattheymayexerttheirrightfulinfluenceonthedevelopmentofthereligiouslife.Asnotruthissoinsignificantastohavenoplace in thedevelopmentofour religious life, sono truth is sounimportantthatwedareneglectitordealdeceitfullywithitinadjustingitintooursystem.Wearesmittenwithadeadlyfearontheoneside,lestbyfittingthemintoasystemofourowndevising,wecutfromthemjusttheanglesbywhichtheywereintendedtolayholdoftheheartsofmen:but on the other side, we are filled with a holy confidence that, byallowingthemtoframethemselvesintotheirownsystemasindicatedbytheirownnatures-asthestonesinSolomon'stemplewerecuteachforitsplace-weshallmakeeachavailable forallmen, for just theplace inthesavingprocessforwhichitwasdivinelyframedanddivinelygiven.

These theoretical considerations are greatly strengthened by thehistoricalfact,thatthroughoutalltheageseveryadvanceinthescientificstatementof theological truthhasbeenmade in response to a practicaldemand,andhasbeenmadeinadistinctlypracticalinterest.Wewhollymisconceive the facts ifwe imagine that the development of systematictheologyhasbeentheworkofcold,scholasticrecluses,intentonlyuponintellectualsubtleties.IthasbeentheworkofthebestheartofthewholeChurchdrivingonandutilizing in itspractical interests, thebestbrain.The true state of the case could not be better expressed than it is byProfessorAugusteSabatier,whenhetellsusthat:

The promulgation of each dogma has been imposed on the Church bysome practical necessity. It has always been to bring to an end sometheological controversy which was in danger of provoking a schism, torespondtoattacksoraccusationswhichitwouldhavebeendangeroustopermittoacquirecredit,thattheChurchhasmovedinadogmaticway...

.NothingismoremistakenthantorepresenttheFathersoftheCouncils,or the members of the Synods as theoricians, or even as professionaltheologians,broughttogetherinconferencebyspeculativezealalone, inorder toresolvemetaphysicalenigmas.Theyweremenofaction,notofspeculation; courageous priests and pastors who understood theirmission,likesoldiersinopenbattle,andwhosefirstcarewastosavetheirChurch,itslife,itsunity,itshonor-readytodieforitasonediesforhiscountry.11

Inquitesimilarmanneroneofthelatestcritics(M.Pannier)ofCalvin'sdoctrinalworkfeelsmovedtobearhistestimonytothepracticalpurposewhichruledoverthedevelopmentofhissystem.Hesays:

In the midst, as at the outset of his work, it was the practicalpreoccupationsoflivingfaithwhichguidedhim,andneveravaindesireforpurespeculation.Ifthispracticalneedled[inthesuccessiveeditionsof the "Institutes"] to somenew theories, tomany fuller expositions ofprinciples, this was not only because he now desired his book to helpstudentsof theology to interpretScripturebetter - itwas because,withhissystematicgenius,Calvinunderstoodallthatwhich,fromthepointofview of their application, ideas gain severally in force by forming acompletewholearoundonemasterthought.12

Wroughtoutthusinresponsetopracticalneeds,theevergrowingbodyofscientifictheologyhasworkeditswayamongmenchieflybyvirtueof itseverincreasingpowerofmeetingtheirspiritualrequirements.Thestoryof the victory of Augustinianism in Southern Gaul, as brought out byProfessorArnoldofBreslau, is only a typical instanceofwhat each agehas experienced in its ownway, andwith itsown theological advances.HewarnsusthatthevictoryofAugustinianismisnottobeaccountedforby the learning or dialectic gifts of Augustine, nor by the vigorouspropagandakeptupinGaulbytheAfricanrefugees,norbytheinfluenceofCaesarius,deservedlygreatasthatwas,norbythepressurebroughttobearfromRome:butratherbythefullnessofitsprovisionfortheneedsofthesoul.

These were better met by Christianity than by heathenism; byCatholicism thanbyArianism;by theenthusiasmof asceticism than by

thelukewarmworldlinessoftheoldopponentsofmonachism:andtheyfound more strength and consolation in the fundamental Augustinianconception of divine grace, than in the paltry mechanism of thesynergisticmoralism.13

Here is thephilosophy,subspecietemporis,of theadvanceofdoctrinaldevelopment;anditallturnsontheprogressivelygrowingfitnessofthesystemofdoctrinetoproduceitspracticalfruits.14

Itmaypossiblybethought,however,thattheselessonsareill-appliedtosystematictheologyproperlysocalled:thatitmaybeallowedindeedthattheseparatetruthsofreligionmakethemselvesfeltinthelifeofmen,butscarcely that the systematic knowledge of them is of any value for thereligiouslife.Surely,however,wemayveryeasilyfallintoerrorhere.Wedonotpossesstheseparatetruthsofreligionintheabstract:wepossessthem only in their relations, and we do not properly know any one ofthem-norcanithaveitsfulleffectonourlife-exceptasweknowitinitsrelationstoothertruths,thatis,assystematized.Whatwedonotknow,in this sense, systematically, we rob of half its power on our conduct;unless, indeed,wearepreparedtoarguethatatruthhaseffectonus inproportionasitisunknown,ratherthaninproportionasitisknown.Towhich may be added that when we do not know a body of doctrinesystematically,wearesuretomisconceivethenatureofmoreorfewerofits separate elements; and to fancy, in thewordsofDr.CharlesHodge,"thatthatistruewhichamoresystematicknowledgewouldshowustobefalse,"sothat"ourreligiousbeliefandthereforeourreligious lifewouldbecome deformed and misshapen." Let us once more, however,strengthenourtheoreticalopinionbytestimony:andforthisletusappealtothewitnessofarecentFrenchwriterwhosupportshisownjudgmentby that of several of the best informed students of current FrenchProtestantism.15 Amid much external activity of Christian work, M.Arnaud tellsus,noonewoulddaresay that the life livedwithChrist inGodisflourishinginequalmeasure:andhisconclusionisthat,"inordertobeastrongandlivingChristian,itdoesnotsufficetosubmitourheartandwill to thegospel:wemust submit alsoourmindandour reason.""ThedoctrinesofChristianity,"headds:

ThedoctrinesofChristianityhavejustasmuchrighttobebelievedasits

dutieshavetobepractised,anditisnotpermissibletoaccepttheseandreject those. Inneglecting to inquirewithcare into theBiblical verities,andtoassimilatethembyreflection,theChristianlosespartofhisvirtue,thepreacherpartofhisforce;bothbuildtheirhouseonthesandorbeginat the top; they deprive themselves of the precious lights which canilluminate and strengthen their faith, and fortify them against thefrivolous or learned unbelief as well as against the aberrations of falseindividualism,thataresodiffusedinourday.

In supportof this judgmenthequotes strikingpassages, amongothers,fromMessrs.F.BonifasandCh.Bois.Theformersays:16

What strikesme to-day is the incomplete and fragmentary characterofour faith: the lack of precision in our Christian conceptions; a certainignoranceofthewonderfulthingswhichGodhasdoneforusandwhichHehasrevealed tous for thesalvationandnourishmentofour souls. Idiscover the traces of this ignorance in our preaching aswell as in ourdailylife.Andhereisoneofthecausesofthefeeblenessofspirituallifeinthe bosomof our flocks and among ourselves. To these fluid Christianconvictions,therenecessarilycorrespondsaloweredChristianlife.

Mr.Boissimilarlysays:17

Theredoesnotatpresentexistamongusastronglyconcatenatedbodyofdoctrine, possessing the conscience and determining the will.We haveconvictions,nodoubt, and even strong andactive convictions,but theyare, if I may so speak, isolated and merely juxtaposed in the mind,withoutanydeepbondunitingthemintoanorganism....Uponseveralfundamental points, even among believers, there is a vagueness, anindetermination,whichleaveaccessopentoeveryfluctuationandtothemost unexpected mixtures of belief. Contradictory elements often livetogether and struggle with one another, even in the most positivelyconvinced,without their suspecting the enmity of the guests they havereceived into their thought. It is astonishing to observe the strangeamalgamswhichspringupandacclimatethemselvesinthemindsoftheyoung theological generations, which have been long deprived of thestrong discipline of the past. This incoherence of ideas producesweaknessanddangerelsewherealso,besidesinthesphereofdoctrine.It

is impossiblebut that spiritual life andpractical activity should sustainalsoseriousdamagefromthisintellectualanarchy.

Cannotwesee in thestateofFrenchProtestantismasdepictedintheseextracts, a warning to ourselves, among whom we may observe thebeginnings of the same doctrinal anarchy? And shall we not, at least,learn thismuch: that doctrine is in order to life, and that the study ofdoctrinemust be prosecuted in a spirit whichwould see its end in thecorrection and edificationof life? Shallwenot, as students of doctrine,listendevoutlytothewordsofoneoftherichestwritersonexperimentalreligionofourgeneration,18whenhetellsusthat

LivingknowledgeofourlivingLord,andofourneedofHim,andofourrelations toHimforpeace, life, testimony, service, consistency, isgivenbytheHolyComforteralone.But it isgivenbyHiminthegreatruleofHisdealingswithman,onlythroughthechannelofdoctrine,ofrevealed,recorded,authenticatedtruthconcerningtheLordoflife.

Andshallwenotcatchthemeaningoftheillustrationswhichheadds:

Does thehappy soul,happybecausebrought to the "confidenceof self-despair,"andtoasightof thefoundationofallpeace, finditselfsaying,"OLambofGod,Icome,"andknowthatitfalls,nevertobecastout,intothe embraces of ever-living love? Every element in that profoundexperienceofrestfuljoyhastodowithdoctrine,appliedbytheSpirit."OLamb of God" would be a meaningless incantation were it not for theprecious andmost definite doctrine of the sacrifice of propitiation andpeace. That I may "come just as I am" is a matter of pure Divineinformation. My emotions, my deepest and most awful convictions,withoutsuchinformation,saytheopposite;myinstinctistocry,"Depart,forIamasinfulman."Theblesseddoctrine,notmyreveries,says,"Nay;Hewaswoundedforthytransgressions;comeuntoHim."...Andwhen[one]...drawstowardsthejourney'send,andexchangesthetrialsofthepilgrimageforthelasttrial,"theriverthathathnobridge,"whydoesheaddresshimselfinpeacetodie,thismanwhohasbeentaughttheevilofhis own heart and the holiness of the Judge of all? It is because ofdoctrine. He knows the covenant of peace, and theMediator of it. Heknows,andheknowsitthroughrevealeddoctrineonly,thattodepartis

tobewithChrist,andisfarbetter.Heknowsthatthestingofdeathissin,andthestrengthofsinisthelaw.Butheknows,withthesamecertainty,thatGod givethus the victory through our Lord JesusChrist; and thatHissheepshallneverperish;and thatHewill raiseupagainat the lastday him that has come to God through Him. All this is doctrine. It ismadetoliveinthemanbytheHolyGhostgiventohim.Butitisinitselfcreed,notlife.Itisrevealedinformation.

If such be the value and use of doctrine, the systematic theologian ispreeminently a preacher of the gospel; and the end of his work isobviouslynotmerely the logical arrangement of the truthswhich comeunderhishand,butthemovingofmen,throughtheirpower,toloveGodwith all their hearts and their neighbors as themselves; to choose theirportionwith theSaviour of their souls; to find andholdHimprecious;and to recognize and yield to the sweet influences of the Holy SpiritwhomHehassent.Withsuchtruthasthishewillnotdaretodeal inacoldandmerelyscientificspirit,butwilljustlyandnecessarilypermititspreciousnessanditspracticaldestinationtodeterminethespiritinwhichhe handles it, and to awaken the reverential love with which alone heshould investigate its reciprocal relations. For this he needs to besuffused at all times with a sense of the unspeakable worth of therevelationwhich liesbeforehimas the sourceofhismaterial, andwiththepersonalbearingsofitsseparatetruthsonhisownheartandlife;heneeds to have had and to be having a full, rich, and deep religiousexperience of the great doctrines with which he deals; he needs to beliving close to his God, to be resting always on the bosom of hisRedeemer, to be filled at all times with the manifest influences of theHoly Spirit. The student of systematic theology needs a very sensitivereligiousnature,amostthoroughlyconsecratedheart,andanoutpouringof the Holy Ghost upon him, such as will fill him with that spiritualdiscernment,withoutwhichallnativeintellectisinvain.Heneedstobenotmerelyastudent,notmerelyathinker,notmerelyasystematizer,notmerelyateacher-heneedstobelikethebeloveddisciplehimselfinthehighest,truest,andholiestsense,adivine.

Endnotes:

1. Reprinted from The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vii. 1896,pp.243-271.

2. ProfessorD.W.Simon,D.D., "TheNatureandScopeofSystematicTheology,"inBibliothecaSacra,li.1894,p.587.

3. Loc.cit.,p.592.4. W.S.Bruce,"TheEthicsoftheOldTestament,"1895,pp.12-14.5. Cf.theground-textswhichProfessorLaidlawhasplacedatthehead

of the firstdivisionofhis "TheBibleDoctrineofMan," 1895: "Thetruth concerning the soul can only be established by the word ofGod." - Plato, "Timæus," 72 D. "How can the knowledge of thesubstanceoftherationalsoulbesoughtorhadfromphilosophy?Itmustsurelybederivedfromthesamedivineinspirationfromwhichthe substance of the soul first emanated." - Bacon, "De AugmentisScientiarum,"lib.iv.cap.iii.§3.

6. E. B. Pusey, "Collegiate and Professorial Teaching andDiscipline,"Oxford:Parker,1854,pp.215,216.

7. A. M. Fairbairn, "Theology as an Academic Discipline," in TheContemporaryReview,li.1887,p.202.

8. Article"Theology,"inthe"EncyclopmdiaBritannica,"ninthedition,xxiii.1888,pp.264f.

9. ItmaybeusefultoseektogivearoughgraphicrepresentationoftherelationsofSystematicTheologyasthusfaroutlined:

10. "Commendme,"saysColeridge,"totheIrisharchitectwhotookoutthe foundation stone to repair the roof" ("Anima Poetæ," 1895, p.139). Such architects seem to be rather numerous in the sphere oftheology.

11. A.Sabatier,"Esquissed'unephilosophiedelareligion,"1897,p.306;cf."TheVitalityofChristianDogmas,"London,1898,pp.31-33.

12. JacquesPannier,"LeTemoignageduSaint-Esprit,"1893,p.79.13. C.F.Arnold,"CaesariusvonArelate,"1894,p.343.14. It is only another way of saying this to say with Professor W. M.

Ramsay,when speaking of another of the great controversies (TheExpositor, January, 1896 (Fifth Series, iii.], p. 52): "Difficult,however, as it is to appreciate the real character of the Ariancontroversy as a question of social life, on the whole we gather, Ithink,thattheprogressivetendencieswereonthesideofBasil,andacquiescence in the existing standard ofmorality characterized the

Arianpointofview.The'Orthodox'Churchwasstillthechampionofhigher aspirations, and Basil, however harsh he was to all whodifferedfromhim,wasanennoblingandupward-strugglingforceinthelifeofhistime."

15. Arnaud,"Manueldedogmatique,"1890,p.ix.16. "Delavaleurreligieusedesdoctrineschrétiennes,"p.14.17. RevuetheologiquedeMontauban,13eAnnée,p.14.18. Principal H. C. G. Moule, in his paper entitled "On the Relations

Between Doctrine and Life," printed in "The Church and herDoctrine" (NewYork:TheChristianLiteratureCo., 1892), pp. 185-188.

TheTaskandMethodofSystematicTheology


Reprinted from The American Journal of Theology, xiv. 1910, pp. 192-205.

By "Systematic Theology" is meant that department or section oftheological sciencewhich is concernedwithsetting forthsystematically,that is to say,asa concatenatedwhole,what isknownconcerningGod.Other departments or sections of theological science undertake othertasks.WhethersuchabeingasGodexistsneedstobeascertained,andifsuchabeingexists,whetherHe isknowable;whethersuchcreaturesasmenarecapableofknowingHim,and,ifso,whatsourcesofinformationconcerningHimareaccessible.This is thetaskofapologetical theology.These matters being determined, it is necessary to draw out from thesourcesofinformationconcerningGodwhichareaccessibletous,allthatcan be known ofGod. This is the task of exegetical theology. A criticalsurvey of previous attempts to draw from the sources of informationconcerning God what may be known of God, with an estimate of theresultsoftheseattemptsandoftheirtestinginlife,isnextincumbentonus.Thisisthetaskofhistoricaltheology.FinallywemustinquireintotheuseofthisknowledgeofGodandthewaysinwhichitmaybebestappliedto human needs. This is the task of practical theology. Among thesevariousdepartmentsorsectionsoftheologicalsciencethereisobviouslyplacefor,orratherthereispositivelydemanded,yetanother,thetaskofwhich is to set forth in systematic formulation the results of theinvestigations of exegetical theology, clarified and enforced by theinvestigationsofhistoricaltheology,whicharetobeappliedbypracticaltheologytotheneedsofman.Herethewarrantofsystematictheology,itstask,anditsencyclopedicplaceareatonceexhibited.Itisthebusinessofsystematic theology to take the knowledge of God supplied to it byapologetical,exegetical,andhistoricaltheology,scrutinize itwithaviewtodiscoveringtheinnerrelationsofitsseveralelements,andset it forthinasystematicpresentation,thatistosay,asanorganicwhole,sothatit

maybegraspedandheldinitsentirety,intheduerelationofitspartstooneanotherand to thewhole, andwith a just distributionof emphasisamong the several items of knowledge which combine to make up thetotalityofourknowledgeofGod.

Itisclearatoncethat"systematictheology"formsthecentral,orperhapswemaybettersaytheculminating,departmentoftheologicalscience.Itisthegoaltowhichapologetical,exegetical,andhistorical theology leadup;anditprovidesthematterwhichpracticaltheologyemploys.WhatismostimportantintheknowledgeofGod-whichiswhattheologyis-is,ofcourse,justtheknowledgeofGod;andthatiswhatsystematictheologysets forth. Apologetical theology puts us in the way of obtainingknowledge of God. Exegetical theology gives us this knowledge in itsdisjecta membra. Historical theology makes us aware how it has beenapprehendedandtransmutedintolife.Practicaltheologyteachesushowto propagate it in theworld. It is systematic theology which spreads itbeforeusintheformmostaccessibletoourmodesofconception,poursit, so to speak, into themolds of ourminds, andmakes it our assuredpossession that we may thoroughly understand and utilize it. There isnothing strange, therefore, in the commonmanner of speech bywhichsystematic theology absorbs into itself all theology. In point of fact,theology, as the science of God, comes to itself only in systematictheology;andifwesetsystematictheologyoveragainstothertheologicaldisciplines as a separable department of theological science, this is notthat we divide the knowledge of God up among these departments,retaining only some of it - perhaps a small or a relatively unimportantportion - for systematic theology;butonly thatwe trace theprocess bywhich the knowledge of God is ascertained, clarified, and ordered, upthroughtheseveralstagesofthedealingofthehumanmindwithituntilat last, in systematic theology, it stands before our eyes in completeformulation.

Thechoiceoftheterm"systematictheology"todesignatethisdepartmentoftheologicalsciencehasbeenmadetheoccasionofsomecriticism,andits employment has been accornpanied by some abuse. It is, no doubt,capable of being misunderstood and misused, as what term is not? Itoughttobeunnecessarytoexplainthatitsemploymentisnotintendedto

implythatotherdepartmentsoftheologicalscienceareprosecutedinanunsystematicmanner, that is to say, in adisorderlyway and tono saferesults.Norought it tobenecessary toprotestagainst advantagebeingtaken of the breadth of the term "systematic," in its popular usage, tosubsumeunderitaseriesofincongruousdisciplineswhichhavenothingincommonexceptthattheyareallsystematicallypursued.Whatthetermnaturally designates is that department of theological science in whichtheknowledgeofGodispresentedasaconcatenatedsystemoftruth;anditisnotmerelythenaturalbuttheperfectlyexplicitandprobablythebestdesignationofthisdepartmentof theologicalscience.Atalleventsnoneof its synonyms which have from time to time been in use-such astheoretical,thetical,methodical,scholastic,didactic,dogmatictheology-seemstopossessanyadvantageoverit.

Themostcommonlyemployedofthesesynonyms,sinceits introductionby Lucas Friedrich Reinhard in his "Synopsis theologicae dogmaticae,"1660, has been "dogmatic theology." This designation differs from"systematictheology"bylayingstressupontheauthoritywhichattachestotheseveraldoctrinesbroughttogetherinthepresentation,ratherthanupon the presentation of them in a system. A dogma is, briefly, anestablishedtruth,authoritativeandnottobedisputed.Thegroundofitsauthoritativeness is indifferent to the term itself, andwill varywith thepointofviewofthedogmatician.TheRomanistwillfinditinthedecreesof the Church, by which the several dogmas are established. TheProtestantwillfinditinthedeclarationsofScripture:"VerbumDei,"saythe Smalkald Articles, "condit articulos fidei, et praeterea nemo, neangelus quidem." "Moderns" will attenuate it into whatever generalconsiderations exist to commend the propositions in question to ourcredit,andwillnotpauseuntiltheyhavetransmuteddogmasinto-toputitshortly-justour"religiousbeliefs.""Adogma,"saysDr.A.J.Headlam,"meansatruthtobebelieved";anditisthetaskofdogmatics,accordingtohim,"toinvestigate,toexpound,andtosystematizethosetruthsaboutGod and human destiny, whether derived from nature or revelation,which should be believed" - a definitionwhich, if taken literally,mightseemtoimplythattherearesome"truths"aboutGodandhumandestiny-whetherderivedfromnatureorfromrevelation-whichshouldnotbebelieved.Thisambiguityintheconnotationoftheterm"dogma"isfatal

to the usefulness of its derivative "dogmatic" as a designation of adepartmentoftheologicalscience.Itundertakestotellusnothingofthedepartment to which it is applied but the nature of the elements withwhich it deals; and it leaves us in uncertaintywhat the nature of theseelementsis,whetherestablishedtruthsoronly"religiousbeliefs."

"Systematic theology" is attended with no such drawbacks. It properlydescribes the department to which it is attached, according to its ownnature:itisthedepartmentinwhichthetruthsconcerningGod,giventousbytheotherdepartmentsoftheologicalscience,aresystematizedandpresented in their proper relations to one another and to thewhole ofwhich they form parts. The authority of the truths with which it dealsdoesnotconstituteitspeculiarityasadepartmentoftheologicalscience.These truths were just as authoritative as presented by exegeticaltheologyonebyonetoourseparateconsideration,aswhenpresentedbysystematictheologytoourviewintheirconcatenationwithoneanotherinto a consistent whole. Their authority was not bestowed on them bytheirsystematization;andtheydonotwaituntilpresentedbysystematictheology to acquire authority. What constitutes the peculiarity of thisdepartmentoftheologicalscienceisthatinitthesetruthsarepresentednotonebyoneinisolation,butinamutuallyrelatedbody-inasystem.What more truly descriptive name for it could be invented than just"systematictheology"?

There are some, no doubt, to whom it may seem presumptuous toattempt to systematize our knowledge of God. If we possess anyknowledge of God at all, however, the attempt to systematize it is anecessityofthehumanspirit.IfweknowsomuchastwofactsconcerningGod, thehumanmind is incapableofholding these facts apart; itmustcontemplate them in relation to one another. Systematization is only apartoftheirrepressibleeffortoftheintelligencetocomprehendthefactspresentedtoit,aneffortwhichtheintelligencecanescapeonlybyceasingtobeintelligence.Itmaysystematizewell,orill;butsystematizeitmustwhenever it holds together, in its unitary grasp, more facts than one.Wherever God is in any degree known by a being of a systematicallyworkingmind,therefore,thereisatheologyintheexpresssenseofthatword,thatis,a"systematictheology."Onlytheatheistortheagnosticon

theoneside,theidiotorthelunaticontheother,canbewithoutsuchatheology.IfthereisaGod;ifanythingwhateverisknownofthisGod;ifthe being possessing this knowledge is capable of orderly thought - atheologyinthissenseisinevitable.It isbutthereflectionintheorderlyworking intelligence of God perceived as such; and it exists, therefore,whereverGod isperceivedandrecognized.DoubtandhesitationbeforethetaskofsystematizingourknowledgeofGod-bethatknowledgegreatorsmall-isthereforenotaneffectofreverence,butanoutgrowthofthatagnostictemperwhichlurksbehindmuchmodernthinking.

Theleavenofagnosticismunderlyingmuchofmodernthoughttowhichallusion has just been made, manifests itself more distinctly in thecontinuousattempt,whichismoreorlessdeliberatelymade,toshifttheobjectoftheknowledgewhichsystematictheologysystematizesfromGodto something else, deemed more capable of being really known by ormore accessible to such beings as men. Theology, ex vi verbi, is thesystematizedknowledgeofGod;andifGodexistsandanyknowledgeofHim whatever is accessible to us, there must be such a thing as asystematicknowledgeofHim,anditwouldseemthatthiswouldbetheproper connotation of the term "theology." Nevertheless, we arerepeatedlybeing told that theology isnot thescienceofGod, itsobject-matter being God in His existence and activities, but the science ofreligion or of faith, its object-matter being the religious phenomenamanifestedbyhumanityatlarge,orobservableinthesoulsofbelievers.Awholegenerationoftheologians,havingthecourageoftheirconvictions,accordingly almost ceased to speak of "systematic theology," preferringsome such name as the "science of faith" (Glaubenslehre). It wasSchleiermacher,ofcourse,whogavethissubjectivetwisttowhathestillspoke of as "Dogmatics." Dogmas to him were no longer authoritativepropositions concerning God, but "conceptions of the states of theChristian religious consciousness, set forth in formal statement"; anddogmatics was to him accordingly nothing more than the systematicpresentationofthebodyofsuchdogmasinvogueinanygivenchurchatanygiven time.Accordinglyhe classified it frankly, alongwith "ChurchStatistics,"underthecaptionof"TheHistoricalKnowledgeofthePresentSituationof theChurch."Undoubtedly it isverydesirabletoknowwhattheChurchat large,oranyparticularbranchof theChurch,believes at

any given stage of its development. But this helps us to a betterknowledgeof theChurch,notofGod;andbywhatrighttheformulatedresults of such a historical inquiry can be called "dogmatics" or"systematic theology" simpliciter and not rather, historically, "thedogmatic system of theGermanLutheranChurch in the year 1821," or"the doctrinal belief of the American Baptists of 1910," it would bedifficult to explain.Thematter is not in principle altered if the end setbeforeusistodelineate,notthedoctrinalbeliefsofaparticularchurchataparticulartime,butthereligiousconceptionsofhumanityatlarge.Wearestillmovingintheregionofhistory,andtheresultsofourresearcheswillbethatweshallknowbetter,notGod,butman-maninhisreligiousnatureandintheproductsofhisreligiousactivities.Afterall,thescienceofreligionissomethingradicallydifferentfromsystematictheology.Wecannotthuslightlyrenouncetheknowledgeofthemostimportantobjectofknowledgeinthewholecompassofknowledge.Overagainsttheworldandallthatisintheworld,includingmanandallthatisinman,andallthat is the product of man's highest activities, intellectual and, in thenoblestsensethewordmaybear,spiritual,thereafterallstandsGod;andHe -HeHimself, not our thought aboutHimor ourbeliefs concerningHim, butHeHimself - is the object of our highest knowledge. And toknowHimisnotmerelythehighestexerciseofthehumanintellect;itisthe indispensable complement of the circle of human science, which,without theknowledgeofGod, is fatally incomplete. ItwasnotwithoutreasonthatAugustinerenouncedtheknowledgeofallelsebutGodandthesoul;andthatCalvindeclarestheknowledgeofGodandourselvesthesumofallusefulknowledge.WithouttheknowledgeofGodit isnottoomuch to say we know nothing rightly, so that the renunciation of theknowledgeofGodcarrieswithitrenunciationofallrightknowledge.Itisthis knowledge of God which is designated by the appropriate term"theology," and it, as the science of God, stands over against all othersciences, each having its own object, determining for each its ownpeculiarsubject-matter.

Theology being, thus, the systematized knowledge of God, thedeterminingquestionwhichdividestheologiesconcernsthesourcesfromwhich this knowledgeofGod is derived. Itmaybe agreed, indeed,thatthe sole source of all possible knowledge ofGod is revelation.God is a

person;andapersonisknownonlyasheexpresseshimself,whichisasmuchastosayonlyashemakeshimselfknown,revealshimself.Butthisagreementisonlyformal.SosoonasitisaskedhowGodrevealsHimself,theologyissetoveragainsttheologyinineradicableopposition.ThehingeonwhichthecontroversyparticularlyturnsisthequestionwhetherGodhasrevealedHimselfonly inworks,oralso inword:ultimatelywhetherHehasmadeHimselfknownonlyinthenaturaloralsoinasupernaturalrevelation.Answerthisquestionaswemay,weshallstillhaveatheology,but according to our answer, sowill be our theology, notmerely in itscontents but in its very method. By revelation may be meant nothingmorethantheevolutionofreligiousideasintheage-longthinkingoftherace, conceived (whether pantheistically ormore or less theistically) astheexpressionofthedivinemindintheformsofhumanthought.Inthatcase,theworkofsystematictheologyfollowsthelinesofthepsychologyandphenomenologyofreligion;itstaskistogatheroutandtocastintoasystematicstatementthemetaphysicalimplicationsoftheresultsofthesedepartments of investigation. Or revelationmay be summed up in theimpression made by the phenomenon of Jesus on the minds of Hisbelievingfollowers.Then,whattheologyhastodoistounfoldtheideasofGodwhichare involved in thisexperience.Or,again, revelationmaybethought to lie in a series of extraordinary occurrences, conceived asredemptiveactsonthepartofGod, insertedintothecourseofordinaryhistory.Inthatcasethetaskoftheologyistodrawouttheimplicationsofthis series of extraordinary events in their sequence, and in theirculminationintheapparitionofChrist.Or,oncemore,revelationmaybeheldtoincludethedirectcommunicationoftruththroughchosenorgansofthedivineSpirit.Thenthefundamental taskof theologybecomestheascertainment, formulation, and systematization of the truth thuscommunicated, and if this truth comes to it fixed in an authoritativewrittenrecord, it isobviousthat its task isgreatly facilitated.Thesearenot questions raised by systematic theology; nor does it belong tosystematic theology to determine them. That task has already beenperformed for it by the precedent department of theological sciencewhichwecallapologetics,whichthusdeterminesthewholestructureandcontentsofsystematictheology.Thetaskofsystematictheologyisnottovalidatethereality,ortodefinethenature,ortodeterminethemethodofrevelation; nor, indeed, even to ascertain the truths communicated by

revelation;buttosystematizethesetruthswhenplacedinitshandsbytheprecedentdisciplinesofapologetical,exegetical,andhistoricaltheology.

The question of the sources of our knowledge of God culminatesobviously in thequestionof theScriptures.Do theScriptures containaspecial revelation of God; or are they merely a record of religiousaspirations and attainments of men - under whatever (more or less)divineleading?AretheythemselvesthedocumentedrevelationofGodtoman; or do theymerely contain the record of the effect onmen of therevelation of God made in a series of redemptive acts culminating inChrist,orpossiblymadeinChristalone?ArethedeclarationsofScripturethe authoritative revelations of God to us which need only to beunderstoodtobecomeitemsinourtrustworthyknowledgeofGod;oraretheymerelyhumanstatements,conveyingwithmoreorlessaccuracytheimpressionsreceivedbymeninthepresenceofdivinemanifestationsofmoreorlesspurity?Ontheanswerswhichourapologeticsgivestosuchquestions as these, depend the entire method and contents of oursystematictheology.Manyvoicesareraisedaboutus,declaring"theoldviewoftheScriptures"nolongertenable;meaningbythistheviewthatrecognizes them as the documented revelation of God and treats theirdeclarationsastheauthoritativeenunciationsoftruth.NeverthelessmenhavenotcommonlywishedtobreakentirelywiththeScriptures.Inonewayoranothertheyhaveusuallydesiredtoseeinthemarecordofdivinerevelation;andinonesenseoranothertheyhavedesiredtofindinthem,ifnotthesource,yetthenorm,oftheknowledgeofGodwhichtheyhavesought to set forth in their theologies. This apparent deference toScripture is, however, illusory. In point of fact, on a closer scrutiny oftheir actual procedure, it will be discovered that "modern thinkers" ingeneral really set aside Scripture altogether as source or evenauthoritativenormof our knowledge ofGod, anddepend, according totheir individual predilections, on reason, on Christian experience,corporate or personal, or on tradition, for all the truth concerningGodwhich they will admit. The formal incorporation by them of Scriptureamongthesourcesoftheologyismerelyafashionofspeechderivedfromthehistoricalevolutionoftheir"new"viewsandisindicatoryonlyofthestarting-pointof theirdevelopment.Theircase ismuchthesameas theRomanist'swhostill formallyplacesScriptureat thebaseofhis"ruleof

faith"inthecomplicatedformula:Scriptureplustradition,asinterpretedbytheChurch,speakingthroughits infallibleorgan,thepope-while inpointof fact it is just thepope, speakingex cathedra,whichconstitutestheactualauthoritytowhichhebows.

Astriking illustrationofhowmencling tosucholdphraseology after ithasbecomeobsoletetotheiractualthoughtmaybederivedfromarecentwriterwhomwehavealreadytakenoccasiontoquote.Dr.A.C.Headlam,whoseinheritanceisAnglicanwhilehiscriticalpointofviewis"modern,"reallyrecognizesnosourceoftheologicalbeliefs(forwithhimdogmaticsdeals with beliefs, not truths) but tradition and the living voice of theChurch.Yetthisisthewayhedescribesthesourcesofhistheology:"Thecontinuousrevelationof theOldTestamentasaccepted in theNew, therevelation of Christ in the New Testament, the witness of Christiantradition,andthelivingvoiceoftheChristianChurch."Thestatementissofarincompletethatitomitstherevelationof"nature,"forDr.Headlarnallows thatnaturemay teachus somewhatof itsMaker: it includes thesources only of what Dr. Headlarn would perhaps call "revealedtheology."What is tobenoted is that itavoidssayingsimplythatthesesourcesareScripture, tradition,andthe livingvoiceof theChurch, asaRomanist might have said, reserving of course the right of furtherexplanationofhowthesethreesourcesstandrelatedtooneanother.Dr.Headlam has gone too far withmodern Biblical criticism to accept theScripturesasadirectsourceofdogma.Hethereforeframeswaryformsofstatement.Hedoesnotsay"theOldTestament,"oreven"thecontinuousrevelationoftheOldTestament."Heintroducesaqualifyingclause:"ThecontinuousrevelationoftheOldTestamentasacceptedintheNew."Thisisnot,however, tomake theNewTestament the authoritative norm oftheologicaltruth.ProceedingtospeakofthisNewTestament,hedoesnotsaysimply"theNewTestament";oreven"therevelationembodiedintheNewTestament."Herestrictshimselfto:"TherevelationofChristintheNew Testament." It is not, we see, the Old and New Testamentsthemselves he is thinking of; he does not accord authority to either ofthemasisdone,forexample,whentheyarespokenofintheoldphrase,"God's Word written." His appeal to them is not as the documentedrevelationofGod,noreven,asmightbeperhapssupposedatfirstsight,asthetrustworthyrecordofsuchrevelationsasGodhasgiven;butsimply

asdepositories,sofar,ofChristianbeliefs.TheScriptures,inaword,areofvaluetohimonlyaswitnesstoChristiantradition.Hesaysexplicitly:"TheScripturesaresimplyapartoftheChristiantradition";andheisatpains to show that Christianity, having antedated the New Testament,cannotbederivedfromitbutmustratherbejustreflectedinit.Hedoesnot even look upon the Scriptures as a trustworthy depository ofChristiantradition.Thetraditionwhichtheypreserveforusisdeclaredtobebothincompleteanddistorted.Theycannotserve,therefore,evenasatestof tradition;contrariwise, tradition is thenormofScriptureand itscorrection is needed to enable us safely to draw from Scripture. "It istradition," we read, "which gives us the true proportions of apostolicteaching and practice," by which the one-sidedness of the Scripturalrecord is rectified. If, then, Dr. Headlam's view of the sources ofdogmaticswere statedwith succinct clearness,undeflectedbymodesofspeechwhichhavebecomeoutworn tohim,we shouldhave to saythatthese sources are just "tradition" and "the voice of the living Church."Scriptureistohimmerelyanuntrustworthyvehicleoftradition.

Dr. Headlam is an Anglican, and when the authority of Scripturedissolves in his hands, he drops back naturally on "the Church," - its"tradition," its "living voice." Others, born under different skies, haveonlytheauthorityoftheChristian'sownspirittofallbackon,whetherasarationallythinkingentity,orasafaith-enlightenedsoul.Amightyeffortis, indeed,made to escape from the individualistic subjectivism of thispoint of view; but with indifferent success. It is not, however, to theScripturesthatappealismadeinthisinterest.Ratherisitcommonwiththiswholeschoolofwriters that it isnot theScripturesbut "thegospel"whichsuppliesthenormbywhichthefaithoftheindividualisregulated,orthesourcefromwhichitderivesitspositivecontent.This"gospel"maybespokenof, indeed,as"theessentialcontentandthe inspiringsouloftheHolyScriptures."Butthisdoesnotmeanthatwhateverwemayfindwritten in theScriptures enters into this "gospel," but rather that ofallwhich stands written in the Scriptures only that which we esteem the"gospel"hasreligioussignificanceandthereforetheologicalvalue.Whatthis"gospel"is,therefore,isnotobjectivelybutsubjectivelydetermined.Sometimes it is frankly declared to be just that element in Scripturewhich awakens our souls to life; sometimes more frankly still it is

affirmed to be only what in Scripture approves itself to our Christianjudgment. "What isaproper functionofaChristianman,"demands anAmericanwriternotwithoutheat,"ifnottoknowaChristiantruthwhenhe sees it?" - just Paul's question turned topsy-turvy, since Paul woulddraw the inference that whoever did not recognize his words as thecommandmentsofGodwasthereforenoChristianman.Sometimes,withan effort to attain a greater show of objectivity, the "gospel" is said toincludeall thatmeasuresup to the revelationofGod inChrist.But thetroubleisthattheChristwhichisthusmadethetouchstoneisHimselfasubjective creation. He is not the Christ of the gospel narrative, as Hestandsoutuponthepagesoftheevangelists;foreveninitsportraitureofJesus the Scriptures are held untrustworthy. The Jesus by which wewouldtryScriptureisratherareflectionbackuponthepageofScriptureofwhatweconceivetherevelationofGodinChristoughttobe.Whenourvery touchstone is thus a subjective creation, it is easy to estimate howmuch real objective authority belongs to the Scriptural revelationdetermined by it.One of themost interesting, and certainly one of themoststrenuousattemptstopreserveforScriptureacertainrecognitionintheological construction from this point of view is supplied by JuliusKaftan.Kaftanisemphaticandinsistentthatthefaith-knowledgewhich,accordingtohim,constitutesthesubstanceofdogmatics,takesholduponobjectiverealitieswhicharemattersofrevelationandthatthisrevelationis recorded in the Scriptures. But unfortunately he is equally emphaticand insistent that this "revelation"witnessed by the Scriptures is not acommunicationoftruths,butaseriesofoccurrences,testifiedtoassuch,indeed,bytheScriptures(whenhistorico-criticallydealtwith),butbynomeans authoritatively, or even trustworthily interpreted by theScriptures. And therefore it is utilizable for the purposes of dogmaticsonlyasitistakenupby"faith"andtransmutedbyfaithintoknowledge;which is as much as to say that faith may, indeed, be quickened byScripture,butthematerialwhichistobebuiltintoourdogmaticsisnotwhat Scripture teaches but what we believe. "Dogmatics," we are toldexplicitly,"derivesnoneofitspropositionsdirectlyfromtheScriptures;...whatmediatesforDogmaticsbetweentheScripturesandthedogmaticpropositions, is faith." "The dogma of which Dogmatics treats is thedogmathatisrecognizedbythecommunity."Allofwhich,itwouldseem,wouldbemoreclearlyexpressed,ifitweresimplysaidthatthesourceof

dogmaticsisnotScripturebutfaith-thefaithofthecommunity.

This isnot theplace tovindicate theobjectiveauthority of Scripture asthedocumentedrevelationofGod.Thatisthetaskofapologetics.Whatwearenowseeking tomakeclear, isonly that, as thereareapologeticsandapologetics,so thereare, followingthem,systematictheologies andsystematic theologies. Systematic theology, as the presentation of theknowledgeofGodinsystematizedform,canbuildonlywiththematerialswhich theprecedentdepartmentsof theologicalsciencegive it andonlyafter a fashion consonant with the nature of these materials. If ourapologeticshasconvincedusthatwehavenootherknowledgeofGodbutthatgivenusbyarationalcontemplationoftheworld,recognizedasthework of His hands; or that given us by an analysis of the convictionswhichformthemselvesinheartsfixedonHim-ourprocedurewilltakeshape from the character of our sources and the modes by whichknowledge of God is elicited from them. But equally if our apologeticsassuresusthatGodnotonlymanifestsHimselfinHisworks,andmovesintheheartswhichturntoHiminfaith,buthasredemptivelyintervenedin the historical development of the race (without this redemptiveinterventionlostinsin),andthatnotmerelyinactsbutinwords,andhasfixedtherecordofthisinterventioninauthoritativeScriptures,ourwholeprocedureinsystematizingtheknowledgeofGodthusconveyedtouswillbe determined by the character of the sources on which we depend.TakingfromthehandsofapologeticsthenaturalknowledgeofGodwhichitscriticalsurveyoftheresultsofhumansciencebringsus,andfromthehandsofBiblicaltheologythesupernaturallyrevealedknowledgeofGodwhich its survey of the historical process of revelation yields us, andviewing all in the light of the progressive assimilation of the body ofknowledgeofGodbyHispeople, through twenty centuries of thinking,andfeeling,andliving-systematictheologyessaystocastthewholeintoa systematic formulation, conformed to the laws of thought andconsonant with the modes of conception proper to the humanintelligence.

Systematictheologyisthus,inessence,anattempttoreflectinthemirrorof thehumanconsciousness theGodwho revealsHimself inHisworksandword,andasHehasrevealedHimself.Itfindsitswholesubstancein

therevelationwhichwesupposeGodtohavemadeofHimself;andaswedifferastotherevelationwhichwesupposeGodtohavemade,sowilloursystematictheologiesdifferintheirsubstance.Itsformisgivenitbythegreater or less perfection of the reflection of this revelation in ourconsciousness. It is not imagined, of course, that this reflection can beperfect inany individualconsciousness. It is thepeopleofGodat largewho are really the subject of that knowledge of God which systematictheologyseekstosetforth.Norisit imaginedthateveninthepeopleofGodatlarge,intheirpresentimperfectcondition,oppressedbythesinofthe world of which they still form a part, the image of God can bereflected back toHim in its perfection. Only the pure in heart can seeGod;andwho,evenofHisredeemedsaints,areinthislifereallypureinheart?MeanwhileGodisframingtheknowledgeofHimselfintheheartsofHispeople;and,aseachoneof themseeks togiveexpression in theformsbestadaptedtohumanconsciousness,totheknowledgeofGodhehas received, a better and fuller reflection of the revealed God iscontinually growing up. Systematic theology is therefore a progressivescience.Itwillbeperfectedonlyinthemindsandheartsoftheperfectedsaintswhoattheend,beingatlastlikeGod,shallseeHimasHeis.Then,theGodwhohasrevealedHimselftoHispeopleshallbeknownbytheminallthefullnessofHisrevelationofHimself.Nowweknowinpart;butwhen thatwhich is perfect is come that which is in part shall be doneaway.

God


Reprinted from "A Dictionary of the Bible," edited by John D. Davis,Ph.D.,D.D.,LL.D.,1898,pp.251-253.

The English word "God" is derived from a rootmeaning "to call," andindicates simply the object of worship, one whom men call upon orinvoke. The Greek word which it translates in the pages of the NewTestament, however, describes this object ofworship as Spirit; and theOld Testament Hebrew word, which this word in turn represents,conveys, as its primarymeaning, the idea of power. On Christian lips,therefore, theword "God"designates fundamentally thealmighty Spiritwhoisworshipedandwhoseaidisinvokedbymen.ThisprimaryideaofGod,inwhichissummedupwhatisknownastheism,istheproductofthat general revelationwhichGodmakes ofHimself to allmen, on theplane of nature. The truths involved in it are continually reiterated,enriched, and deepened in the Scriptures; but they are not so muchrevealed by them as presupposed at the foundation of the specialrevelation with which the Scriptures busy themselves - the greatrevelationofthegraceofGodtosinners.OntheplaneofnaturemencanlearnonlywhatGodnecessarily is, andwhat, by virtueofHis essentialattributes,Hemustdo;aspecialcommunicationfromHimisrequisitetoassureuswhat,inHisinfinitelove,HewilldofortherecoveryofsinnersfromtheirguiltandmiserytotheblissofcommunionwithHim.Andforthe full revelationof this,Hisgrace in the redemptionof sinners, therewas requisite an even more profound unveiling of the mode of Hisexistence,bywhichHehasbeenultimatelydisclosedasincludingintheunity ofHis being a distinction of persons, by virtue ofwhich it is thesameGodfromwhom,throughwhom,andbywhomareallthings,whoisatonce theFatherwhoprovides, theSonwhoaccomplishes, and theSpiritwhoapplies, redemption.Only in theuncoveringof this supernalmysteryof theTrinity is the revelation ofwhatGod is completed. ThatthereisnohintoftheTrinityinthegeneralrevelationmadeontheplane

ofnatureisduetothefactthatnaturehasnothingtosayofredemption,in theprocessofwhich alone are thedepthsof thedivinenaturemadeknown.ThatitisexplicitlyrevealedonlyintheNewTestamentisduetothefactthatnotuntiltheNewTestamentstageofrevelationwasreachedwastheredemption,whichwasbeingpreparedthroughoutthewholeOldTestamenteconomy,actuallyaccomplished.That so ineffableamysterywas placed before the darkened mind of man at all is due to thenecessitiesof theplanofredemptionitself,whichisrootedinthetrinaldistinctionintheGodhead,andcanbeapprehendedonlyonthebasisoftheTrinityinUnity.

The nature of God has been made known to men, therefore, in threestages, corresponding to the three planes of revelation, and we willnaturally come to knowHim, first, as the infinite Spirit or the God ofnature;then,astheRedeemerofsinners,ortheGodofgrace;andlastlyastheFather,Son,andHolyGhost,ortheTriuneGod.

I.GOD,THEINFINITESPIRIT

The conviction of the existence of God bears themarks of an intuitivetruthinsofarasitistheuniversalandunavoidablebeliefofmen,andisgivenintheverysameactwiththeideaofself,whichisknownatonceasdependentandresponsibleandthusimpliesoneonwhomitdependsandtowhomitisresponsible.ThisimmediateperceptionofGodisconfirmedandthecontentsoftheideadevelopedbyaseriesofargumentsknownasthe"theisticproofs."Thesearederivedfromthenecessityweareunderofbelieving in the real existence of the infinitely perfect Being, of asufficientcauseforthecontingentuniverse,ofanintelligentauthoroftheorder and of the manifold contrivances observable in nature, and of alawgiverandjudgefordependentmoralbeings,endowedwiththesenseof duty and an ineradicable feeling of responsibility, conscious of themoralcontradictions of theworld and craving a solution for them, andliving under an intuitive perception of right which they do not seerealized. The cogency of these proofs is currently recognized in theScriptures, while they add to them the supernatural manifestations ofGodinaredemptiveprocess,accompaniedateverystagebymiraculousattestation. From the theistic proofs, however,we learnnot only that aGodexists,butalsonecessarily,ontheprincipleofasufficientcause,very

muchofthenatureoftheGodwhichtheyprovetoexist.Theideaisstillfurtherdeveloped,ontheprincipleofinterpretingbythehighestcategorywithin our reach, by our instinctive attribution to Him, in an eminentdegree, of all that is the source of dignity and excellence in ourselves.Thus we come to know God as a personal Spirit, infinite, eternal, andillimitablealikeinHisbeingandinthe intelligence,sensibility,andwillwhich belong to Him as personal spirit. The attributes which are thusascribed to Him, including self-existence, independence, unity,uniqueness, unchangeableness, omnipresence, infinite knowledge andwisdom, infinite freedom and power, infinite truth, righteousness,holinessandgoodness, are not only recognized but richly illustrated inScripture,which thusputs the sealof its special revelationuponall thedetailsofthenaturalideaofGod.

II.GOD,THEREDEEMEROFSINNERS

Whilereiteratingtheteachingofnatureastotheexistenceandcharacterof the personal Creator and Lord of all, the Scriptures lay their stressupon the grace or the undeserved love of God, as exhibited in HisdealingswithHissinfulandwrath-deservingcreatures.Solittle,however,is the consummate divine attribute of love advanced, in the Scripturalrevelation,attheexpenseoftheothermoralattributesofGod,thatit isthrown into prominence only upon a background of the strongestassertionandfullestmanifestationofitscompanionattributes,especiallyofthedivinerighteousnessandholiness,andisexhibitedasactingonlyalongwithand inentireharmonywiththem.God isnot represented inthe Scriptures as forgiving sin becauseHe really cares very little aboutsin;noryetbecauseHe is soexclusivelyorpredominatingly theGodoflove,thatallotherattributesshrinkintodesuetudeinthepresenceofHisillimitable benevolence. He is rather represented as moved to deliversinfulmanfromhisguiltandpollutionbecauseHepitiesthecreaturesofHis hand, immeshed in sin, with an intensity which is born of thevehemence of His holy abhorrence of sin and His righteousdetermination to visit it with intolerable retribution; and by a modewhichbringsascompletesatisfactiontoHisinfinitejusticeandholinessastoHisunboundedlove itself.TheBiblicalpresentationof theGodofgrace includesthus the richest development of allHismoral attributes,

andtheGodoftheBibleisconsequentlysetforth,inthecompletenessofthatidea,asaboveeverythingelsetheethicalGod.Andthatisasmuchastosay that there isascribed toHimamoralsensesosensitiveandtruethat it estimates with unfailing accuracy the exact moral character ofeverypersonordeedpresentedforitscontemplation,andrespondstoitwiththepreciselyappropriatedegreeofsatisfactionorreprobation.TheinfinitudeofHisloveisexhibitedtouspreciselyinthatwhilewewereyetsinnersHe lovedus, thoughwith all the force ofHis infinitenaturehereactedagainstoursinwithillimitableabhorrenceandindignation.Themysteryofgraceresidesjustintheimpulseofasin-hatingGodtoshowmercytosuchguiltywretches;andthesupremerevelationofGodastheGodofholyloveismadeinthedisclosureofthemodeofHisprocedureinredemption, by which alone He might remain just while justifying theungodly.ForinthisproceduretherewasinvolvedthemightyparadoxoftheinfinitelyjustJudgeHimselfbecomingthesinner'ssubstitutebeforeHisownlawandthe infinitelyblessedGodreceiving inHisownpersonthepenaltyofsin.

III.GOD,THEFATHER,SON,ANDHOLYGHOST

Theelementsoftheplanofsalvationarerootedinthemysteriousnatureof the Godhead, in which there coexists a trinal distinction of personswith absolute unity of essence; and the revelation of the Trinity wasaccordinglyincidentaltotheexecutionofthisplanofsalvation,inwhichtheFathersenttheSontobethepropitiationforsin,andtheSon,whenHereturnedtotheglorywhichHehadwiththeFatherbeforetheworldwas, sent the Spirit to applyHis redemption tomen. The disclosure ofthisfundamentalfactofthedivinenature,therefore,laggeduntilthetimehadarrivedfortheactualworkingoutofthelong-promisedredemption;and itwas accomplished first of all in fact rather than inword, by theactual appearance of God the Son on earth and the subsequentmanifestations of the Spirit, who was sent forth to act as HisrepresentativeinHisabsence.AttheverybeginningofChrist'sministrythethreepersonsaredramaticallyexhibitedtooursightintheactofHisbaptism.AndthoughthereisnosinglepassageinScriptureinwhichallthedetailsofthisgreatmysteryaregatheredupandexpounded,theredonot lackpassages inwhich the three persons are brought together in a

manner which exhibits at once their unity and distinctness. The mostprominent of these are perhaps the formula of baptism in the triunename,putintothemouthsofHisfollowersbytheresurrectedLord(Matt.xxviii. 19), and the apostolic benediction in which a divine blessing isinvokedfromeachpersoninturn(IICor.xiii.14).TheessentialelementswhichenterintoandtogethermakeupthisgreatrevelationoftheTriuneGodare,however,mostcommonlyseparatelyinsistedupon.Thechiefofthesearethethreeconstitutivefacts:(1)thatthereisbutoneGod(Deut.vi.4;Isa.xliv.6;ICor.viii.4;Jas.ii.19);(2)thattheFatherisGod(Matt.xi.25;Johnvi.27;viii.41;Rom.xv.6;ICor.viii.6;Gal.i.1,3,4;Eph.iv.6;vi.23;IThess.i.1;Jas.i.27;iii.9;IPet.i.2;Jude1);theSonisGod(Johni.1,18;xx.28;Actsxx.28;Rom.ix.5;Heb.i.8;Col.ii.9;Phil.ii.6;IIPet.i.1);andtheSpiritisGod(Actsv.3,4;ICor.ii.10,11;Eph.ii.22);and(3)thattheFather,Son,andHolyGhostarepersonallydistinctfromoneanother,distinguishedbypersonalpronouns,abletosendandbe sent by one another, to love and honor each the other, and the like(Johnxv.26;xvi.13,14;xvii.8,18,23;xvi.14;xvii.1).ThedoctrineoftheTrinity isbut the synthesisof these facts, and,addingnothing to them,simplyrecognizesintheunityoftheGodheadsuchaTrinityofpersonsasis involved in the working out of the plan of redemption. In theprosecution of this work there is implicated a certain relativesubordinationinthemodesofoperationoftheseveralpersons,bywhichitistheFatherthatsendstheSonandtheSonwhosendstheSpirit;butthe three persons are uniformly represented in Scripture as in theiressentialnatureeachalikeGodoverall,blessedforever(Rom.ix.5);andwearethereforetoconceivethesubordinationasrathereconomical,thatis, relative to the function of each in the work of redemption, thanessential,thatis,involvingadifferenceinnature.

PredestinationintheReformedConfessions1


[withinbracketednotes:WC=WestminsterConfession]

WhatwecalltheReformationwasfundamentally,whenlookedatfromaspiritualpointofview,agreatrevivalofreligion;whenlookedatfromthetheologicalpointofview,agreat revivalofAugustinianism.2 Itwas theone just because it was the other. Revolting from the domination ofecclesiastical machinery, men found their one haven of rest in thesovereignty of God. The doctrine of Predestination was therefore thecentraldoctrineof theReformation.3 In theRomish systemthe ideaofpredestination has no place, and interest in any opinions that may beheld concerning it is in that communionat best but languid. ThereforePerrone, after explaining the difference between the views of theAugustinianizing Thomists and the semi-Pelagianizing Jesuits, cancomplacently add: "Each school has its own reasons for holding to itsopinion: the Church has never wished to compose this controversy:therefore every onemay, with safety to the faith, adhere to whicheveropinion he is most disposed to and thinks best adapted to solve thedifficulties of unbelievers andheretics."4Thematterwas very differentwith the Reformers. To them the doctrine of predestination was givendirectlyintheirconsciousnessofdependenceassinnersonthefreemercyof a saving God: it therefore was part of the content of their deepestreligiousconsciousness.Calvin is historically thoroughly justified in hisremark that "no onewhowishes to be thought piouswill dare to denysimpliciterthepredestinationbywhichGodadoptssomeintothehopeoflife and adjudicates others to eternal death."5 In very fact, all theReformerswereatoneinthisdoctrine,andonitasahingetheirwholereligiousconsciousnessaswellasdoctrinalteachingturned.Thefactissoobviousastocompelrecognitioneveninunsympatheticcircles.Thus,forinstance, the lateDr. Philip Schaff, though adjusting his language with

perhapssuperfluouscaresoastoexhibithisdoctrinaldisharmonywiththeReformers, is yet forced togiveexplicit recognition to theuniversalenthusiasm with which they advocated the strictest doctrine ofpredestination. "All the Reformers of the sixteenth century," he says,6"including even the gentle Melanchthon and the compromising Bucer,under a controlling sense of human depravity and saving grace, inextremeantagonismtoPelagianismandself-righteousness,and,astheysincerely believed, in full harmony not only with the greatest of thefathers,butalsowiththeinspiredSt.Paul,cametothesamedoctrineofadoublepredestinationwhichdecidestheeternaldestinyofallmen.Norisit possible to evade this conclusion," he justly adds, "on the twoacknowledgedpremisesofProtestantorthodoxy-namely,thewholesalecondemnationofmeninAdam,andthelimitationofsavinggracetothepresentworld."7

ScarcelywastheReformationestablished,however,before thepurityofits confessionof thepredestinationofGodbegan to giveway.The firstserious blow to it was given by the defection of Melanchthon to asynergistic conception of the saving act. As a result of the consequentcontroversies,theLutheranChurchesweremisledintoseekingtodefinepredestinationashavingsolereferencetosalvation,denying itsobverseof reprobation. "First of all," says the "Formula of Concord" (1576), "itoughttobemostaccuratelyobservedthatthereisadistinctionbetweentheforeknowledgeandthepredestinationoreternalelectionofGod... .This foreknowledge of God extends both to good and evil men; butneverthelessisnotthecauseofevil,norisitthecauseofsin....Butthepredestination or eternal election ofGod extends only to the good andbelovedchildren ofGod, and this is the cause of their salvation."8 Thegrave inconsequence of this construction, of course, speedily had itsrevenge; and typical Lutheranism rapidly sank to the level of Romishindifferencetopredestinationaltogether,andoftheRomishexplanationofitasexprævisafide.9MeanwhiletheReformedcontinuedtowitnessabetter profession; partly, no doubt, because of the greater depth ofreligious life induced in them by the severity of the persecutions theywerecalledupontoundergo;andpartly,nodoubt,becauseofthegreaterheightofreligiousthinkingcreatedinthembytheexampleandimpulseof their great leader - at once, as even Renan has been compelled to

testify,thebestChristianofhisdayandthegreatestreligiousthinkerofthemodernworld. The first really dangerous assault onwhat had nowbecome distinctively the Reformed doctrine of predestination wasdelayed till the opening of the seventeenth century. In the meantime,though,nodoubt,manyindividualReformedthinkershadbeenmoreorless affected by a Lutheran environment, as in the lands of Germanspeech,orbyRomishremainders,asinEngland,aswellasnodoubtbytheeverywhere present rationalizing spiritwhich ever lays its stress onman'sautocracy;yettheReformedChurcheshadeverywherecompactedtheirfaithinnumerouscreeds,inwhichtheReformedconsciousnesshadexpressed itselfonthewholewithremarkablepurity.Thesenowservedas a barrier to the new attacks, and supplied strongholds inwhich theReformed consciousness could intrench itself for future influence. TheArminian assault was therefore successfully met. And although, eversince,theevilseedthensownhasproducedacontinuousharvestofdoubtand dispute in the Reformed Churches; until to-day - in a new age ofsyncretismofperhapsunexampledextension-itthreatenstoeatoutallthat is distinctive in the Reformed Confessions: nevertheless theReformedsenseofabsolutedependenceontheGodofgraceforsalvationremainstilltodaythedominantelementinthethoughtoftheReformedChurches, and its theological expression in the complete doctrine ofprædestinatioduplexretainsitsplaceintheheartsaswellasinthecreedsofamultitudeofReformedChristiansthroughouttheworld.

The numerous Reformed creeds, representing the convictions ofChristianmen of very diverse races during a period of a century and ahalf(1523-1675),whileonthewholefallingbehindtheworksofthegreatdogmaticians in the ability and fullness with which they set forth theReformed system,10 nevertheless form a very remarkable series ofdocuments when looked at as the consistent embodiment of such adoctrineastheReformeddoctrineofpredestination.Fortheirownsakes,and for the sake of the great doctrine which they so persistentlymaintained in the face of so many disintegrating influences and suchdetermined assaults, they are well worth our study. And this primaryimpulsetoturntothemispowerfullyreenforced inourowndayby thecircumstancethatrecentappealstothemseemtosuggestthattheyhavebeen but little investigated by themen of our generation; so that their

message to us is in danger of being widely misapprehended, andsometimes,itmustbeconfessed,evenseriouslymisrepresented.Thereisa certain timeliness, therefore, as well as inherent propriety in, at thisjuncture, drawing out from the Reformed creeds their teaching as topredestination,andnotingtheessentialharmonyintheirpresentationofthisgreatdoctrine.Assuredlybysuchasurveythedoctrinewillbemoredeeply rooted in our thinking and love. It is possible that we mayincidentally learn how to esteem the teaching on this great subject ofwhatmaywellbespokenofastheconsummateflowerof theReformedsymbols-thatWestminsterConfessionwhichithasbeenourhappinessas Presbyterians to inherit. And along with this, we may perhaps alsolearnwhatestimatetoplaceontheattemptswhicharenowmakingmoreor less to eliminate from that Confession its testimony to this greatcentralReformeddoctrine.Itwillprobablynotbedeemedimpertinentifwe prefix to the extracts taken from the Confessions a brief runningaccountofthedocumentsandtheirgeneralattitudetothesubjectunderdiscussion, such as may serve as a kind of introduction to readingintelligentlytheirownwords.

I

TheReformedConfessionsbegin,ofcourse,withthesymbolicalwritingsofZwingliandhisSwisscoadjutors,andpassthencetothoseproducedbyCalvinandhispupils,andsoontothelaterdocuments,theworkoftheReformed theologians of the latter part of the sixteenth and of theseventeenthcenturies.

Zwingli himself produced four works of this character. These are theSixty-seven Articles or Conclusions of Zurich (1523), the Ten BerneseTheses (1528), the System of Faith ("Fidei ratio"), prepared to bepresented at the Diet of Augsburg (1530), and the Exposition of theChristianFaith,addressedtoFrancisI,andpublishedbyBullingerafterZwingli'sdeath(1531).ThesepresenttheReformedfaithinthefirststageofitsaffirmation.Theformertwocontain,indeed,onlythesimplestandbriefest assertion of the primary elements of Protestant practice inoppositiontothemostprominentevilsoftheRomishChurch:thelattertwo are more elaborate expositions of the Protestant belief, but areessentially of an apologetic order. No one of these documents treats

professedlyofpredestinationorelection,thoughofcoursetheyallrestontheconvictionsinthesemattersthatcharacterizedZwingli'sthought,andinthetwomoreelaboratedocumentsallusionstothemnaturallyappear.These are more direct and full in the "Fidei ratio," and occur in it inconnectionwiththetreatmentoftheFall,Redemption,andespeciallyoftheChurch-aboutwhichlasttopicthecontroversywithRomeofcourseespecially raged. In the "Expositio fidei christianæ" they occur mostpointedlyinconnectionwiththetreatmentofGoodWorks.Inmasstheyare not copious, but they constitute a very clear and a tolerably fulloutline of theReformed doctrine on the subject. God, we are told, hasfreely made appointment concerning all things, and that by a decreewhichiseternalandindependentofallthatisoutsideofHimself:inthisdecreeisincludedthefallofmanalongwithallelsethatcomestopass:and,aswell, theelection inChristof some -whomHewill - to eternallife;theseconstituteHisChurch,properlysocalled,knowncertainlyfromall eternity by Him, but becoming known to themselves as God's electonlythroughthewitnessoftheSpiritinduetimeintheirhearts,andthetestimonyoftheirgoodworkswhicharetheproductandnottheforeseenoccasionoftheirelection;andbytheseonlyaretheydifferentiatedintheexternalChurchfromthereprobateswhowiththemmaybe includedinitsbounds.

Meanwhile the Reformation was spreading to other localities, and inproportionasthesameneedwasfeltforanexpressionoftheprinciplesofthenewfaithwhichhadproducedtheZwinglianarticles,similararticleswerebeingelsewhereproduced.Theso-calledTetrapolitanConfessionof1530oweditsorigin,indeed,rathertoaspecificdemand-totheneedofawitness to the faith of the four imperial cities to be presented, likeZwingli's"Fideiratio,"attheDietofAugsburg;anditsformandgeneralcontentsweredeterminedbythedesireofitsauthors(Bucer,withtheaidof Capito and Hedio) to assimilate the expression of their faith to theLutheran Confession presented at that Diet. It contains no separatesectiononpredestination,nor, indeed,does itanywheremakeanyclearallusion to it, though the conceptions on this matter animating theReformedChurches seem to underlie the sections on Justification andGoodWorks.VerysimilarwerethecircumstancesinwhichtheBohemianConfessions(1535and1575)were framed:andtheresultsaremuchthe

same. The earliest Basle Confession, prepared by Oecolampaclius andMyconius (1534), on the other hand, besides asserting the universalgovernment of God, gives a brief paragraph in its exposition of thedoctrineofGodtothesubjectofpredestination:thisaffirmssimplythat"GodbeforeHehadcreatedtheworldhadelectedallthosetowhomHewould give eternal salvation" - a sentence worthy of our note chieflybecause it is the earliest instance in the Reformed Confessions of aseparateparagraphdevotedtothisgreatsubject.11WhatisknownastheSecond Basle, or more properly as the First Helvetic, Confession,prepared in 1536, under the unionistic influences of the StrasburgReformers(BucerandCapito),andinanticipationofaGeneralCouncil-and therefore under much the same conditions that gave birth to theTetrapolitanConfession-likethatdocumentomitsalldirectreferencetothe subject of predestination. The Confessions of Poland (1570), andHungary, prepared undermuch the same conditions, exhibitmuch thesamesparingnessofspeechonthesubject.OftheseonlytheHungarian(1557-1558) adverts to it at all, and thatmost explicitly only to defendGodagainstthechargeof"respectofpersons."Evenso,however,ittellsusthatallthingsareeternallydisposedbyGod;andthatGod'selectioniseternal,entirelygratuitous,andthereforefreelydisposedaccordingonlytoHisownwill; and that it leaves aside vessels ofwrath to the endlessdoomjustlyduetotheirsins.

AstheReformedconsciousnesstookfirmerforminthepassageoftime,however, this tendency topass lightly over the subject naturally passedmoreandmoreaway.Somethingoftheearlyapologeticaltoneindealingwith predestination doubtless still clings to the Second HelveticConfession,whichwascomposedbyBullingerin1562forhisownprivateuse, and on its publication in 1566 was rapidly very widely adoptedthroughouttheReformedworld.Winer12certainlygoestoofarwhenheaffirms that its presentation of predestination is so remarkable a"softening of the dogma" that "this Confession might be placed in theborderland of Predestinarianism." It ismuchmore accurate to saywithMüller that the Reformed doctrine is set forth here very clearly in itspeculiarity, but with an effort to avoid giving offense: and that it isdominatednotsomuchbydoctrinalobscurityasbyanethical-practicalintent.13Thedoctrine ishereat length:and it iscarefullyandsoundly

stated:but there is,nodoubt,apparent in itswhole treatmentacertaindefensiveattitudewhichseemsmoreintenttoguarditfromattackthantobringoutall itscontentwithclearnessandforce.Godissaidtohavedetermineditsendtoeverycreatureandtohaveordainedalongwiththeend at the same time the means by which it shall be attained. He iscertainly not the author of sin, with which He is connected only aspermittingitforhighends,whenHecouldhavepreventeditifHehadsochosen, and thus as utilizing it in the execution of His plans. Hisprovidence is accordingly over all, though nothing finds its evil in Hisprovidence. The predestination of His saints to be saved in Christ iseternal,particular,onthegroundofnoforeseenmerit,andassuredofitsend:and theelectionof saintsto life implies thedesertionofabodyofreprobates.Whoiselect isonlyaposteriori discoverable throughmen'srelation toChrist;we are to judge of others in thismatterwith charityandaretohopewellofall,numberingnonerashlyamongthereprobates:ofourownelectionandthereforecertainsalvationwemay,ontheotherhand,beassuredifweknowourselvestobeinChristandbearfruitageinaholylife.Thewholesubstanceofthedoctrineclearlyishere,thoughthestressislaidcontinuallyonitsaspectsasseensubspecietemporisratherthanæternitatis.

The case is little different with the Heidelberg Catechism, whichdoubtless owes it only to its purpose as adocumentmeant as practicalmilkforbabesmorethantheologicalmeatformatureChristians, that ithasvery littledirectly to sayabout sohighamystery. It isneverthelesspervadedfrombeginningtoendwithanunderlyingpresuppositionofit,andhintsof thedoctrineemergeoftenerthanisalwaysrecognized,andthatbothinitsgeneralandspecialaspects.Thesehintsonceortwicerisetoexplicitassertions,andwhentheydotheyleavenothingtobedesiredinthewayofsharpnessofconception.Itisnaturallyunderthedoctrineofprovidence that general predestination is most clearly alluded to: theEternalFatherissaidtoupholdandgoverntheuniverse"byHiseternalcounselandprovidence,"andthateffectivelyforHisends-"sogoverningallcreaturesthat . . .all thingscomenotbychancebutbyHisFatherlyhand" (Ques. 26, 27). Special predestination, equally naturally, ismostdirectly adduced in connection with the doctrine of the Church (Ques.54): we are to believe concerning the Church "that out of the whole

human race, the Son of God, by His Spirit and word, gathers into theunity of true faith, defends and preserves for Himself a communionelectedtoeternallife":andfurther,eachofusistobelievethatheis"andshalleverremainalivingmemberofthesame."Herethefactsofelectionand perseverance are explicitly asserted. Elsewhere we are taught thatourcomfortinlookingforthecomingofChristtheLordisderivedfromthefactthatHewill"castallHisandourenemiesintoeternaldamnation,andwill takeus togetherwithall theelect toHimself intoheavenly joyand glory" (Ques. 52); and similar comforting allusions to election arefoundelsewhere(Ques.1,31).

Amonglaterdocumentssomethingofthecircumspectionwhichwasthenaturalproductinthefirstageofunionisticeffortsontheonehand,andof desire to shield the infant Churches from powerful enemies on theother, appears again in a somewhat different form in what are usuallycalled the Brandenburg Confessions. These are the Confession ofSigismund (1614), the Leipzig Colloquy (1631), and above all theDeclarationofThorn(1645).ThesearehistoricallyespeciallyinterestingasexhibitingthegeneralfirmnesswithwhichonthewholetheReformedheldtoandassertedtheessentialsoftheirdoctrineinthemostuntowardcircumstances.TheConfessionofSigismund(1614) isapurelypersonalstatement of the Elector's faith, published on his conversion from theLutheranisminwhichhehadbeenbred.Heexplicitlyconfesses,underasenseofitsgreatimportance-asthebasisonwhichrest"notonlyalltheotherArticles,butalsoour salvation" itself - the eternal and gratuitouselection of God - the eternal ordination of His chosen ones, withoutrespecttoworthiness,meritorworksinthem,toeverlastinglifeandallthemeansthereto:asalsothecorrespondingfactofaneternalpreteritionoftherestandtheirpreparationforthepunishmentwhichis theirdue.GreatstressislaidonthejusticeofthejudgmentofGodinreprobation,andthereisperhapssomefailureinnicediscriminationbetweenwhatisknownamong theologians as "negative" and "positive" reprobation: theinterest of Sigismund turning rather on vindicating God from thereproachoftakingpleasureinthedeathofsinnersandclaimingforHimauniversallovefortheworld.ThestatementoftheReformeddoctrineattheLeipzigColloquy(1631)wasfortheavowedpurposeofestablishingasnear an agreement with Lutheran modes of statement as could be

attained without the surrender of essential truth, and the forms ofstatement are naturally deeply colored by this unionistic purpose.Nevertheless the entire substance of the doctrine is fairly preserved. Afree, eternalelectionofnotallbut somemen,particularlydesigned,onthe ground of nothing foreseen in them, to the sole reception of theefficacious means of grace is asserted: and along with it, thecorrespondingeternalreprobationoftherest.GreatcareistakentofreeGod from constructive blame for the death of the wicked, and in thelanguage inwhich this isdone there isperhaps,as in theConfessionofSigismund,aninsufficientdiscriminationbetweennegativeandpositivereprobation.

By far the most interesting of the three Brandenburg statements,however, is theDeclaration presented at the Colloquy of Thorn (1645).Here many of the conditions which accompanied the statement ofProtestant belief at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 were substantiallyreproduced.Reformeddoctrinewasaboveallthingstobesosetforthasto attach itself to whatever latent elements of the truth might bediscoverable inRomishthought.Thechiefpointsofdifferencefromtheearlier situation are due to the later date and changed times; at thisperiod the Reformed had not only come to full consciousness of theirfaith,buthadtasteditspreciousnessintimesofpersecutionandstrife.Itis interesting to observe the means taken in these circumstances tocommend the Reformed doctrine to Romish sympathy. Briefly theyconsisted in setting it forth as simply "Augustinianism." No separatecaption is devoted to predestination or to election. All that is said onthese topics is subsumed quite Augustine-wise under the caption "Degratia." This caption is developed in eight calmly written paragraphswhich,beginningwithredemptionofthehelplesssinnerthroughthesolegraceofGodinChrist,carrieshimthroughthestagesoftheordosalutis-effectualcalling,justification,sanctification,perseverance, finalreward-allofthepuregraceofGod-toendinthereferenceofalltoGod'seternalpurpose in election. This is followed by eighteen further paragraphs inwhich the whole doctrine of grace, as before positively developed, isguardedfrommisapprehension,anddefenseisofferedagainstcalumnies.Only the two last of these paragraphs concern the doctrine of election.ThewholeisclosedwithadirectappealtoAugustineandachallengeto

thefollowersofThomasAquinastorecognize theReformeddoctrineasnoneotherthanthattaughtthembytheirmaster.

TheThoruniensiantheologiansthusputthemselvesforwarddistinctlyas"Augustinians" and asked to be judged as such. It is nevertheless insubstance a very thoroughly developed Reformed doctrine that theyexpress under this "Augustinian" form. In their fundamental statementthey refer all of God's saving activities to His eternal election as theirsource; deny that it itself rests on anything foreseen in its object, andderiveitfrommereandundeservedgracealone;andconnectwithittheordination of all the means by which the predestined salvation isattained: nor do they shrink from explicitly placing over against it thepreterition of the rest. In the additional paragraphs the sure issue ofelectionineternallifeisrenewedlyinsistedon(11),aswellastheoriginofthe election inmeregrace (17), and the fixedness of the number of theelect (17).On the other hand, some subtlety is expended in the closingparagraph on the exposition of the relation of the eternal decrees ofelectionandreprobationtotheactualcharacterofmen.Itisdeniedthatthese decrees are "absolute" in the sense that they are "without anyrespectto faithandunbelief, to goodandevilworks." It isdeniedalso,however, that faithandgoodworksare the causeor reasonof election,anddoubtlessbyimplication(thoughthisisnotsaidinsomanywords)thatunbeliefandsinarethecauseorreasonoftheinvolvedpreterition.Whatisaffirmedisthatfaithandgoodworksareforeseenintheelectas"means of salvation foreordained in them byGod." And that "not onlyoriginal sin, but also, so far as adults are concerned, unbelief andcontumacious impenitence, are not properly speaking foreordained ofGod, but foreseen and permitted in the reprobates themselves as thecause of desertion and damnation, and reprobated by the justest ofjudgments." The natural meaning of this language yields a soundReformed sense. So far as it concerns the elect, indeed, none other iscapableofbeingdrawnfromit.Thereisanunfortunatelyambiguoususeoflanguage,however,withreferencetothereprobates-as,indeed,evenintheusemadeof thetechnical term"decretumabsolutum" - thatmayeasilymislead,andthatthereaderfindshimselffearingwasintentionallyadopted towrap theReformed doctrine at this point so far in a cloud.There can be indeed no other meaning attributed to the denial that

unbelief and impenitence in the reprobate are "properly foreordained";seeingthatintheReformedconception,fullysharedbythesetheologians,God has foreordained all that comes to pass: and while no Reformedtheologianwoulddoubtthattheirownunbeliefandimpenitencearethe"meritoriouscauseofthedesertionanddamnation"ofthereprobate,yettheambiguityof the language that follows - "andare reprobatedby thejustestof judgments" - certainlyopens theway to somemisconception.ThesuspicioncanscarcelybeavoidedthattheThoruniensiantheologianspurposelyusedlanguageherecapableofadoublesense.Whilenaturallysuggesting an interpretation consonant with sovereign preterition(negative reprobation), it is liable to be misread as if allowing thatnegative reprobation itself (preterition) found a meritorious cause inmen's sins, which themselves lay wholly outside the foreordination(decree)ofGod.

It is worthy of note that in themidst of this gingerly treatment of thematterofreprobation,thesetheologiansyetmanagetoletfallaphraseinpassingwhichbetrays theirDeclaration intoanextremityofdoctrineatanother point towhich no other formally framedReformedConfessioncommits itself.14 The Declaration of Thorn in effect is the only formalReformedConfessionwhichassertsorimpliesthatsomeofthosewhodiein infancy are reprobated. This it does by the insertion into the clausedealingwith this topicof thewords"so farasadultsareconcerned." In"reprobation"(whateverthatmeanswiththem-whetherboth"negative"and"positive"reprobation,oronlythelatter-makesnodifferenceinthepresentmatter), theysay,Godactson the foresightnotonlyoforiginalsin,"butalso,sofarasadultsareconcerned,ofunbelief,"etc.Godthen"reprobates"notonlyadultsonaccountoftheirsins,originalandactual,but also infants on account of original sin alone. It is exceedinglyinteresting to observe a body of over-cautious men thus so intent onavoidingScyllaastorunstraightintoCharybdis.Thereason,however,isnotfartoseek.Theywereprimarily intentonvindicatingthemselvesas"Augustinians" intheforumof theRomish judgment: theywished, thatis,toappealtothesympathiesoftheprofessedfollowersofAugustineinthe Roman communion:15 while excessively careful, therefore, withrespect to the whole matter of the prædestinatio duplex they felt noreason, as professed children of the durus pater infantum, to fearwith

respecttothefateofinfants.ThecircumstancesinwhichtheDeclarationwas formed, in other words, is responsible for its weaknesses in bothdirections. Another instance of the ambiguous use of language in theinterestsoftheirdesiretocomeforwardassimplyfollowersofAugustineisaffordedby their treatment of "perseverance" (11): in this they oddlyinterchangetheterms"justified,""regenerate,""elect."Itcanscarcelybethoughtthattheyreallymeant to teachthat the justifiedmay "fall fromgrace," or that the "regenerate" are different from "the elect" - theirconcatenation of the "golden chain" of salvation in their fundamentalstatementoffaithforbidsthat:butitisobviousthattheirlanguagehereisopentothatmisinterpretation,andwefearitmustbejudgedthatitwasintended to be so in deference to current "Augustinian" modes ofexpression in this matter. The similar obscuration of the distinctionbetween thevoluntasbeneplacitiandvoluntassigni (6)has its cause inthesameeffort.TheDeclarationofThorn, in aword,while it approvesitself as a soundly Reformed document, has been drawn up with anoccasionalover-subtleuseoflanguagewhichseemsintendedtoobscurethe truth that its authors nevertheless flattered themselves wasexpressed:andwhich is therefore liable toobscure it - toother readersthanthosewhoseeyesitwasfirstintendedtoblind.

The Confessions which we have thus passed in review include, it willdoubtless have been observed, especially German ones. Theirpeculiarities,however,havenonationalroot: theyareduerather to thefact, on the one hand, that this group of Confessions embraces theearliest,tentativeeffortsatcreed-makingintheReformedChurches,and,on the other, that the circumstances in which the German ReformedChurcheswereplacedmade them theespecialpreyofunionisticeffortsand apologetical temptations. It is scarcely fair to expect of documentsframed, as the most of the documents of this class were, expressly tocommendthemselvestothoseofotherfaiths,quitethesamesharpnessofoutline thatmightwell be looked for elsewhere. Taken as a whole andjudgedfromthepointofviewofthecircumstancesoftheirorigin,thisisanexcellentbodyofReformeddocuments,surprisingly true to the faithof the Reformed Churches: it is, after all, rather in language than insubstance that they create difficulties.Meanwhile, however, there wereotherReformedConfessionsbeingframedunderotherstars,andinthem

theReformedconceptionscame,speakinggenerallyofthemasaclass,topurer because less embarrassed expression. This series beginswith theConfessionalwritings of JohnCalvin. It is not to be inferred, however,either that Calvin's teaching exercised no influence on the matter orphrasingof theConfessions already adduced, or that it introduced intothe Reformed Churches any new attitude toward the doctrine ofpredestination. On the contrary, the commanding influence of CalvinpenetratedtoeverycorneroftheReformedChurches,andistraceableinall the creedal statements framed subsequently to his appearance atGeneva. And, on the other hand, in his doctrine of predestination heproclaimednothingnotcommontoalltheReformedleaders.Sofarfromadvancing in it beyond the teaching of Zwingli, Zwingli's modes ofexpression on this high mystery seemed rather to Calvin extreme andparadoxical,ifnotevenlackingindiscretion.16SocloselydohismodesofexpressionregardingitresemblethoseofBucerthatthelateststudentofhisdoctrineofpredestination17 is inclined to believe that he derived itfrom Bucer. Even Bullinger, through whatever pathway of doubt andhesitation, came ultimately to full agreement with him.18 Indeed, hisdoctrineofpredestinationwassolittleapeculiumofCalvin'sthatitwasoriginally, as we have seen, not even a specialty of the Reformed, butratherconstitutedtheveryhingeof theReformation:and itwasLutherandMelanchthonandBucerandPeterMartyrwhofirstputitforwardasthe determining element in the Reformation platform. What is due toCalvin is,atmost,only the finalestablishmentof the clear, cogent,andconsistentexpressionofitintheReformedcreeds.Hissystematicgeniusperceivedfromthefirstitscentral importancetothesystemoftruthonwhich theReformationwasbased;andhegrasped itwith such full andclearapprehension,that inhisownwritingsandwhereverhis influencedominated it was no longer easily possible to falter either in itsapprehensionoritsstatement,andeffortstospeaksoftlyregardingitortopareitdowntofitthedesiresofmenmeasurablyceased.ItisonthisaccountonlythatintheConfessionsthatderivemostdirectlyfromCalvinwe see thewholeReformed doctrine of predestination comemost fullyandconsistentlytoitsrights.

Calvinwashimselftheauthorofaconsiderablenumberofdocumentsofsymbolical character: and although the place given in them to the

doctrineofpredestinationvarieswidelyaccordingtothecircumstancesofeach case, the doctrine embodied in those which give it any fullexpressionappearsinasingularlypureform.Eventhefirsteditionofthe"Institutes,"publishedin1536,mightfairlybesofarcountedamongthesymbolicalbooksas itspublicationwasdeterminedby apologetic need,anditsprimarypurposewastotestifytotheworldwhatthefaithoftheFrenchProtestantsreallywas.In itnoseparatetreatmentwasaccordedtopredestinationandwhatissaidonthistopicemergesonlyincidentally,verymuchasinZwingli's"SystemofFaith,"andasinthatdocumentalsomost fully in connection with the doctrine of the Church. But thisincidentaltreatmentisfullenoughtoshowthattherewasalreadypresenttoCalvin'smindallthesubstanceofthedoctrineaselsewheredevelopedbyhim.Hisfirstformalexpositionofit,underitsownseparatecaption,occurs,however,not in the"Institutes,"but in theearliestofhis formalsymbolicalwritings, the "Instruction andConfession of Faith in Use intheChurch of Geneva," published in April, 1537. In this document thewholeofCalvin'sdoctrineofpredestinationissetforthinclearifsuccinctoutline.Thestarting-point is taken in theobservedactual separationofmankind into the two classes of the saved and lost. This distinction iscarriedbackatoncetothesecreteternalcounselofGod,inwhichsomearepredestinatedtobeHischildrenandheirsoftheheavenlykingdom,whileothersarelefttothejustpunishmentoftheirsins.ThereasonwhyGodhassodiscriminatedbetweenmen isdeclared tobe inscrutablebymortals,andmenaredissuadedfromprying into it: it isenoughforus,we are told, to know that His action here, too, is holy and just, andtherefore redounds to His praise. For the rest, it is for us to seek thecertitudeofourfaithinthecontemplation,notofelectionbutofChrist,whom having we have all. On quite similar lines runs the muchmoremeager teaching of the "Genevan Catechism" of 1545, in which thereoccur no separate questions and answers consecrated specifically topredestination,butonlyincidentalallusionstothesubjectintheanswersgivenunderthetopicsofProvidenceandtheChurch.God,itistaught,isthe Lord and governor of all things, "to whose empire all things aresubjectandwhosenodtheyobey"-eventhedevilandgodlessmen,allofwhomaretheministersofHiswill,andarecompelledevenagainsttheirplans "to execute what has seemed good to Him." The Church, it istaught, is "the body and society of believers whom the Lord has

predestinated toeternal life,"allofwhom, therefore,becauseelectedofGod,He justifiesandsanctifiesandwill glorify.In similar fashion eventhe "Consensus Tigurinus" of 1549,which concerns itself formally withnothing but the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, alludes, nevertheless, toelection-teachingthatitisonlytotheelectthatthesacramentsactuallyconveygrace - "for," itcontinues, "just asGod enlightens unto faith noothers than those whomHe has foreordained to life, so by the hiddenpower of His Spirit He brings it about that the elect receive what isofferedinthesacraments."

Itishowever,ofcourse,chieflyinthe"GenevanConsensus,"calledoutin1552bytheattacksonthedoctrineofpredestinationmadebyBolsec,thatwefindthefulleststatementofCalvin'sdoctrineofpredestinationwhichhas a claim to symbolical authority. This document is not in form aConfession, but is rather a polemical treatise written in Calvin's ownname and given symbolical significance only by its publication in thenameofthepastorsofGenevaasafairexpositionoftheGenevandoctine.ItiswhollydevotedtothedefenseofCalvin'steachingonpredestination,andbears the significant title: "Of the eternal predestination ofGod bywhichoutofmenHehaselectedsometosalvationandleftotherstotheirdestruction," - in which, as we perceive, the prædestinatio gemina ismadetheverycoreofthedoctrine.OneneedstoreadbutalittlewayintothetreatisetoperceivehowstronglyandindeedevenpassionatelyCalvininsisted upon this point. The reason for this is that he looked uponelectionnotmerelyasthewarrantforassuranceoffaith,butespeciallyasthesupportandstayofthealone-efficiencyofGodinsalvation:andthatheperceived,withtheclearnessofvisioneminentlycharacteristicofhisgenius,thatfortheprotectionofmonergisticsalvationandtheexclusionoftheevilleavenofsynergism,theassertionoftheprædestinatiogeminais absolutely essential. In this we see accordingly the real key to theinsistence on "sovereign reprobation" in the Calvinian formularies: theconvictionhadbecome a part of the very substance ofCalvin's thoughtthat"election itselfunlessopposed to reprobationwillnot stand" - that"the discriminating grace of God" was virtually set aside as the alonecauseofsalvationifitwerenotconfessedthatthesegregationofsometoreceivethejustawardoftheirsinsisastrulygroundedinHisholywillassalvationitselfinHiswillofgrace.Theextendeddiscussionandeventhe

polemicformofthistreatiseenabledCalvinpowerfullytocommendhisdoctrinetoeveryreader,andtofortifyitbyfullexpositionsofScripture:and doubtless it is to the influence of the "Consensus of Geneva" thatmuch of the consistency with which the locus on predestination wastreated in subsequent Calvinistic formularies is traceable.19 The veryqualitieswhichgave it itsgreat influence,however,render itdifficult toextract itbriefly,andwemayaccountourselvesfortunate thatwehave,throughadiscoverybytheBrunswickeditorsofabriefseriesof"articlesonpredestination"inCalvin'shand,asuccinctstatementfromhimselfofhiswholedoctrine,towhich,thoughwehavenoevidencethattheywereevergivensymbolicalauthority,wemayfairlygoastoasummaryofhisteaching.IntheseheaffirmsthatGoddidnotcreatemanwithouthavingpreviously determined upon his destiny; that therefore the fall wasincludedinGod'seternaldecree;andwithit,thediscriminationbetweentheelectandreprobateportionsoffallenmankind;whichdiscriminationhasnoothercausethanGod'smerewill:andthereforethechoiceoftheelectcannotrestonforeseenfaith,whichisratherthegiftofGodintheexecution ofHis decree of salvation, granted therefore to the elect andwithheldfromthe reprobate:as isalso thegiftofChrist.Risingnexttothegeneraldecree,heaffirmsthatthewillofGodisthefirstandsupremecause of all things, and yet God is not in any sense the author of sin,which is offensive toHim andwill receiveHis punishment, thoughHecertainlymakesuseofallsinnerstooinexecutingHisholypurposes.

There is also a series of Confessions from Calvin's hand in which asomewhat less prominent place and thorough statement are given topredestination,thoughcertainlythereisnofalteringintheconceptionofit which is suggested when it is alluded to. Among these would benumbered the earliest Confession of the Genevan Church (1536), if wecouldattribute it inwholeor inpart toCalvin: it isordinarily,however,and apparently justly, assigned to Farel. In it there is no separatetreatment accorded to predestination, but the keynote of Calvin'stheologyisfirmlystruckintheattributionofallgoodinmantothegraceofGod-intheacknowledgmentandconfessionthat"allourblessingsarereceived from the mercy of God alone, without any consideration ofworthiness in us ormerit of our works - for to them is due no returnexcepteternalconfusion."There isherepresentedinasingleclausethe

entire premise on which rests Calvin's prædestinatio gemina. AConfession put by Calvin into the mouths of the students of Geneva,datingfrom1559,may,however,beproperlytakenasatypical instanceofthisclass.ItisnaturallyreminiscentoftheGenevanCatechismof1545.Stressislaidinitonthedivinegovernmentoftheinvisiblespirits-whosediffering fates are traced back to the divine appointment, and whoseentireconductiskeptunderthedivinecontrol,fortheworkingoutofHisends. In regard to special predestination emphasis is thrown on thedivineoriginoffaith,whichisconfessedtobe"aspecialgift,whichisnotcommunicatedsavetotheelect,whohavebeenpredestinatedbeforethecreationoftheworldtotheinheritanceofsalvationwithoutanyrespectto their worthiness or virtue." To the same class belong also the threeConfessionswhichCalvinpreparedfortheFrenchChurches.Theearliestandshortestoftheseisthatwhichheseemstohavedrawnupin1557fortheChurchatParisinvindicationofitselfagainstthecalumniesthathadbeenbroughtagainst it. Inthisthere isonlyabriefconfession that it is"ofthemercyofGodalonethattheelectaredeliveredfromthecommonperdition,"andthatthefaithbywhichalonewearesavedisitselfafreeandspecialgiftgrantedbyGodtothosetowhomitseemsgoodtoHimtogiveit,andconveyedtothembythesecretgraceoftheHolySpirit.TheConfession which he wrote to be presented in the name of the FrenchChurchestoMaximilianandtheGermanDietof1562isonlyalittlemoreexplicit.Inthisman'sentiredependenceontheundeservedmercyofGodforsalvation-offeringnopleatoGodexcepthismisery-isadvertedto,anditisthenaffirmedthatthereforethegoodnessofGoddisplayedtousproceedssolelyfromHiseternalelectionofusaccordingtoHissovereigngoodpleasure:comfortisfoundinthisdisplayofthedivinegoodness,butthe fanaticism is repelled thatwemay rest onour election in such sortthatwemayneglectthemeans.

ThethirdoftheFrenchConfessionsdraftedbyCalvinafterenlargementattheSynodofParis,1559,becamethenationalConfessionoftheFrenchReformed Churches, and is therefore of far more significance than itspredecessors. It isalso somewhat fuller than theyare, though followingmuchthesamelineofthought.ItconfesseswithallCalvin'sclearnesstheuniversal Lordship ofGod andHis admirablemode of serving Himselfwithdevilsandevilmen,without the least participation in their evil: it

draws the Christian man's comfort from the assurance of the sureprotection of God overHis people: it describes election as the eternal,immutabledecreeofGod,proceedingonnoforesightofworks,bywhichHe has determined to withdraw His chosen ones from the universalcorruptionandcondemnationinwhichallmenareplunged-"leaving,"itis significantly added, "the rest in this same corruption andcondemnation, to manifest in them His justice, as in the former HemakestherichesofHismercytoshineforth."Ofquitesimilarcharacterto the Gallican Confession is the Belgic Confession (1561), thecompositionofthemartyrhandofGuidodeBrès,butinthesection(16)on election somewhat revised by Francis Junius. In its statement ofgeneralpredestination,indeed(13),eventhelanguagerecallsthatoftheFrenchConfession,whosestatement itmaybesaidonly torepeat inanenriched form.The article on election, on the other hand, is somewhatlessfullthanthatintheGallicanConfession,butteachesthesametypeofdoctrine:itisessentiallyanassertionof theprædestinatiobipartitaasamanifestationatonceofthedivinemercyandjustice.

MeanwhileacrosstheChannelalsothesameinfluenceswereworking.InEngland from 1536, when the Ten Articles - essentially Romish incontents-werepublished,theReformingpartywereslowlyworkingtheirway to a better faith, until, having at length found themselves, theypublished the Forty-two Edwardian Articles in 1553; of these theElizabethanThirty-nineArticles(1563-1571)aremerelyaslightrevision,andinthearticleonPredestinationasimplerepetition.These"Articlesofthe Church of England" were prepared by a commission under theheadshipofCranmer,towhomthechiefshareintheirauthorshipseemstobelong:butintheseventeenthArticle,onPredestination,theinfluenceofPeterMartyrseemsdistinctlytraceable,and,whoevermayhavedrawnit up, it may fairly be attributed in its substance ultimately to him. Itconfines itself to a statement of the gracious side of predestination -"predestinationtolife"anditconsistsoftwoparts,intheformerofwhich"predestinationtolife"isdefined,andinthelatterofwhichtheuseofthedoctrineisexpounded.Thedefinitionof"predestinationtolife" ismadetorestonan"election"hereassumedashavingantecedentlytakenplace;and to include God's eternal and "constant" (that is, unchangeable)counsel, secret to us, negatively to deliver His elect from curse and

damnation, and positively to bring them by Christ to everlastingsalvation. The stress is therefore laid precisely on the doctrine of"perseverance," and the surety of the whole ordo salutis for those sopredestinatedisadducedindetailinsupportofitsgeneralassertion.Thedefinition is remarkable not somuch for what it asserts as for what itomits,and inwhat itomitsnotsomuch forwhat it rejectsas forwhat,thoughomitting,itpresupposes.Theexpositionoftheproperuseofthedoctrineincludesadescriptionofitseffectinestablishingandconfirmingthefaithofthosewhouseitinagodlymanner,andawarningagainstitsabuse by the carnal and merely curious; the whole closing with anexhortationquiteinCalvin'smannertomaketherevealedratherthanthesecret will of God our guide to life. The whole is not only soundlyReformedbutdistinctlyCalvinian insubstance:but itspeculiarmethodofdealingwiththemore fundamentalaspectsof thedoctrinebywayofallusion,astothingsfullyunderstoodandpresupposed,laysitespeciallyopen tomisunderstandings and wrestings, and we cannot feel surprisethat throughout its whole history it has been subjected to these abovemostothercreedalstatements.

In the sister Church of Scotland, in the meantime, a Confession washastily put together by Knox and his coadjutors and adopted byParliamentin1560,whichbecamethelegalConfessionoftheReformedChurch of Scotland when that Church was established in 1567. ThisConfessioncontainsanArticleheaded"OfElection"(8),butitsdoctrineof predestination must be gathered not merely from the somewhatmeagerstatementsofthatArticle,butalsofromotherallusionsunderthecaptionsespeciallyofProvidenceandtheChurch.ItassertstheuniversalruleofGod'sprovidence,directingall things"tosikend,ashisEternallWisdome, Gudnes, and Justice hes appoynted them, to themanifestatioun of his awin glorie." It traces all our salvation to "theeternallandimmutabledecreeofGod."Itdeclaresthat it isof themeregrace of God that we have been elected in Christ Jesus, before thefoundationsoftheworldwerelaid:andthatourfaithinHimiswroughtsolelybytheHolyGhost,whoworksintheheartsoftheelectofGod,andtowhom is tobe attributednot only faith, but all our goodworks.Theinvisible or true Church consists, it affirms, only of God's elect, butembracestheelectofallages:whileinthevisibleChurch"theReprobate

may be joyned in the society of the Elect, andmay externally usewiththemthebenefitesof thewordeandSacraments."ThewholeReformeddoctrine of predestinationmay indeed be drawn from this Confession:but, itmustbe allowed, it is not set forth in all its elements in explicitstatements. In this respect the earlier creed of the English Church ofGeneva (1558), which is thought also to have come from the hands ofKnox, is more precise: and indeed this creed differs from all otherReformedcreedsinthecircumstance-unimportantbutinteresting-thatinsettingforththedoublepredestinationitspeaksoftheforeordinationto death first: "God, of the lost race of Adam, hath ordained some asvesselsofwrathtodamnation;andhathchosenothersasvesselsofHismercytobesaved."BythesideoftheScotchConfessionitisnotunfairtoplacealsoasawitnesstotheConfessionaldoctrineofReformedScotlandsowidelyusedaCatechismasthatofJohnCraig,whichwasendorsedbytheGeneral Assembly of 1590, and for a half century ormorewas thespiritualfoodonwhichtheyouthofScotlandwasfed.Inthisadmirabledocument the Calvinian doctrine of predestination is set forth with acompleteness and crispness of expression that leaves nothing to bedesired.

The subsequenthistoryof theConfessional statement of predestinationinEnglandsuppliesavery interestingdemonstrationof thenecessityofembodying in it, after Calvin's manner, the clear assertion of theprædestinatio bipartita, if the very essence of the doctrine is to bepreserved.AslongasathoroughCalvinismwasdominantintheChurchof England the inadequacy of the statement of predestination in theThirty-nine Articles was, if not unremarked, at least the source of nodanger to sounddoctrine.Men in sympathywith thedoctrine set forthreadily read in the statement all its presuppositions and all itsimplicationsalike.Nobodyofthisclasswouldquestion,forexample,thatin the mention in the last clause of "that will of God which we haveexpressly declared to us in the Word of God," that other will of God,hidden from us but ordering all things, was assumed - especially as,earlierinthestatement,"Hiscounsel,secrettous,"ismentioned.Nobodywoulddoubtthat in"thepredestinationto lifeof thosewhomGodhathchosen in Christ" specific individuals, the especial objects of God'selectinggrace,wereexpresslyintended.Nobodywoulddoubtthatinthe

assertion of their choice "out of mankind," and predestination todeliverancefromcurseanddamnation,itwasperemptorilyimpliedthattherewasa remainderofmankind leftbehindandhencepredestinateduntothecurseanddamnationfromwhichtheseweredelivered.Nobodywould doubt that in the assertion that these were by God's constantdecreepredestinatedtobebroughtbyChristtoeverlastingsalvation,thecertitude of their actual salvation was asserted. But as soon asmen ininfluentialpositionsbegantofallawayfromthisCalvinisticfaith, itwasspeedily discovered that something more than presupposition howeverclear, or implication however necessary; was needed in a Confessionalstatement which should serve as a barrier against serious error and asafeguardtoessentialtruth.

The evil came, in the Church of England, naturally on the heels of arenewed assertion of sacerdotalism and sacramental grace: and itentrenched itself primarily under a plea of "Augustinianism," indistinction from "Calvinism." The high doctrine of Augustine as to thegrace of the sacrament of baptismwas appealed to, and his distinctionbetween the regenerate and the elect revived; the inference was drawnthatparticipationingraceisnowarrantoffinalsalvation,andelectiontogracenoproofofpredestinationtoglory; and thiswedgewasgraduallydriven in until the whole Reformed system was split up. Appeal wasvainlymadetothedeclarationsoftheArticles-theyprovedtooindefiniteto serve thepurpose.After a sharp conflict it became very evident thatwhat was needed was a new Confessional statement in which theessential elements of the doctrine should be given explicit assertion. Itwasthisthatwasattemptedinwhatisknownas"TheLambethArticles,"prepared byWilliamWhittaker, and set forth with the approval of thearchbishops and certain other ecclesiastics, in the hope of leading thethoughtoftheChurchbacktobetterchannels.Itwas,however,nowtoolate.Theevilleavenhadeatentoodeeplytobenowsuddenlychecked.Itwas easy to cry out that the very attempt to frame new Articles was ademonstration that the Calvinists were introducing new doctrine. Theauthority of the new Articles was, moreover, not complete. They werevirulently assaulted. And in the failure to establish them as a ChurchformularythecauseofconsistentCalvinismwas for the time lost in theChurchofEngland.MeanwhilebetterthingsweretobehopedofIreland,

andwhen,undertheleadingofUsher,aseriesofArticleswereframedforthatChurchthelessontaughtbythecourseofeventsinthesisterChurchofEnglandwastakentoheartandthechapter"OfGod'sEternalDecreeandPredestination"wasstrengthenedbytheincorporationintoit,alongwith the essence of the English Articles, also the new matter of theLambethArticles.ThecurbthuslaidupontheinroadsoferrorinIreland,however, it became one of the chief objects of the English party todestroy;and thisultimately theywereenabled todoand theArticles oftheChurchofEnglandwerequietlysubstitutedforthoseoftheChurchofIrelandinthatlandalso.ThustheCalvinismoftheIrishChurchalsowasfatallywounded.

The whole object and intent of the Lambeth Articles (1595) was toconservethethreatenedCalvinismoftheChurchofEngland:theydonotconstitute a complete creed, nor even a complete statement of thedoctrine of predestination and its necessary implications. They wereintended merely so to supplement the statement of the Thirty-nineArticles as to guard the Reformed doctrine from undermining anddestruction.Theyconfinethemselves, therefore, toasserting clearlyandwithout unnecessary elaboration the prædestinatio gemina, theindependenceofthedivinedecreeofelectiononforeseenmeritinman,thedefinitenumberof the elect; theassured final condemnation of thereprobate; the perseverance of the saints; the assurance of faith; theparticularity of grace; the necessity of grace to salvation; and theimpotencyofthenaturalwilltosalvation.Notalloftheseparagraphsareincorporated into thatoneof the IrishArticles (1615)headed "OfGod'sEternalDecreeandPredestination,"butonlysuchasnaturallyfallunderthat caption, while the others are utilized in other portions of thedocument.ThisparticularArticleisdisposedinsevenparagraphs.Inthefirst a clear assertion is made of God's general decree, with a carefulguarding of it against current calumnies: this is original with thisdocument.ThesecondparagraphsetsforthinlanguagederivedfromtheLambethArticlesthespecialdecreeofpredestination-theprædestinatiobipartita.Thethirdparagraphdefines"predestinationtolife"inlanguagederivedfromtheArticlesof theChurchofEngland.Thefourthexplainsthe cause of predestination to life as, negatively, nothing inman, and,positively,thegoodpleasureofGodalone:itistakenfromtheLambeth

Articles.Thefifthexpoundstherelationofpredestinationtothemeansofgrace,andistakenfromtheArticlesoftheChurchofEngland,withtheadditionof a clause from the LambethArticles covering the fate of thereprobate.ThelasttwoparagraphsaretakenwithmodificationsfromtheArticlesof theChurchofEnglandandset forth theuseofdoctrine.Thewholeconstitutesthehigh-watermarkoftheConfessionalexpressionofthis high mystery up to this time attained in the Reformed Churches.Nothingbeforeithadbeensoprudentlyandsothoroughlycompacted.ItwasrightlytakenbytheWestminsterdivinesasthepointofdepartureforthe formation of their own chapter on this locus, and to its admirableguidance is largelydue the greatnessof the success of theWestminstermen in dealing with this mystery in such combined faithfulness andprudence.

Itwasnot,however,onlyinBritainthattheReformedwerecalledupontodefendthetreasuresoftruththathadbeencommittedtothem,fromtheinroadsofthatperpetualfoeofthegraceofGodwhichisentrenchedintheself-sufficiencyofthenaturalheart.TheriseoftheArminianpartyin Holland was the most serious direct assault as yet suffered by theReformedtheology.ItwasmetbytheDutchCalvinistswithasuccessfulapplicationof theexpedient,anunsuccessful attempt to applywhich insomewhat similar circumstances in England gave birth to the LambethArticles - by the publication, to wit, of Articles supplementary to theacceptedConfessionoftheChurch,whichshouldmorespecificallyguardthe controverted points. The product of this counter-movement in theDutchChurchesistheCanonsofDort,publishedauthoritativelyin1619asthefindingoftheNationalSynodwiththeaidofalargebodyofforeignassessors, representative practically of the whole Reformed world. TheCanonsofDortnotonly,therefore,weresetforthwithlegalauthorityinthe Netherlands, but possessed the moral authority of the decrees ofpractically an Ecumenical Council throughout the whole body ofReformed Churches. Their form is largely determined by theRemonstrance to which they are formally a reply: it is therefore, forexample,thattheyaredividedintofiveheads;andthewholedistributionofthematter,aswellastheespecialpointsonwhichtheytouch,isduetotheoccasionoftheirorigin.Butforthepointsofdoctrinewithwhichtheydeal they provide a singularlywell-considered, prudent, and restrained

Reformed formulary. The first head of doctrine deals directly withpredestination, the rest with the connected points of particularredemption, inability, irresistible grace, and perseverance. The matterunder each head is disposed in two parts, in the former of which thedoctrine concerned is positively set forth, while in the latter thecorrespondingerrorsthathadbeenvexingtheChurchesarenamedandrefuted.

TheheadonPredestinationcontainseighteenparagraphs in itspositiveportion,followedbyninemoreinthenegativepart.Thestarting-pointistaken fromabroad statementof the doctrine of original sin andman'suniversalguilt(§1).Thentheprovisionsforman'ssalvationareadduced-thegiftofChrist,theproclamationofthegospel,thegiftoffaith(§§2-6)- and it is pointed out that the gospel has actually been sent not to allmen,butonlytothose"whomGodwillandatwhattimeHepleaseth"(§3),andthatfaithisnotinthepowerofall,butisagainthegiftofGodtowhomHe pleases. Thus the obvious distinction existing amongmen istracedbacktothedivinewill,andascribedto"thatdecreeofelectionandreprobation revealed in the word of God" (§ 6). The way being thusprepared, election is next defined (§ 7) and the details of the doctrinedeveloped(§§7-14);afterwhichreprobationisdefinedandguarded(§§15-16);andthewholeconcludeswithasectiononthedestinyofchildrendyingininfancy(§17),andanotherontheproperattitudeofmindinthefaceoftheseholymysteries(§18).Thedefinitionofelectionemphasizesits eternity, immutability, andabsolute freedom. Itsobject is said tobefallenmen,anditsendredemption,withallthemeansofgraceadjoined.The unity of the decree of election and of the means of salvation isasserted(§8).Itsrelationtoallgoodmotivesinthecreatureiscarefullyexplainedasnotthatofeffectbutofcause(§§9,10).Itsparticularityandunchangeablenessareemphasized(§11).Finally,theuseofthedoctrine,intheattainmentofassurance,asanincitementtogoodworks,andforthecomfortingofthepeopleofGod,isadvertedto(§§12-14).Thedecreeofreprobationisthenbroughtinas"peculiarlytendingto illustrateandrecommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election" andcarefullydefined(§15);andmenarewarnedagainstmisusingitsoastobeget within themselves an ill-founded despair (§ 16). Little ofimportance is added to this positive statement in the sections on "the

rejectionof errors."These takeup,onebyone, the subtleRemonstrantstatementsandlaythembytheadductionofappropriateScriptures;theyresult only in strengthening and sharpening the positive propositionsalready asserted - particularly those that concern the immutability ofGod's electing counsel; its entire independence of foreseen faith ordispositions or works as causes or occasions; and its completesovereigntyinall itsrelations.Thewholeconstitutesthefullestandoneof the most prudent and satisfactory expositions of the Reformeddoctrineofpredestinationevergivenwidesymbolicalauthority.

The Canons of Dort were adopted by the French Synods of 1620 and1623; but soon afterward the French Churches were disturbed by theunsettling teachings of the school of Saumur. These teachings did not,indeed, trench upon the doctrine of predestination in its essence.Amyraut,towhomitfellamongtheinnovatingdivinestodealwiththismatter, leaves nothing to be desired in his express loyalty to thedefinitions that had been the guides and guards of Reformed theologyfromthebeginning:hecopiouslydefendedthewholeReformeddoctrineasexpressedbyCalvin.Thefollowingisthewayhispositionissetdowninthe"Declarationof theFaithofMosesAmyrautwithreferencetotheErrorsoftheArminians":20

In the second article, what the Arminians defend is that God, havingdecreedfromalleternitytoofferoneandthesamegracetoallmen,thattheymight in thepowersof freewill either receiveor repudiate it; andhavingforeseenwhowouldacceptitandwhowouldrejectit;outofthatforesightelectedthosewhomHeforesawwouldmakeagooduseofthatgraceandreprobatedtherest.Thus,intheirview,electionisgroundedinforesightoffaith.

Theorthodox,ontheotherhand,hold,thatalthoughGoddecreedthatallmen indifferently should be invited to faith, He nevertheless in Hiseternalcounselseparatesagiven(certum)numberofmenfromtherest,to be granted a singular grace, bymeans of which theymay obey thatinvitation,andthusbeledtosalvation;whileall therest, theyhold,arepassedbybyHiminthedispensationofthatgrace(cæterosomnesabeoindispensatione illiusgratiæprætermissos esse).They add further thatthereasonwhyGodhas soacted is tobe tracedsolely toHismost free

good pleasure, and that there was no reason or cause of any kindwhatsoever in thosewhomHe electedwhy they should be elected; andthereexistedinthosewhomHereprobatednocausewhytheyshouldbereprobatedwhichdidnotequallyexistintheothers.Sothatelectionandreprobation are equally absolute and neither rests on the prevision ofanything(necullareicuiusquamprævisionenitatur).

Amyrautembraces thesamedoctrinewith the restof theorthodox andhas both explained and confirmed it with unrefuted reasons, drawnespeciallyfromtheninthchapterofRomans,inthethirteenthchapterofhis"DefenseofCalvin."

The point where the new French teachings affected the Reformeddoctrineofpredestination, therefore,wasnot in itssubstance,but in itsrelations-andmoreespeciallyitsrelationintheordodecretorumtothedecree of the gift of Christ. Amyraut, desiring to teach a universalatonement,wishedtoplacethedecreeofelectionintheorderofthoughtsubsequent instead of prior to the decree to give Christ to makesatisfactionforsin,whichsatisfactionshouldthereforebeconditional-towit,onthefaithwhichisthefreegiftofGodtoHiselect.Itwastomeetthis point of view, among other novelties broached by the Salmurianschool,thatatthebeginningofthelastquarteroftheseventeenthcenturythe"HelveticFormulaofConsent"wasdrawnupbyHeideggerwiththeassistance of Turretin and Gernler (1675). Its prime object in the"Canons" that concern predestination, therefore, is to defend theCalvinisticorderofdecrees: this isset forththerewithcarefulprecisionandemphasis,andtheuniversalismofAmyraut'sconstructionofthegiftof Christ explicitly opposed and refuted. But in stating and arguing itscase, thewhole doctrine of election is very carefully restated, includingthedetailsofitseternity,itsabsoluteness,itsindependenceonforesightof aught in man moving thereunto, its particularity andunchangeableness, and its implication of a reprobatemass left outsidethereachofsavinggracebythemerefactofelection.Thestatementmaywell be looked upon as a typical statement of the Calvinistic position,embodyingall thepointswhich, inthecourseofacenturyandahalfofcreed-making,ithadbeenfoundnecessarytoemphasizeinordertobringout the doctrine in its full outline and to protect it from insidious

undermining.

Itisinthemidstor,moreprecisely,neartheendofthisseriesofcreedalexpressions of the Reformed doctrine of predestination that theWestminsterConfessiontakesitsplace.Subsequentindatetoallofthem,withthesingleexceptionoftheSwissFormofConsent,itgathersupintoitselftheexcellencesofall.MoreparticularlyitisfoundedupontheIrishArticlesof1615,whichinturnwerecompoundedoftheEnglishArticlesandtheLambethArticles;andthroughthemitgoesbackrespectivelytothe thought especially of Peter Martyr and of John Calvin. There isnothinginitwhichisnottobefoundexpresslysetforthinthewritingsofthese two great teachers: and it gives their teachings form under theguidanceofthebestConfessionalstatementsprecedenttoitsownorigin.Itquitedeservesthehighpraisesithasreceivedfromthehandofoneofthe greatest andmost deservedly honored of the fathers of themodernPresbyterianChurch,whospeaksofitwithreiteratedemphasisnotonlyas"thebestandfullestexpression"of theReformedsystem,butas "theablestandripestproductofthatGreatReformation,whichwassofruitfulinsymbolicliterature."21

II

After this introductory survey of their general character, we are nowpreparedtosetoutthetextoftheConfessionalstatementsofthedoctrineofpredestinationintheReformedChurches.Weshallextractthesectionsspecifically devoted to the subject at large, but only so much of othermatterasseemsneedfulforunderstandingthenatureoftheConfessionalrecognition that is really given the doctrine. The Confessions are, ingeneral,arrangedintheorderinwhichtheyhavebeenmentionedintheprecedingdescriptionofthem.

ZWINGLI'SFIDEIRATIO(1530)22

Secondly. I know that that SupremeDivinitywho ismyGod has freelymade appointment concerning all things, so that His counsel does notdepend on the occasioning of any creature,[WC III. i. a; ii.] since it ispeculiartomarredhumanwisdomtodetermineonprecedentdiscussionorexample.ButGod,whofrometernitytoeternitycontemplatesallthat

iswitha singleand simple regard,hasnoneedof any ratiocination, orexpectation of acts, but, equally wise, prudent, and good, freelydetermines and disposes concerning all things-seeing that all that is isHis[WC III. ii.] Hence, though He knowingly and purposely in thebeginningmade themanwhoshould fall,Heyetequallydetermined toclotheHisownSoninhumannature,thatHemightrepairthefall....

Thirdly....TheelectionofGod,however,standsandremainsfirm,sincethosewhomHeelectedbeforetheconstitutionoftheworldHesoelectedastochoosetoHimselfthroughHisSon;forHeisasholyandjustasHeisgoodandmerciful.[WCIII.v.a.]AllHisworksthereforesavorofmercyand justice. Election therefore properly savors of both. It is of HisgoodnessthatHehaselectedwhomHewill;[WCIII.v.a.]butitisofHisjusticethatHehasadoptedHiselecttoHimselfandjoinedthemtoHimthroughHisSonasavictimofferedtosatisfyDivinejusticeforus....

Sixthly. Of the Church, then, we think as follows: The term Church isvariously used in the Scriptures. For those elect ones whom God hasdestined to eternal life.[WC III. v. a.] It is concerning this Church thatPaulspeakswhenhesays that ithasnospotorwrinkle.ThisChurchisknown to God alone; for He only, according to the word of Solomon,knows the hearts of the sons ofmen. But, nevertheless, those who aremembers of this Church know themselves, since they have faith, to beelect and members of this first Church;[WC III. viii.] but they areignorantwithregardtoothermembers.ForitisthuswrittenintheActs:"Andasmanyaswereordainedtoeternallifebelieved."Those,then,whobelieveareordainedtoeternallife.Butwhotrulybelievesnooneknowsbuttheonewhobelieves.HetheniscertainthatheiselectedofGod.For,according to theword of the Apostle, he has the Spirit as a pledge, bywhomheissponsoredandsealed,andknowshimselftobefreeandmadeasonofthefamilyandnotaslave.ForthatSpiritcannotdeceive.AsHedeclaresGodtobeourFather,wecallonHimasFatherwithassuranceand boldness, being firmly persuaded that we shall obtain an eternalinheritancebecauseweare sure that theSpiritofGodhasbeenpouredout intoourhearts. It is certain, then, thathewho is thus assuredandsecureiselect;forthosewhobelieveareordainedtoeternallife.[WCIII.viii.] There are, however, many elect who have not faith. For the holy

qeoto,koj,John,Paul-weretheynotelectwhiletheywerestillinfantsorchildren, and even before the constitution of the world? Nevertheless,they did not know this, either from faith or from revelation.Matthew,Zacchaeus,theThief,andtheMagdalene-weretheynotelectbeforetheconstitutionoftheworld,thoughtheywereignorantofthefactuntiltheywereilluminatedbytheSpiritanddrawntoChristbytheFather?Fromthem,then,wemaylearnthatthisfirstChurchisknowntoGodonly,andthatthoseonlywhohave firmandunwavering faithknowthat theyaremembers of this Church. But, once again, the term Church is useduniversally of allwho are enrolled in the name of Christ - that is,whohave given in their names to Christ, a good part of whom have openlyacknowledged Christ by confession or participation in the SacramentswhilestillinhearttheyareeitheralienatedfromHimorignorantofHim.WebelievethereforethatallthosewhohaveconfessedthenameofChristbelong to thisChurch.Thus Judaswasof theChurchofChrist, and allthosethatdrawbackfromChrist.ForJudaswasthoughtbytheApostlestobenotlessofChrist'sChurchthanPeterorJohn,sincehewasno lessso.ButChristknewwhowereHisandwhowasthedevil's.Thereis,then,this visible Church in this world, however unfit, and all who confessChristareinit,thoughmanyofthemarereprobates.[WCIII.iii.;vii.]ForChrist depicted that charming allegory of the ten virgins, five ofwhomwere wise and five foolish. And this Church is sometimes called elect,althoughitisnotthatfirstChurchwhichiswithoutspot;butsince it is,according toman's judgment, the Church ofGod, on account of publicconfession,itisthereforecalledelect.ForwejudgethosetobebelieversandelectwhogiveintheirnamestoChrist.SoPeterspokewhenhesaid,"TotheelectwhoarescatteredabroadinPontus,"etc.Therebythenameofelecthemeansallwhowereofthechurchestowhichhewaswriting,notthoseonlywhowereproperlyGod'select:forastheywereunknowntoPeter, hewas not able towrite to them. Finally, thewordChurch isusedforanyparticularcongregationofthisuniversalandvisibleChurch....

ZWINGLI'SEXPOSITIOCHR.FIDEI(1531)23

[103] It is thereforeby thegraceandgoodnessofGodalone,whichHehasabundantlypouredoutonusinChrist,thateternalblissisattained.

What, then, shallwe say of the passage of Scripture adduced above, inwhicharewardispromisedforadraughtofcoldwaterandthelike?Thistowit:ThattheelectionofGodisfreeandgratuitous; forHeelectedusbeforetheconstitutionoftheworld,beforewewereborn.Godthereforedidnotelectusonaccountofworks,butHeelectedusbeforethecreationoftheworld.[WCIII.v.]Ourworksthereforehavenomerit.ButwhenHepromisesarewardforworksitisafterahumanmannerofspeech;"for,"saysAugustine,"whatwiltThou,OgoodGod,remunerateexceptThineownwork?ForsinceitisThouthatworkestinusboththewillingandthedoing,whatisleftforustoclaimforourselves?For..."etc.

THETETRAPOLITANCONFESSION(1530)24

III.OfJustificationandFaith. . . .Forsince it isour righteousnessandeternal life to know God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ; and it is soimpossibleforthistobetheworkoffleshandbloodthatitisneedfulforit tobebornagainanew;andwecannotcometo theSonexceptby theFather'sdrawing,norknowtheFatherexceptbytheSon'srevelation;andPaulhaswrittensoexpresslythatitisnotofusnorofworks:-itisclearenough that our works can help nothing at all toward our becomingrighteousfromtheunrighteousoneswhichwewereborn;because that,aswearebynature childrenofwrathand thereforeunrighteous, soweavailtodonothingrighteousoracceptabletoGod,butthebeginningofallourrighteousnessandsalvationmustneedscomefromthemercyofGod,whooutofHis grace (dignatione) aloneand the contemplationofthedeathofHisSonoffersinthefirstinstancethedoctrineoftruthandHis Gospel, sending those who shall proclaim it; and then, since thenaturalmanisnotatallable,asPaulsays,toperceivethethingsofGod(ICor.ii.),makesatthesametimetoariseinthedarknessofourheartstherayofHislight,sothatwemaynowhavefaithintheproclaimedGospel,beingpersuadedof its truth by the supreme Spirit, and forthwithmay,enjoying the testimonyof this Spirit, call uponGod in filial confidence,andsay,Abba,Father,obtainingtherebysuresalvationaccordingtothatsaying,"WhosoevershallcallonthenameoftheLord,shallbesaved."

IV. Of GoodWorks proceeding out of Faith through Love. But we areunwilling that these things should be so understood as if we placedsalvation and righteousness in the slothful thoughts of themind, or in

faithdestituteof love,which is called fides informis;seeing thatwearesure that no one can be righteous or be saved unless he loves GodsupremelyandimitatesHimzealously.ForwhomHeforeknew,thesameHealsopredestinatedtobecomeconformedtothe imageofHisSon,towit,asinthegloryofablessedlife,soalsointhecultivationofinnocenceand consummate righteousness, for we are His workmanship, createdunto goodworks.[WC III. vi.] But no one is able to loveGod above allthings,andtoemulateHimwithworthyzeal,excepthedoindeedknowHimandreceivethepromiseofallgoodthingsfromHim....

FIRSTBOHEMIANCONFESSION(1535)25

III....HencealsotheyteachthattherebelongtothisoneGod,supremepower,wisdomandgoodness.TherealsobelongtoHimalonethosemostexcellentworks, suitable to no other thanHim.These are theworks ofcreation, redemption, conservation or sanctification. They teach,moreover,thatthisonlytrueGod,inoneessenceofdivinityandblessedtrinity of persons, is to be ever adored, venerated and worshiped withsupremereverence,honorandpraiseasthesupremeLordandKingofallthings, regnant eternally: and fromHis hand alone are all things to belookedforandsought....

VI. . . . They teach, moreover, that through Christ men are mercifullyjustified freelyby faith inChrist, andobtain salvationand remissionofsins,apartfromallhumanworkandmerit.LikewisetheyteachthatHisdeath and blood alone is sufficient for abolishing and expiating all thesinsofallmen....Theylikewiseteachthatnoonecanhavethisfaithbyhisownpower,willorchoice;sinceit isthegiftofGodwho,whereandwhenitseemsgoodtoHim,worksitinmanthroughtheHolySpirit.[WCIII.vi.b.]...

VIII.ConcerningtheHolyCatholicChurch,theyteachfirstofallthattheheadandfoundationoftheChurchisChristtheLordbyHisownmerit,graceandtruth,inwhomitisbuiltupbytheHolySpirit,theWordandSacraments....

SECONDBOHEMIANCONFESSION(1575)26

III....AndsoHeistheperfectMediator,Advocate,andIntercessorwithGodtheFather,Reconciler,RedeemerandSaviourofourChurch,whichby His Holy Spirit He collects, conserves, protects, and rules until thenumberofGod'selectshallbecompleted.[WCIII.vi.b.]...

XI. . . . But such a company of good and badmen is called and is theCatholic,ChristianandHolyChurch,onlywithrespecttothegoodfishesand wheat - that is, the elect children of God and true and faithfulChristians,allofwhomasawholeandwithoutexceptionareholywithaholiness imputed in Christ and begun in them by theHoly Spirit; andtheseonlyGoddeignstocallHissheep,thecommunityofwhomisreallythebrideofChrist,thehouseofGod,thepillarandgroundofthetruth,themotherofallthefaithfulandthesoleark,outsideofwhichthereisnosalvation....

FIRSTBASLEORMÜHLHAUSENCONFESSION(1534)27

II.OfCreationandProvidence.WebelievethatGodcreatedallthingsbyHis EternalWord, that is, byHis only begotten Son; and sustains andanimatesallthingsbyHisSpirit,Hisownpower:andthereforethatGod,asHecreated, sooverseesandgovernsall things.Gen. i. 1;John i.3; IChron.xxix.11,12;Actsii.23.

III. Of Predestination. Hereupon we confess that God, before He hadcreated the world, had elected all those to whom He would give theinheritanceofeternalsalvation[WCIII.v.a.]Rom.viii.29,30,ix.11-13,xi.5,7;Eph.i.4-6....

VI.Andalthoughmanbythesamefallbecameliabletodamnationandinimical to God, God nevertheless never ceased to care for the humanrace.This iswitnessedby thepatriarchs; thepromisesbefore andaftertheflood;thelawlikewisegivenbyGodtoMoses;andtheholyprophets.Rom.v.16;Gen.xii.1,xiv.19,20,xv.1;Gen.iii.15,xxi.12,xxvi.3,4,24,xxviii.13,14,15.

FIRSTHELVETICORSECONDBASLECONFESSION(1536)28

9.FreeWill.Thus,weattribute freewill toman in suchamanner that

thoughweareconsciousofbothknowingandwillingtodogoodandevil,weare able indeedof ourownmotion todo the evil, but areunable toembraceandpursuethegood,exceptasilluminatedbythegraceofChristandimpelledbyHisSpirit.ForGoditiswhoworksinusboththewillingandthedoing,accordingtoHisgoodpleasure[WCIII.vi.]AnditisfromGodthatsalvationcomes,fromusperdition.Phil.ii.;Hos.xiii.

10.TheEternalCounselofGodConcerning theReparationofMan.Forthis man, therefore, devoted by his fault to damnation, and incurringrighteous indignation,God theFather has nevertheless never ceased tocare.Andthisismadeplainbytheprimalpromises,andbythewholelaw(which arouses and does not extinguish sin) and by Christ who wasordainedandsetforthforthisverypurpose.Eph.i.;Rom.vii.

THEHUNGARIANCONFESSION(1557-1558)29

OutoftheWordofGodwecallHimFather,GodandJehovah,havinglifeinHimself,existentfromnone,wantingallbeginning,whofrometernitywithout any beginning or change begot out ofHis ownhypostasis as itwere the character and splendor of His glory, the only begotten Son -throughwhomHe from eternity foreknew and disposed all things,[WCIII.i.a.]andinthebeginningcreated,andconservesthem,andsavesHiselectbyjustifyingthem,butcondemnstheimpious.[WCIII.iii.]...

Thirdly,[eternity]isusedofacontinuoustime-thatis,oftheperiodinwhichtheworldwascreated,of thedays inwhich theworldwasmade.Hence it is said:He elected us before times eternal, that is,He electedbeforethesevendaysofcreation,beforecreation,frometernity(Eph.i.2,3, 5; II Tim. i. 2, 3).[WC III. v.] Fourthly, it is used of the infinitesalvationofthepiousandthetormentoftheimpious:andthissalvationand condemnation, though they have a beginning in the elect and thevesselsofwrath,neverthelesswantanend....

As it is impossible that things that are in direct repugnance to oneanother and are mutually destructive can be the efficient and formalcauseoftheircontraries;aslightisnotthecauseofdarkness,norheatofcold(Psalms5,46,61,66,80,84,114,135);soit isimpossible forGod,who is Light, Righteousness, Truth,Wisdom,Goodness, Life, to be the

cause of darkness, sin and falsehood, ignorance, blindness,malice, anddeath;butSatanandmenarethecauseofallthese.ForGodcannotexseand per se do things that He prohibits and on account of which Hecondemns.[WCIII.i.b.]...

AsHewhojustlyrenderstothosewhoworkequallyanequalreward,andwhogivestotheundeserving,outofgraceandvoluntarily,whatHewill,is not a respecter of persons; so God had acted justly, if out of debt,according to justice and His own law, He had rendered death andcondemnationasthestipendofsintoallwhodeserveit.Andontheotherhand,whenforthesakeofHisson,outoftheplenitudeofHisgraceandinHisfreedomofwill,Hegivestotheundeservingrighteousnessandlife,[WC III. v.] this is not prosopoliptis, that is, He is not a respecter ofpersons, as it is said: "Takewhat is thine andwhat thouhast deservedandgo:IsitnotlawfulformetodowhatIpleasewithmyown?Isitnotthyeyethatisevil?notmyeye,becauseIamgood"(Matt.xx.)....

WeconfessChrist...asRedeemerforthesereasons....Then,too,thatHe might make satisfaction for the life-giving mercy of God by theomnipotenceofthesameWordandonlybegottenSonofGod,accordingtotheeternalelectionmadefrometernityinChrist(Eph.i).[WCIII.v.]

SECONDHELVETICCONFESSION(1562,1566)30

VI.OftheProvidenceofGod.Bytheprovidenceofthiswise,eternalandomnipotentGod,we believe that all things in heaven and in earth andamong all the creatures are conserved and governed. . . . Meanwhile,however, we do not despise the means by which divine providenceoperates,asiftheywereuseless....ForGod,whohasdetermineditsownendtoeverything,[WCIII.i.a.]hasordainedboththeprincipleandthemeans bywhich it shall attain its end. TheGentiles attribute things toblindfortuneoruncertainchance....

VIII. Of Man's Fall, Sin, and the Cause of Sin. . . . We condemn,moreover,FlorinusandBlastus, againstwhomalso Irenæuswrote, andall who make God the author of sin. . . . There is enough vice andcorruptioninusforittobebynomeansnecessaryforGodtoinfuseintous new and increased depravity. Accordingly when God is said in

Scripturetoharden,toblind,andtogiveovertoareprobatemind,itistobeunderstoodthatHedoesthisbyarighteousjudgment,asajust judgeand avenger. In fine, whenever God is said or seems to do any evil inScripture, it is not so said because it is notman thatdoes the evil, butbecauseGod,whocouldpreventitifHewished,injustjudgmentpermitsittobedoneanddoesnotpreventit;orbecauseHehasmadeagooduseof the evil of men, as in the case of the sins of Joseph's brethren; orbecauseHereinsinthesins,thattheymaynotbreakouttoowidelyandriot.[WC III. i. b.] St. Augustine, in his "Enchiridion," says: "In amarvelousandineffableway,thatdoesnottakeplaceapartfromHiswill,whichyettakesplaceagainstHiswill.Foritwouldnotbedone,ifHedidnot permit it to be done. Nor is it unwillingly that He permits it butwillingly.Neitherwould theGoodOnepermitevil tobedone,werenottheOmnipotentOneabletobringgoodoutoftheevil."

Remainingquestions-whetherGodwilledAdamtofall,orimpelledhimtohis fall, orwhyHedidnot preventhis fall, and the like,we account(except, perhaps, when the improbity of heretics or other importunatemen compel them too to be explained out of God'sWord, as has beendone not seldomby pious doctors of the Church) among those curiousinquirieswhichtheLordprohibits,lestmanshouldeatoftheforbiddenfruit and his transgression be punished; but things that take place arecertainlynot evilwith respect to theprovidenceofGod,God'swill andpower, but with respect to Satan and our will in opposition to God'swill[WCIII.i.b.]...

X.OfthePredestinationofGodandtheElectionof theSaints.Godhasfrom eternity freely and of His mere grace, with no respect of men,predestinatedorelectedthesaintswhomHewillsaveinChrist,[WCIII.v. a.] according to that saying of the Apostle: "God hath chosen us inHimselfbefore the foundationsof theworldwere laid"(Eph. i.4) ;andagain:"Whosavedusandcalleduswithaholycalling,notaccordingtoourworks,butaccordingtoHisownpurposeandgrace,whichwasgivenunto us through Jesus Christ before times eternal, but is now mademanifestbytheappearanceofourSaviourJesusChrist"(IITim.i.9,10).

Therefore, notwithoutmeans,[WC III. vi. a.] thoughnot on account ofanymeritofours,butinChristandonaccountofChrist,Godelectedus;

sothatthosewhoarenowingraftedintoChristbyfaiththesamealsoareelect;[WC III. viii.] but they are reprobates, who are without Christ,according to that saying of the Apostle: "Prove yourselveswhether youare in faith. Know ye not your own selves that Jesus Christ is in you,exceptyebereprobates?"(IICor.xiii.5).

Infine,thesaintsareelectedbyGodinChristtoasureend,whichveryendtheApostlesetsforthwhenhesays:[WCIII.v.a.]"HehaschosenusinHimthatweshouldbeholyandwithoutblamebeforeHiminlove;andHehaspredestinatedusthatHemightadoptusthroughJesusChristtoHimselftothepraiseofthegloryofHisgrace"(Eph,i.4,5,6).

AndalthoughGodknowswhoareHis,[WCIII. iv.]andmentionisnowand thenmade of the fewness of the elect, wemust nevertheless hopewell of all, and not rashly number any among the reprobates. Paulcertainly says to the Philippians: "I give thanks for you all" (and he isspeakingof thewholePhilippianChurch),"thatyouhavecome into thefellowshipoftheGospel,beingpersuadedthatHewhohasbegunagoodwork inyouwillperfect it, as it is right forme to think this of you all"(Phil.i.3-7).

AndwhentheLordwasasked(Lukexiii.)whethertherearefewthatshallbesaved,theLorddoesnotsayinreplythatfewormorearetobesavedorlost,butratherexhortsthateachshouldstrivetoenterinatthestraitgate,asifHeshouldsay,Itisnotforyoutoinquirecuriouslyaboutthesethings,butrathertoendeavortoenterheavenby thestraightpath.[WCIII.viii.]

Whereforewedonotapproveof thewicked speechesofsomewho say,"Fewareelected,andasitdoesnotappearwhetherIaminthatnumberof the few, I will not defraud my nature." Others say, "If I bepredestinatedorelectedbyGod,nothingcanhindermefromasalvationalreadycertainlydecreed,nomatterwhatImayevercommit;butifIbeinthenumberofthereprobatenofaithorrepentanceeitherwillhelpme,sincetheappointmentofGodcannotbechanged:thereforeallteachingsandadmonitionsareuseless."FortothesethatsayingoftheApostles isopposed:"TheservantoftheLordmustbeapttoteach,instructingthemthatare contraryminded, if at any timeGodwill give them repentance

untotheknowledgeofthetruth,thattheymayescapefromthesnareofthedevilwhoareheldcaptivebyhimtohiswill"(IITim.ii.24-26).

ButAugustinealso,inhisworkonthe"BlessingofPerseverance,"showsthat there are to be preached both the grace of free election andpredestination, and salutary admonitions and doctrines.We, therefore,condemn those who seek outside of Christ whether they are elect andwhatGodhaddecreedconcerningthemfromalleternity.[WCIII.viii.a.]

ForthepreachingoftheGospelmustbeheardandfaithbegivenit:anditis to be held indubitable that thou art elect if thoubelievest and art inChrist.FortheFatherhaslaidbaretousinChristtheeternalsentenceofHispredestination,aswehave justshownfromtheApostle (IITim. i.).[WCIII.viii.a.]Thereistobetaught,therefore,andconsideredbeforeallthings,howgreattheloveoftheFathertowardusisthatisrevealedtousinChrist;andwhattheLordpreachestousdaily intheGospelmustbeheard - howHe calls and says: "Come tome, all ye that labor and areheavy laden,and Iwill giveyou rest" (Matt. xi.28) ; "Godso loved theworldthatHegaveHisonly-begottenfortheworld, thateveryonewhobelieveth inHim shouldnotperishbuthave eternal life" (John iii. 16);again: "It is not thewill of the Father that any one of these little onesshouldperish"(Matt.xviii.14).

Let Christ then be the mirror in which we contemplate ourpredestination.WeshallhaveasufficientlyclearandsurewitnessthatwearewrittenintheBookofLife,ifweparticipateinChrist,andHeisoursin true faith, and we His. Let it console us in the temptation ofpredestination, thanwhich there is scarcelyanymoreperilous, that thepromisesofGodtobelieversareuniversalandthatHeHimselfhassaid:"Askandyeshallfind.Everyonethatasketh,receiveth"(Lukexi.9,10):[WCIII.viii.] infine, thatwepraywiththewholeChurchofGod: "OurFatherwhichartinHeaven":andthatweare ingraftedintothebodyofChrist by baptism, and are repeatedly fed in theChurchwithHis bodyandbloodtolifeeternal.Confirmedbythesethingswearecommanded,accordingtothisPreceptofPaul,"toworkoutoursalvationwithfearandtrembling"(Phil.ii.12).

XIII. Of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . . For God has from eternity

predestinatedtosavetheworldthroughChrist,andhasmanifestedthisHispredestinationandeternalcounsel to theworld through theGospel(II Tim. i. 9, 10). Whence it is clear that the evangelical religion anddoctrineisthemostancientofall,amongallthathaveeverbeen,areorshall be. And hence we say that they all err dreadfully and speakunworthily of the eternal counsel of God, who describe the evangelicaldoctrineandreligionaslatelyarisenandafaithscarcelythirtyyearsold.

HEIDELBERGCATECHISM(1563)31

I,withbodyandsoul,bothinlifeanddeath,amnotmyown,butbelongtomyfaithfulSaviourJesusChrist,whowithHispreciousbloodhasfullysatisfiedforallmysins,andredeemedmefromallthepowerofthedevil;andsopreservesmethatwithout thewillofmyFather inheavennotahaircanfallfrommyhead;yea,thatallthingsmustworktogetherformysalvation.Wherefore,byHisHolySpirit,He also assuresme of eternallife,andmakesmeheartilywillingandreadyhenceforthtoliveuntoHim(1).

TheeternalFatherofourLordJesusChrist,whoofnothingmadeheavenandearth,withallthatinthemis,wholikewiseupholdsandgovernsthesamebyHiseternalcounselandprovidence,isforthesakeofChristHisSonmyGodandmyFather,inwhomIsotrustastohavenodoubtthatHe will provide me with all things necessary for body and soul; andfurther,thatwhateverevilHesendsuponmeinthisvaleoftears,Hewillturntomygood;forHeisabletodoit,beingAlmightyGod,andwillingalso,beingafaithfulFather(26).

[TheprovidenceofGodis]thealmightyandeverywherepresentpowerofGod,whereby,asitwerebyHishand,Hestillupholdsheavenandearth,with all creatures, and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain anddrought, fruitfulandbarrenyears,meatanddrink,healthandsickness,riches and poverty, yea, all things, come not by chance, but by Hisfatherlyhand(27).[WCIII.i.]

[Christ]isordained[verordnet]ofGodtheFather,andanointedwiththeHolyGhost,tobeourChiefProphetandTeacher,whofullyrevealstousthesecretcounselandwillofGodconcerningourredemption....(31).

IlookfortheselfsameOne...tocomeagainasJudgefromheaven;whoshall cast all His and my enemies into everlasting condemnation, butshalltakeme,withallHischosenones,toHimself,intoheavenlyjoyandglory(52).

TheSonofGodfromthebeginningoftheworldtoitsend,byHisSpiritandWord,outofthewholehumanrace,gathers,protectsandpreservesforHimself unto eternal life, in the unity of the true faith, an electedcommunion;[WCIII.v.]andIamandevershallremainalivingmemberofthesame(54-Definitionofthe"HolyCatholicChristianChurch").

ANHALTREPETITION(1581)32

.....

BRANDENBURGCONFESSIONS33

1.TheConfessionofSigismund(1614)

In the Article on eternal election or predestination to eternal life HisElectoral Highness acknowledges and confesses that it is the mostcomfortable of all, onwhich chiefly rest not only all otherArticles, butalso our blessedness - that, to wit, God the Almighty, out of His puregrace and mercy, without any respect to man's worthiness, merit orworks,[WC III. v. b.] before the foundations of the world were laid,ordainedandelected toeternal lifeallwhoconstantlybelieve inChrist,[WCIII.v.a.]knowsalsoandacknowledgesthemasHis,andasHehasloved them from eternity, so endows them also out of pure grace withjustifying faith and strong endurance to the end, so that no one shallpluckthemoutofthehandofChristandnooneseparatethemfromHislove,andallthings,goodandbadalike,mustworktogetherforgoodtothem,becausetheyarecalledaccordingtothepurpose.[WCIII.vi.a,b.]Likewise also that God has, according to His strict righteousness,eternallypassedbyallwhodonotbelieve inChrist,andprepared themfortheeverlastingfireofhell,asitstandsexpresslywritten:[WCIII.vii.a,b.] "Hewhodoesnotbelieve in theSon is judgedalready," "HewhodoesnotbelieveintheSonshallnotseelife,butthewrathofGodabides(andtherefore it isalready)onhim"-notas ifGodwereacauseof the

sinner'sdestruction,notasifHehadpleasureinthesinner'sdeath,notasifHewereanauthorandinciterofsin,[WCIII.i.b.]notasifHedidnotwishalltobesaved,forthecontraryistobefoundeverywhereintheHolyScriptures;butthatthecauseofsinanddestructionistobesoughtonly in Satan and the godless, who are repudiated to damnation onaccountoftheirunbeliefanddisobediencetoGod.Andmoreoverthatofnoman'ssalvationis it tobedoubtedso longas themeansofsalvationare used, because it is not known to any man at what time God willmightilycallHisown,orwhowillhereafterbelieveornot, sinceGod isnot limited to any time and does all things according to His pleasure.And,on theotherhand,HisElectoralHighness rejects all and everyofsuchpartlyblasphemousandpartlydangerousopinionsandassertionsasthat we must climb up into heaven and there search out in a specialregister or in God's secret treasury and council chamber who arepredestinatedtoeternallifeandwhonot;forGodhassealedtheBookofLife,andnocreaturecanpryintoit(IITim.ii.19).Likewise[herejects]that God has elected some, propter fidem prævisam, on account offoreseen faith, which is Pelagian;[WC III. v. b.] and that He does notdesire the greater part to be saved, but condemns them absolutely,nakedly, without any cause, and therefore not on account of sin, forcertainly the righteousGodhasneverdeterminedondamnation exceptfor sin,[WC III. vii. b.] and therefore the decree of reprobation todamnationisnottoberegardedasanabsolutumdecretum,afree,nakeddecree, as the Apostle says of the rejected Jews: "Behold the brancheswerebrokenoffonaccountoftheirunbelief."Again[herejects],thattheelectmay live just as they choose, and, on the otherhand,nothing canhelp those that are not elect, no Word, no Sacrament, no piety; forcertainlyfromtheWordofGodit isclearthatnogoodtreebringsforthevil fruit, and that God has elected us that we should be holy andunblamablebeforeHiminlove(Eph.i.4);andthatwhoeverabidesasagood branch in the vine of Christ brings forth much fruit; and thatwhosoeverdoesnotabideinHimshallbecutoffasabranchandwither,andmengatherthemandcastthemintothefire,andtheymustburn,asChristtheLordHimselfsays(Johnxv.5-6).

2.TheLeipzigColloquy(1631)

Andalthoughthedoctrineofeternalelectionisnotexpressly treated inthe Augsburg Confession, nevertheless it has seemed wise to thetheologiansofbothsidestosetforththeirdoctrineandmeaningonthispoint also, concerning which there has been hitherto much strife. TheBrandenburganandHessiantheologiansdeclare therefore the followingtobetheirunanimousdoctrineandbelief,towit:

ThatGodchosefrometernityinJesusChristoutofthelostraceofman,not all, but some men,[WC III. v. a.] whose number and names areknowntoHimalone,[WCIII.iv.]whomHeinHisowntime,throughthepowerandoperationofHisWordandSpirit, illuminatesandrenews tofaithinChrist;andalsoenlightensinthesamefaithtotheendandfinallymakeseternallyblessedthroughfaith.[WCIII.vi.]

ThatHemoreover found or foresawno cause or occasion or precedentmeansorconditionofsuchchoiceintheelectthemselves-whethertheirgoodworksortheirfaithoreventhefirstholyinclinationoremotionorconsenttofaith,butthatallthatisgoodinthemflowsoriginallyfromthepure free grace of God which is eternally ordained and given to themaloneinJesusChrist.[WCIII.v.b.]

That also God from eternity ordained and reprobated those whopersevere in their sins andunbelief to eternaldamnation,[WC III. viii.]notoutof suchanabsolutumdecretum,ornakedwill anddecree, as ifGodeitherfrometernityordainsorintimecreatesthegreaterpartoftheworldoranymen,without regard to their sins and unbelief, to eternaldamnation, or to the cause thereof; but the reprobation as well as thedamnationtakesplaceoutofHisjustjudgment,thecauseofwhichisinman himself, to wit, his sin, impenitence and unbelief;[WC III. vii. b.]that therefore the entire fault and cause of the reprobation anddamnationoftheunbelievingisinthemselves;theentirecause,however,of theelection and blessedness of believers is alone the pure andmeregraceofGodinJesusChrist,[WCIII.v.a.]accordingtothewordoftheLord:"OIsrael! thoudostbringthyself intounhappiness: thysalvation,however,standsinmealone."

That, therefore, further,eachshouldbeassuredofandshouldknowhiselectionandblessedness,notapriorifromthehiddencounselofGod,but

onlyaposteriorifromtherevealedWordofGod,andfromhisfaithandthe fruitsofhis faith inChrist;[WC III. viii.] and that it doesnot at allfollow, as the wicked world mockingly misrepresents this high Article,andmuchlesscanitbetaught,that"whoeveriselectedmaypersevereinhis godlessness as long as he chooses, and nevertheless he must besaved,"while "whoever isnot elected, even thoughhe shouldbelieve inChristandliveagodlylife,mustneverthelessbedamned."

If,however,anywouldsearchandprymoredeeplyintothishighmysteryandseekforotherreasonsbesidesGod'sfree,gracious,andrighteouswillwhy God has nevertheless actually brought to faith only some fromamongmenwhoarealikebynature,andallofwhomHecouldassuredlyby His Almightiness have brought to faith and salvation, while on theother hand He has left the rest in their sins and voluntary, obstinateimpenitence and unbelief: - then they [the Brandenburg and Hessiantheologians] say with the Apostle: "Who art thou, O man, that woulddisputewithGod?Hasnotthepotterpower,outofoneimpuremassofsin,tomakeonevesseltohonorofpuregrace,andanothertodishonorofjust judgment? O the depth of the riches and knowledge of God!HowinconceivableareHis judgmentsandhowunsearchableHisways!Whohas becomeHis counselor?Orwho has knownHismind?Orwho hasgiventoHimfirstthatitmayberecompensedtohim?"

34On the other hand the Saxon theologians declare themselves in thefollowingfashion:

1. ThatGod from eternity, and before the foundation of theworldwaslaid,electedinChristnotall,butsomementoeternalblessedness.

2.ThatthenumberandnamesoftheelectareknowntoGodalone,astheLordsays:"HeknowsHissheep,"and,asSt.Paulsays:"GodknowsHisown."

3.ThatGodfrometernityelectedthoseofwhomHesawthattheyintimewould,throughthepowerandoperationofHisWordandSpirit,believeinChristandpersevere in their faith totheend;andalthough theelectmayforawhilefallawayfromthegraceofGod,yetitisimpossiblethatthisshouldhappenfinaliterandpersistently.

4.ThatGod, inelection, foundnocauseoroccasionof suchelection inthe elected themselves, not even a first holy inclination, emotion orconsenttofaith;butthatallthatisgoodintheelectflowsoriginallyfromthepurefreegraceofGod,whichisgiventheminChristfrometernity.

5.ThatGodfrometernityordainedtoeternaldamnationandreprobationthoseonlywhomHeknewwouldpersevereintheirsinsandunbelief.

6. That this reprobationhasnot at all takenplace out of an absolutumdecretumornakeddecreeandwill,asifGodhadcondemnedanyoneoutofHissolepleasure,withoutregardtoman'sunbelief.FortherewasnosuchnakeddecreeinGod,byvirtueofwhichHehaseitherfrometernityordained or in time created either the greater part ofmankind or evenonlyasinglemantoeternaldamnationortothecausethereof.

7. That, however, although so many men are eternally lost andcondemned,thishappenscertainlyoutofthejust judgmentofGod;butthecauseofthiscondemnationisinthementhemselves,towit,intheirdominatingsins,theirunbeliefandimpenitence;thatthereforetheentirefault and cause of the reprobation and condemnation is in themselves,whiletheentirecauseof theelectionandblessednessofbelievers is thepureandmeregraceofGodinJesusChrist,accordingtotheWordoftheLord:"OIsrael! thoudostbringthyself intounhappiness; thy salvation,however,standsinmealone"(Hos.xiii.).

8. That each one should and may be assured of his election andblessedness, not a priori out of the hidden counsel of God, but only aposteriori,outoftherevealedWordofGodandoutofhisfaithinChrist;and that it does not at all follow as the wicked world mockinglymisrepresentsthishighArticle,andmuchlesscanorshoulditbetaughtthat"Whoever iselectedmaypersevere inhisgodlessnessas longashechooses,andneverthelesshemustandwillbesaved,"while"Whoeverisnotelectedmustthereforebedamned,althoughheeversosurelybelievesinChristorliveseversogodlyalife."

9.Thatinthishighmysteryofelectiontherearemanyquestionsmootedby men which we in this mortality cannot understand, nor answerotherwisethanoutofSt.Paul:"Whoartthou,Oman,thatdisputestwith

God?"(Rom. ix.).Again:"Othedepthsof therichesof thewisdom andknowledge of God! How inconceivable are His judgments and howunsearchableHis wayslWho has becomeHis counselor? Andwho hasknownHismind?OrwhohasgiventoHimthatitmayberecompensedhim?"(Rom.xi.).

10.Concerningall this theSaxontheologianshavedeclaredthemselves,that they also further hold as correct and accordant with the HolyScriptures all that is taught concerning this Article in the Book ofConcord. And that God in particular chose us in Christ, out of graceindeed, but in such a manner that He foresaw who would believe inChrist perseveringly and in verity, and whom God foresaw that theywouldsobelieve,themHealsoordainedandelectedtomakeblessedandglorious.

3.TheDeclarationofThorn(1645)

OfGrace. 1.Fromsinanddeath there isno redemptionor justificationthrough the powers of nature, or through the righteousness of the law,butonlythroughthegraceofGodinChrist,whohasredeemedus,whendeadinsins,fromwrathandthecurse,bymakingfullsatisfactionbytheuniquesacrificeofHisdeathandthemeritofHisperfectobedience foroursins,andnotforoursonlybutforthesinsofthewholeworld:

2.Whohas efficaciously calledus,when redeemed,by theWordof thegospelandtheSpiritofgrace,outof thekingdomofsinanddeath intothe kingdom of grace and life; and has sealed us by the sacraments ofgrace:

3.Whojustifiesusorabsolvesusfromsinsandadoptsusassons,whenwe are called and are sincerely repentant, on account of the merit ofChristalone,apprehendedbyalivingfaith;andofmeregrace impartedtobelievers,asmembersofChrist:

4. And likewise by the Spirit of love poured out into our hearts, dailymore and more renews us to a sincere zeal for holiness and newobedience,andsanctifiesusormakesusrighteousandholy:

5.Who,finally,willbythesamegraceeternallyglorifyus,perseveringtotheendoflifeinfaithandlove,asheirsofthekingdomofheaven,notoutofanymeritbutoutofthegracepromisedinChrist:

6. And so also will paternally, on account of Christ, reward our goodworks,donebythegraceoftheSpiritinfaithinChristandinlove,withamostabundant,nayinfinitereward,beyondandabovetheirmerit:

7.Evenas[WCIII.vi.]HehasfrometernityelectedusinChrist,notoutofanyforeseenfaithormeritofworksordisposition,[WCIII.v.b.]butout ofmere and undeserved grace,[WC III. v. a.] as well to that samegrace of redemption, vocation, justification, adoption and perseveringsanctificationwhichHehasgivenintime,[WCIII.vi.b.]astothecrownofeternallifeandtheglory[WCIII.v.a.]whichistobeparticipatedinbythesemeans.[WCIII.vi.a.]

8. The rest, who hold back the truth in unrighteousness andcontumaciously spurn the offered grace of Christ, being rejected inrighteousjudgment.[WCIII.vii.]

Fromthisdoctrineofgrace,inwhichthewholesystemofoursalvationiscontained,thussummarilysetforth:

1.WehopeitismanifestthatwebynomeansaccordwithSocinus,whoblasphemouslydeniesandoppugns thesatisfactionandmeritofChrist,andthereforetheveryredemptionmadeinHisblood.

2.Wedeny,however,thatbeyondthedeathofChristany,eventheleastpart,ofour redemptionandsalvationcanbeattributed to sacrifices,ormerits,orsatisfactions,whetherofsaintsorofourselves.

3.Wedenyalsothatunregeneratemen,byanymeritofcongruity,iftheydo what is in them to do, dispose themselves to the first grace ofvocation.

4.Nordowesuspendtheefficacyofthegraceofvocationonthefreewillofman,asifitwerenotGodbyHisspecialgracebutmanbyhisownwillthatmakeshimselftodiffer.

5.Yetwearefalselyaccusedasifwedeniedthesufficiencyforallof thedeathandmeritofChrist,ordiminisheditspower,whenratherweteachthe same that the Council of Trent set forth, Sess. 6, Cap. 3, to wit:"AlthoughChristdiedforall,allneverthelessdonotreceivethebenefitofHis death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion iscommunicated." The cause or fault, moreover, why it is notcommunicatedtoallweconfesstobebynomeansinthedeathormeritofChrist,butinmenthemselves.

6.Wearealsofalselyaccused:Asifwetaughtthatnotallthosewhoarecalled by the Word of the gospel are called seriously and sincerely orsufficiently by God for repentance and salvation, but the most onlysimulatinglyandhypocriticallybyamereexternalwillsigni,withwhichnointernalwillbeneplacitiispresent,asfromonewhodoesnotwillthesalvationofall.Wemostsolemnlyprotest thatwearevery farremovedfrom such an opinion, distorted against us from the ill-understood orperhapsevenill-consideredwordsofsome,andthatweattribute to theThrice-blessedGod supreme verity and sincerity in all His sayings anddoings,andaboveallintheWordofthegracethatcallstosalvation,anddonotimagineanycontradictorywillsinHim.

7.As ifwedeniedall inherent righteousness tobelievers, andheld thattheyarejustifiedbyanexternalimputationoftherighteousnessofChristalone,which iswithout any internal renovation.When ratherwe teachthat righteousness is imputed only to those that repent and believe inChristwith true faith, and at the same time by the same faith contriteheartsarevivifiedbytheHolySpirit,areexcitedtoardentloveforChristandzealfornewobedience,arecleansedfromdepravedpassionsandsothe righteousness and holiness of a new life are begun and dailyadvanced. This only we add, that in this inherent righteousness of ourown,becauseitisimperfectinthislife,noonecanstandbeforethejustjudgmentofGod,ortrustinit,soastobejustifiedorabsolvedbyitfromliabilitytodeath,butthroughandonaccountoftheperfectrighteousnessandmeritofChristalone,apprehendedbyalivingfaith.

8.Asifweimaginedthatamanisjustifiedbyfaithonly,whichiswithoutworks and which only believes that sins are remitted to it for Christ'ssake,althoughitabideswithoutanyrepentanceforthem;whenratherwe

confess thatsucha faith iswholly false, and thataman isnotonlynotjustifiedby it,but isevenmoregravely condemnedonaccountof it, astransforming the grace ofGod into license for sinning.Whatwe say isthat that is true justifying faith which embraces with a practical orfiducialassentthepromisesoftheGospel,bywhichremissionandlifeinChrist are offered to the repentant, and applies it to oneself by a trulycontrite heart, and which is therefore efficacious through love.We saythat only it justifies; not because it is alone, but because only itapprehends the promise of the Gospel and therefore the veryrighteousnessofChrist, through and on account ofwhich alonewe arefreely,withoutanymeritofourown,justified.

9.Asifbythisdoctrinewetookawayzealforgoodworks,ordeniedtheirnecessity; when rather it ismanifest fromwhat has already been said,that neither justifying faith nor justification itself can possibly exist inadultswithoutsanctificationandzealingoodworks.Andinthissenseweacknowledge that they are altogether necessary for salvation, althoughnotasmeritoriouscausesofjustificationorsalvation.

10. As if we held that the precepts of Christ can in no way be kept bybelievers;whenratherweteachthattheynotonlycanbekept,notindeedinmen's ownpowers, butby the graceof theHolySpirit, but also thatthey ought altogether to be kept by all, and that not merely by aninefficaciousvoworpurpose,butalsobythedeeditself,andthatbythesincereandperseveringeffortofawhole life.Nevertheless, theyarenotandcannotbekeptinthislifebyanyonesoperfectlythatwecanbyourworks satisfy the lawofGodand fulfill it in all respects, buthaveneeddaily to ask humbly of God, out of a sense of our imperfection andweakness,forgivenessofvariedlapsesandderelictions.

11.As ifweheld that the justifiedcannotevenforamoment loseGod'sgrace or the assurance of it, or the Holy Spirit Himself, though theyindulge themselves in sinful pleasures; when on the contrary we teachthat even the regenerate, as often as they fall into sins against theirconscience,andforaslongastheycontinueinthem,donotforthattimeretain either living faith or the justifying grace of God, or yet theassurance of it or theHoly Spirit, but incur new liability to wrath andeternaldeath, andwill certainly,moreover,bedamned,unless they are

againrenewedtorepentancebytheoperationofthespecialgraceofGod(whichwedonotdoubtwill takeplace inthecaseof theelect).[WCIII.vi.]

12.Wedeny,furthermore,thatfaithinChristjustifiesonlydispositively,preparatively, initially, because, to wit, it disposes to love and othervirtues,thatistosay,toinherentrighteousness.

13.Wedenyalsothatbythatinherentrighteousnessofourown,wearesojustifiedthatweareabsolvedfromliabilitytodeathbyandonaccountofitbeforethejudgmentofGod,areadoptedassonsandarepronouncedworthy of eternal life; inwhich forensic sense theword Justification isusedby theHolyGhost in this doctrine. For although there is a soundsenseinwhichitmaybesaidthatbelieversarejustified,thatis,aremaderighteousandholy,byloveandotherinfusedvirtues,thisrighteousnessnevertheless is imperfect in this life and can never stand, as aforesaid,before the severe judgment of God; and this alone is what is underconsiderationinthisdoctrine.

14.Hence,also,wedonotagreewiththosewhoteachthattheregeneratebygoodworksmakesatisfactiontothejusticeofGodfortheirsins,andproperlymeritremissionorlife,andthatindeedoutofcondignity,oroutof the intrinsic worthiness of their works, or their equality with therewards: every covenant, moreover, or promise, as some wish, beingexcluded.

15.NoryetwiththosewhoteachthattheregeneratecankeepthelawofGodperfectly in this life,withaperfectionnotonlyofpartsbutalsoofdegrees,sothattheylivewithoutanysin,suchasisinitselfanditsownnature mortal: and even that they can do works of supererogationtranscending the perfection of the law, and by them merit not forthemselvesonlybutforothersaswell.

16.Noryetwith thosewhoteach thatnoonewithout special revelationcan certainly know that he has obtained the grace of God with suchcertitudethathecannotbemistaken;andthatalloughttobealways indoubt of grace.We, on the other hand, although we confess that evenbelieversand the justifiedoughtnot rashlyandsecurely topresumeon

thegraceofGod,andareafflictedoftenwithvarioustroublesanddoubts,neverthelessteachoutoftheScripturesthattheybothcanandoughttostrive for and by the help of the Divine grace attain in this life thatcertitude inwhich theHolySpiritwitnesseswithour spirit thatwe aresonsandheirsofGod:andthistestimonycannotbefalse,thoughnotallwhoboastoftheSpiritofGodreallyhavethistestimony.[WCIII.viii.]

17.Finallyweteachindeedthatnotallmenareelect,andthatthosewhoareelectedareelectednotoutofaforeseenmeritofworksoraforeseendisposition to faith in them, or assent ofwill, but out ofmere grace inChrist;[WCIII. v. a. andb.] and thatmoreover thenumberof theelectandofthesavediscertainwithGod.[WCIII.iv.]

18. Meanwhile we affirm that an opinion alien to our thought isattributedtousbythosewhoaccuseus,asifweheldthateternalelectionand reprobation is made absolutely, without any respect to faith orunbelief,ortogoodorevilworks:whereasonthecontraryweratherholdthat-inelectionfaithandobedienceareforeseeninthosetobeelected,notindeedascauseorreasonoftheirelection,butcertainlyasmeansofsalvationforeordainedinthembyGod;[WCIII.vi.]inreprobationontheotherhand,notonlyoriginalsin,butalso,sofarasadultsareconcerned,unbelief and contumacious impenitence are not, properly speaking,foreordained by God, but foreseen and permitted in the reprobatesthemselves as the meritorious cause of desertion and damnation, andreprobatedbythejustestofjudgments.[WCIII.vii.]

Accordingly on this sublimemystery of predestination, we clearly holdthesameopinionwhichinthefirstinstanceAugustineofoldassertedoutoftheScripturesagainstPelagius;andwhichthegreatestdoctorsof theRomanChurchthemselves,especially the followersofThomasAquinas,retainto-day.

FIRSTGENEVANCONFESSION(1536)35

X.AllourGoodbytheGraceofGod.Andfinallythatall thepraiseandglorymayberenderedtoGod(asisdue),andthatwemaybeabletohavetruepeaceandquietinourconsciences,weacknowledgeandconfessthatwe receive all the blessings now recited from the mercy of God alone,

withoutanyconsiderationofourworthinessorthemeritofourworks,towhich isduenoreturnexcepteternal confusion; that,nevertheless, ourLord,havingreceivedusinHisgoodnessintocommunionwithHisSonJesus,hasworkswhichmakeuspleasantandacceptablewithfaith-notat all because they merit it, but only because, not imputing to us theimperfection that is in them, He sees in them nothing except whatproceedsfromHisSpirit.

GENEVANCONFESSION(1537)36

TheApprehensionofChristbyFaith.AsthemercifulFatheroffersusHisSonintheWordofthegospel,soweembraceHimbyfaithandrecognizeHimasgiven tous.Withoutdoubt theWordof thegospelcalls all intoparticipationofChrist,butmultitudes,blindedandhardenedbyunbelief,rejectthissingulargrace.Believersonly,therefore,enjoyChrist,andtheyreceiveHimassenttothem,anddonotrejectHimasgiventothem:andfollowHimascalledbyHim.

Election and Predestination. In such a difference it is necessary toconsider the great secret of the counsel of God: for the seed of God'sWord takes root and fructifies in those alone whom the Lord, by Hiseternal election, has predestined to be His children and heirs of theheavenlykingdom.[WCIII.v.]Toallothers,whoare reprobatedby thesamecounselofGodbeforetheconstitutionoftheworld,[WCIII.iii.]theclearandevidentpublicationoftruthcanbenothingelsebutthesavorofdeathuntodeath.NowthereasonwhytheLordshowsmercytowardstheonesandexercisestherigorofHisjudgmenttowardstheothersmustbeleft to be known by Him alone; the which He has willed should beconcealedfromusandnotwithoutverygoodreason.Forneitherwouldtherudenessofourmindspermitustoenduresomuchclarity,norourlittlenesspermitustounderstandsomuchwisdom.Andinfactallwhoseektoraisethemselvestoitandareunwillingtorepressthetemerityoftheirspirits,experiencethetruthofwhatSolomonsays(Prov.xxv.)-thathewhowouldsearchintoGod'smajestywillbeoppressedbyHisglory.Letusonlybeassuredofthis-thatthedispensationoftheLord,althoughitisconcealedfromus,isneverthelessholyandjust:forhadHewilledtodestroy the whole human race He had the right to do it, and in thosewhomitwithdrawsfromperdition,wecancontemplatenothingbutHis

sovereigngoodness.[WCIII.v.]Therefore,letusrecognizetheelecttobevesselsofHismercy(astheytrulyare),andthereprobatestobevesselsofHiswrath,which nevertheless is only just.[WC III. v. vi. vii.] Let ustake from the one and the other alike ground and matter for theproclamationofHisglory.Andontheotherhandalsoletusnot,inordertoconfirmthecertitudeofourfaith,seek(asmanyareaccustomedtodo)to penetrate into the heavens and to search out what God has frometernity determined to do concerning us (which cogitation can onlyagitateuswithmiserableanxietyandperturbation):butletusbecontentwiththetestimonybywhichHehassufficientlyandamplyconfirmedthiscertitudetous.[WCIII.viii.a.]ForasinChristallthosearechosenwhohavebeenforeordained to lifebefore the foundationsof theworldwerelaid,soHeispresentedtousasthesealofourelectionifwereceiveandembraceHimbyfaith.Forwhatisitthatweseekinelectionexceptthatwemayparticipate ineternal life?And thiswehave inChrist: for fromthebeginningHehasthelife,andHeisproposedtousforlife,totheendthat all who believe in Him shall have eternal life. Since then inpossessingChristbyfaithwepossessalsolifeinHimwehavenoneedtosearchfurtherintothecounselofGod;forChristisnotonlyamirrorinwhichthewillofGodisrepresentedtous,butalsoapledgebywhichitisasitweresealedandconfirmedtous.[WCIII.viii.]

GENEVANCATECHISM(1545)37

Q. But why do you call God [in the Apostles' Creed] Creator, when topreserve and conserve the creatures in their condition is much moregrandthanoncetohavecreatedthem?

A. It is certainly not intended by this particular that God has so oncecreatedHisworks that afterwardsHehas laid aside care for them.Butratheritissotobeunderstoodasthattheworld,asitwasoncecreatedbyHim, so now is conserved by Him; and that neither the world noranythingelsestandsexceptsofarasitissustainedbyHispowerand,asitwere,Hishand.Moreover,sinceHethushasallthingsinHishands,HeisconstitutedtherebytheSupremeGovernorandLordofall.Therefore,fromHisbeingtheCreatorofheavenandearth,itispropertogatherthatHe it is alone who, in His wisdom, kindness, power, rules the wholecourseandorderofnature;whoistheauthoratonceofdrought,ofhail

andotherstorms,andaswellofthecalm;whoinHisgoodnessfertilizesthe earth and again makes it barren by withdrawing His hand; fromwhom proceed both health and sickness; to whose empire, in fine, allthingsaresubjectandwhosenodtheyobey.

Q.Whatarewetothink,however,ofthegodlessandofdevils-shallwesaythatthey,too,aresubjecttoHim?

A. Though He does not govern them by His Spirit, He neverthelesscoercesthembyHispowerasbyabit,sothattheyarenotevenabletomove, except so far as He permits to them. He makes them also theministersofHiswill,sothattheyarecompelled,unwillinglyandagainsttheircounsel,toexecutewhathasseemedgoodtoHim.[WCIII.i.]

Q.Whatgooddoyouderivefromtheknowledgeofthis?

A.Verymuch.Foritwouldgoillwithusifanythingwaspermittedtothedevils and godless men apart from the will of God; and therefore weshould never be of peaceful minds if we thought ourselves exposed totheir license.Butwemayrest inpeacenow.thatweknowthattheyaregovernedbythewillofGodandareheldasitwereinbounds,soastobecapable of nothing except by His permission: especially since GodHimselfundertakestobeourTutorandtheCaptainofoursalvation....

Q.WhatistheChurch?

A. The body and society of believers whom God has predestinated toeternallife.[WCIII.iii.a.]

Q.Isitnecessarytobelievethishead[oftheCreed]?

A.Assuredly:unlesswewishtomakeChrist'sdeathotioseandtobringtonaughtallthathasbeenheretoforesetforth.FortheoneissueofitallisthattheremaybeaChurch....

Q.Well,then,inwhatsensedoyoucalltheChurchholy?

A.Because, towit,whomsoeverGodhas elected, themHe justifies andbuilds up in holiness and innocence of life; by which His glory shines

forthinthem(Rom.viii.30).[WCIII.vi.b.]AnditisthisthatPaulmeanswhenheadmonishesus thatChristhassanctifiedtheChurchwhichHehasredeemedsothatitmaybegloriousandfreefromeveryspot(Eph.v.25)....

Q.ButmaynotthisChurchbeotherwiseknownthansimplybelievedinbyfaith?

A.ThereiscertainlyalsoavisibleChurchofGod,whichismarkedoutforus by certain notes and signs; but here we properly treat of thecongregation of those whom He has adopted unto salvation by Hishidden election. And that is not constantly perceptible to the eyes norrecognizablebysigns.

CONSENSUSTIGURINUS(1549)38

XVI.[Notallwhoparticipateinasacramentpartakealsointhereality.]Moreover, we sedulously teach that God does not exert His powerpromiscuously in all who receive the sacraments, but only in the elect.For justasHeenlightensuntofaithnoothers thanthosewhomHehasforeordained to life, so by the hidden power of His Spirit He brings itaboutthattheelectreceivewhatisofferedinthesacraments.[WCIII.vi.b.]

[Calvin'sExpositionoftheHeadsoftheConsensus]

OntheAntiquityandtheUnityoftheHumanRace1


THEfundamentalassertionoftheBiblicaldoctrineoftheoriginofmanisthat he owes his being to a creative act of God. Subsidiary questionsgrowing out of this fundamental assertion, however, have been thrownfrom time to time into great prominence, as the changing forms ofcurrentanthropologicalspeculationhaveseemedtopressonthisorthatelementin,orcorollaryfrom,theBiblicalteaching.Themost importantof these subsidiary questions has concerned the method of the divineprocedureincreatingman.DiscussionofthisquestionbecameacuteonthepublicationofCharlesDarwin'streatiseonthe"OriginofSpecies"in1859,andcanneversinkagainintorestuntilitisthoroughlyunderstoodinallquartersthat"evolution"cannotactasasubstituteforcreation,butatbestcansupplyonlyatheoryofthemethodofthedivineprovidence.Closelyconnectedwiththisdiscussionofthemodeoforiginationofman,has been the discussion of two further questions, both older than theDarwiniantheory,tooneofwhichitgave,however,anewimpulse,whileit has well-nigh destroyed all interest in the other. These are thequestionsof theAntiquityofManandtheUnityof theHumanRace, tobothofwhichalargehistoricalinterestattaches,thoughneitherofthemcanbesaidtobeburningquestionsofto-day.

The question of the antiquity of man has of itself no theologicalsignificance.Itistotheology,assuch,amatterofentireindifferencehowlongmanhas existedonearth. It is onlybecause of the contrastwhichhasbeendrawnbetweentheshortperiodwhichseems tobeallotted tohuman history in the Biblical narrative, and the tremendously longperiodwhichcertainschoolsofscientificspeculationhaveassignedtothedurationofhumanlifeonearth, thattheologyhasbecomeinterestedinthe topic at all. There was thus created the appearance of a conflictbetween the Biblical statements and the findings of scientific

investigators, and it became the duty of theologians to investigate thematter. The asserted conflict proves, however, to be entirely factitious.TheBibledoesnotassignabriefspantohumanhistory:thisisdoneonlybyaparticularmodeofinterpretingtheBiblicaldata,whichisfoundonexamination to rest on no solid basis. Science does not demand aninordinateperiodforthelifeofhumanbeingsonearth:thisisdoneonlyby a particular school of speculative theorizers, the validity of whosedemands on time exact investigators are more and more chary ofallowing.Astherealstateofthecasehasbecomebetterunderstoodtheproblemhas therefore tendedto disappear from theological discussion,tillnowitisprettywellunderstoodthattheologyassuchhasnointerestinit.

Itmustbeconfessed,indeed,thattheimpressionisreadilytakenfromaprima facie view of the Biblical record of the course of humanhistory,that the human race is of comparatively recent origin. It has been theusualsuppositionofsimpleBiblereaders,therefore,thattheBiblicaldataallowforthedurationofthelifeofthehumanraceonearthonlyapaltrysixthousandyearsorso:andthissuppositionhasbecomefixedinformalchronological schemes which have become traditional and have evenbeen given a place in the margins of our Bibles to supply thechronologicalframeworkoftheScripturalnarrative.Themostinfluentialof these chronological schemes is that which was worked out byArchbishop Usher in his "Annales Veteri et Novi Testamenti" (1650-1654),anditisthisschemewhichhasfoundaplaceinthemarginoftheAuthorizedEnglishVersion of theBible since 1701. According to it thecreation of the world is assigned to the year 4004 B.C. (Usher's owndatingwas4138B.C.);whileaccordingtothecalculationofPetau(inhis"Rationarium temporum"), the most influential rival scheme, it isassignedtotheyear3983B.C.Onamorecarefulscrutinyofthedataonwhich these calculations rest, however, they are found not to supply asatisfactorybasisfortheconstitutionofadefinitechronologicalscheme.Thesedataconsistlargely,andatthecrucialpointssolely,ofgenealogicaltables;andnothingcanbeclearerthanthatitisprecariousinthehighestdegreetodrawchronologicalinferencesfromgenealogicaltables.

For the period from Abraham down we have, indeed, in addition to

somewhatminute genealogical records, the combined evidence of suchso-called "long-dates" as those of I Kings vi. 1, Gal. iii. 17, and severalprecise statements concerning the duration of definite shorter periods,together with whatever aid itmay be possible to derive from a certainamountofcontemporaryextra-Biblicaldata.Forthelengthofthisperiodthere is no difficulty, therefore, in reaching an entirely satisfactorygeneralestimate.ButforthewholespaceoftimebeforeAbraham,wearedependententirelyoninferencesdrawnfromthegenealogiesrecordedinthe fifth and eleventh chapters of Genesis. And if the Scripturalgenealogiessupplynosolidbasis forchronological inferences, it isclearthat we are left without Scriptural data for forming an estimate of theduration of these ages. For aught we know they may have been ofimmenselength.

The general fact that the genealogies of Scripturewere not constructedforachronologicalpurposeand lend themselves ill toemploymentasabasisforchronologicalcalculationshasbeenrepeatedlyshownveryfully;butperhapsbynoonemorethoroughlythanbyDr.WilliamHenryGreenin an illuminating article published in the Bibliotheca Sacra for April,1890.Thesegenealogiesmustbeesteemedtrustworthyforthepurposesforwhichtheyarerecorded;buttheycannotsafelybepressedintouseforotherpurposesforwhichtheywerenotintended,andforwhichtheyarenot adapted. Inparticular, it is clear that the genealogicalpurposes forwhichthegenealogiesweregiven,didnotrequireacompleterecordofallthegenerationsthroughwhichthedescentof thepersonstowhomtheyareassignedruns;butonlyanadequate indicationof theparticular linethroughwhichthedescentinquestioncomes.Accordinglyitisfoundonexamination that thegenealogiesofScriptureare freely compressed forallsortsofpurposes;andthatitcanseldombeconfidentlyaffirmedthattheycontainacompleterecordofthewholeseriesofgenerations,whileitisoftenobviousthataverylargenumberareomitted.Thereisnoreasoninherent in thenature of theScriptural genealogieswhy a genealogy often recorded links, as each of those in Genesis v. and xi. is, may notrepresentanactualdescentofahundredorathousandortenthousandlinks.Thepointestablishedbythetableisnotthattheseareallthelinkswhichintervenedbetweenthebeginningandtheclosingnames,butthatthisisthelineofdescentthroughwhichonetracesbacktoordowntothe

other.

A sufficient illustration of the freedom with which the links in thegenealogies are dealt with in the Biblical usage is afforded by the twogenealogiesofourLordwhicharegiveninthefirstchapteroftheGospelofMatthew.ForitistobenotedthattherearetwogenealogiesofJesusgiven in this chapter, differing greatly from one another in fullness ofrecord, no doubt, but in no respect either in trustworthiness or inprincipleofrecord.Theoneis found in the firstverse,andtracesJesusback toAbraham in just two steps: "JesusChrist, the sonofDavid, theson of Abraham." The other is found in verses 2-17, and expands thissamegenealogyintoforty-twolinks,dividedforpurposesofsymmetricalrecord and easy memorizing into a threefold scheme of fourteengenerations each.Andnot even is this longer record a complete one.Acomparisonwith the parallel records in theOld Testamentwill quicklyreveal the fact that the three kings, Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah arepassedoverandJoramissaid tohavebegottenUzziah,hisgreat-great-grandson.TheothergenealogiesofScripturepresentsimilarphenomena;andastheyarecarefullyscrutinized,itbecomeseverclearerthatastheydo not pretend to give complete lists of generations, they cannot beintended to supply a basis for chronological calculation, and it isillegitimateandmisleadingtoattempttousethemforthatpurpose.Thereduction for extraneous reasons of the genealogy of Christ in the firstchapterofMatthew into three tables of fourteen generationseach,maywarn us that the reduction of the patriarchal genealogies in Genesis v.and xi. into two tables of ten generations each may equally be due toextraneousconsiderations;andthattheremayberepresentedbyeachofthese ten generations - adequately for the purposes for which thegenealogyisrecorded-averymuchlongeractualseriesoflinks.

It must not be permitted to drop out of sight, to be sure, that theappearanceof supplyingdata for a chronological calculation is in theseparticulargenealogiesnotdueentirelytothemerefactthattheselistsaregenealogies.ItisduetoapeculiarityofthesespecialgenealogiesbywhichtheyaredifferentiatedfromallothergenealogiesinScripture.Werefertotheregularattachment,toeachnameinthelists,oftheageofthefatheratthebirthofhisson.Theeffectofthisistoprovidewhatseemstobea

continuousseriesofpreciselymeasuredgenerations,thenumbershavingonly to be added together to supply an exact measure of the timeconsumed in their sequence.We do not readmerely that "Adam begatSeth; and Seth begat Enosh; and Enosh begat Kenan."We read ratherthat"Adamlivedanhundredand thirtyyearsandbegatSeth;andSethlivedanhundredandfiveyearsandbegatEnosh;andEnoshlivedninetyyearsandbegatKenan."Itcertainly looks,atfirstsight,as ifweneededonly to add these one hundred and thirty, one hundred and five, andninety years together in order to obtain the whole time which elapsedfromthecreationofAdamtothebirthofKenan;and,accordingly,as ifweneededonlytoaddtogetherthesimilarnumbersthroughoutthelistsin order to obtain an accurate measure of the whole period from theCreation to the Deluge. Plausible as this procedure seems, however, itappears on a closer scrutiny unjustified; and it is the especial servicewhich Dr. William Henry Green in the article already mentioned hasrendered to the cause of truth in this matter that he has shown thisclearly.

For,ifwewilllookattheselistsagain,weshallfindthatwehavenotyetgot them in their entirety before us.Not only is there attached to eachname in themastatementof theageatwhich the fatherbegothis son,butalsoastatementofhowlongthefatherlivedafterhehadbegottenhisson,andhowmanyyearshislife-spancountedupaltogether.Ifwedonotreadmerely,"AdambegatSeth;andSethbegatEnosh;andEnoshbegatKenan";neitherdowereadmerely,"Adamlivedonehundredandthirtyyears and begat Seth; and Seth lived one hundred and five years andbegatEnosh;andEnosh livedninetyyearsandbegatKenan."Whatwereadis:"Adamlivedanhundredandthirtyyears,andbegatasoninhisownlikeness,afterhisimage;andcalledhisnameSeth:andthedaysofAdamafterhebegatSethwere eighthundred years: andhebegat sonsanddaughters:andallthedaysthatAdamlivedwereninehundredandthirtyyears:andhedied.AndSethlivedanhundredandfiveyears,andbegat Enosh: and Seth lived after he begat Enosh eight hundred andsevenyears,andbegatsonsanddaughters:andallthedaysofSethwerenine hundred and twelve years: and he died. And Enosh lived ninetyyears, and begat Kenan: and Enosh lived after he begat Kenan eighthundredandfifteenyearsandbegatsonsanddaughters:andallthedays

ofEnoshwereninehundredandfiveyears:andhedied."There is, inaword,muchmoreinformationfurnishedwithrespecttoeachlinkinthechainthanmerelytheagetowhicheachfatherhadattainedwhenhissonwasbegotten;andallthisinformationisofthesameorderandobviouslybelongs together. It is clear that a single motive has determined theinsertionofallofit;andwemustseekareasonforitsinsertionwhichwillaccountforallofit.Thisreasoncannothavebeenachronologicalone:forall the items of information furnished do not serve a chronologicalpurpose. Only the first item in each case can be made to yield achronological result; and therefore not even it was intended to yield achronologicalresult, sinceall these itemsof informationare too closelybound together in their common character to be separated in theirintention.They too readily explain themselves,moreover, as serving anobvious common end which was clearly in the mind of the writer, tojustifytheascriptionofadifferentendtoanyoneofthem.Whenwearetoldofanymanthathewasahundredandthirtyyearsoldwhenhebegathis heir, and lived after that eight hundred years begetting sons anddaughters, dying only at the age of nine hundred and thirty years, allthese items cooperate tomake a vivid impression upon us of the vigorand grandeur of humanity in those old days of theworld's prime. In asensedifferentindeedfromthatwhichthewordsbearinGenesisvi.,butfull of meaning to us, we exclaim, "Surely there were giants in thosedays!"This is the impressionwhich the itemsof information inevitablymakeonus;anditistheimpressiontheywereintendedtomakeonus,asis proved by the simple fact that they are adapted in all their items tomakethisimpression,whileonlyasmallportionofthemcanbeutilizedforthepurposeofchronologicalcalculation.Havingthusfoundareasonwhichwillaccountfortheinsertionofalltheitemsofinformationwhicharegivenus,wehavenoright toassumeanotherreason to account forthe insertionof someof them.And thatmeansthatwemustdecline tolookuponthefirstitemofinformationgivenineachinstanceasintendedtogiveuschronologicalinformation.

The conclusion which we thus reach is greatly strengthened when weobserve another fact with regard to these items of information. This isthattheappearancethatwehaveinthemofachronologicalschemedoesnot reside in the nature of the items themselves, but purely in their

sequence. If we read the items of information attached to each name,apartfromtheirfellowsattachedtothesucceedingnames,weshallhavesimplyasetoffactsabouteachname,whichintheircombinationmakeastrongimpressionofthevigorandgreatnessofhumanity inthosedays,andwhichsuggestnochronologicalinference.Itisonlywhenthenames,withtheaccompanyingcomments,areputtogether,oneaftertheother,thatachronologicalinferenceissuggested.Thechronologicalsuggestionisthuspurely the effectof thearrangementof thenames in immediatesequence; and is not intrinsically resident in the items of informationthemselves.

And now we must call attention to a characteristic of Scripturegenealogiesingeneralwhichseemstofindaspeciallystrikingillustrationinthesecomments.This is thehabitof interposing intothestructureofthe genealogies, here and there, a short note, attached to this name orthat, telling some important or interesting fact about the personrepresentedbyit.Asimplegenealogywouldrunthus:"AdambegatSeth;and Seth begat Enosh; and Enosh begat Kenan"; and the like, But itwouldbequiteintheBiblicalmanneriftherewereattachedtosome,oreven toeachof thesenames,parenthetical remarks,callingattention tosomething of interest regarding the several persons. For example, itwouldbequiteaftertheBiblicalfashionshouldwehaveratherhadthis:"Adam,whowasthefirstman,begatSeth;andSeth,heitwaswhowasappointed as another seed in the stead of Abel whomCain slew, begatEnosh;andEnosh,athisbirthmenbegantocallonthenameofJehovah,begatKenan."Theinsertionofsuchitemsofinformationdoesnotintheleastchangethecharacterofthegenealogyasinitselfasimplegenealogy,subject toall the lawswhich governed the formation and record of theScripturalgenealogies, including therightof freecompression,with theomissionofanynumberoflinks.Itisstrictlyparentheticalinnature.

Severalexamplesofsuchparentheticalinsertionsoccurinthegenealogyof Jesus recorded in the first chapter of Matthew, to which we havealreadyreferredforillustration.Thusinverse2,thefactthatJudahhad"brethren"isinterposedinthegenealogy,afactwhichisnotedalsowithrespecttotwoothersof thenameswhichoccur inthe list(verses3and11): it is noted here doubtless because of the significance of the twelve

sonsofJacobastribe-fathersofIsrael.Againwefindinfourinstancesanotification of themother interposed (Tamar, verse 3; Rahab, verse 5;Ruth, verse5; her ofUriah, verse 6). The introduction of thenames ofthesenotablewomen,whichpreparesthewayfortheintroductionofthatof Mary in verse 16, constitutes a very remarkable feature of thisparticulargenealogy.AnotherfeatureofitissuggestedbytheattachmenttothenameofDavid(verse6)thestatementthathewas"theKing";andtothenameofJechoniah(verse11)thestatementthathislife-spanfellatthetimeofthecarryingawaytoBabylon:theaccountoftheseinsertionsbeingfound,doubtless, intheartificialarrangementof thegenealogy inthree symmetrical tables. The habit of inserting parenthetical notesgiving items of interest connectedwith thenameswhich enter into thegenealogies is doubtless sufficiently illustrated by these instances. Theonly point in which the genealogies of Genesis v. and xi. differ in thisrespectfromthisoneinMatthewi.isthatsuchitemsofinformationareinsertedwithreferencetoeverynameinthosegenealogies,whiletheyareinsertedonlyoccasionallyinthegenealogyofourLord.Thisis,however,a difference of detail, not of principle. Clearly if these notes had beenconstantinthegenealogyinMatthewi.insteadofmerelyoccasional,itsnature as a genealogywouldnothavebeenaffected: itwould still haveremainedasimplegenealogysubjecttoallthecustomarylawsofsimplegenealogies.That theyareconstant in thegenealogiesofGenesisv.andxi. does not, then, alter their character as simple genealogies. Theseadditions are in their nature parenthetical, and are to be read in eachinstance strictly as such andwith sole reference to thenames towhichtheyareattached,andcannotdeterminewhetherornotlinkshavebeenomitted in these genealogies as they are freely omitted in othergenealogies.

It is quite true that, when brought together in sequence, name aftername, these notes assume the appearance of a concatenatedchronologicalscheme.Butthisispureillusion,duewhollytothenatureof the parenthetical insertionswhich aremade.When placed one aftertheothertheyseemtoplayintooneanother,whereastheyaresetdownhere for an entirely different purpose and cannot without violence bereadwithreferencetooneanother.Iftheitemsofinformationwereofadifferentcharacterweshouldneverthinkofreadingthemotherwisethan

eachwithsolereferencetoitsownname.Thus,iftheyweregiventoshowushownoblydevelopedprimitivemenwereintheirphysicalframesandread something as follows: "Adamwas eight cubits inheight andbegatSeth; andSethwas sevencubits inheightandbegatEnosh; andEnoshwassixcubitsinheightandbegatKenan";weshouldhavenodifficultyinunderstandingthattheseremarksarepurelyparentheticalandinnowayarguethatnolinkshavebeenomitted.Thecaseisnotalteredbythemerefact that other items than these are chosen for notice, with the samegeneralintent,andweactuallyread:"AdamlivedanhundredandthirtyyearsandbegatSeth;andSethlivedanhundredandfiveyearsandbegatEnosh;andEnoshlivedninetyyearsandbegatKenan."Thecircumstancethattheactualitemschosenforparentheticalnoticearesuchthatwhenthenamesarearrangedoneaftertheothertheyproducetheillusionofachronological scheme isamereaccident,arising fromthenatureof theitems chosen, andmustnotblindus to the fact thatwehavebeforeushere nothing but ordinary genealogies, accompanied by parentheticalnoteswhichareinsertedforotherthanchronologicalpurposes;andthattherefore these genealogiesmust be treated like other genealogies, andinterpreted on the same principles. But if this be so, then thesegenealogies too not only may be, but probably are, much compressed,and merely record the line of descent of Noah from Adam and ofAbrahamfromNoah.Theirsymmetricalarrangementingroupsoftenisindicativeoftheircompression;andforaughtweknowinsteadoftwentygenerations and some two thousand years measuring the intervalbetweenthecreationandthebirthofAbraham,twohundredgenerations,and something like twenty thousand years, or even two thousandgenerations and something like two hundred thousand yearsmay haveintervened. In a word, the Scriptural data leave us wholly withoutguidance in estimating the timewhich elapsed between the creation ofthe world and the deluge and between the deluge and the call ofAbraham. So far as the Scripture assertions are concerned, we maysuppose any length of time to have intervened between these eventswhichmayotherwiseappearreasonable.

Thequestionoftheantiquityofmanisaccordinglyapurelyscientificone,in which the theologian as such has no concern. As an interestedspectator, however, he looks on as the various schools of scientific

speculationdebate thequestionamongthemselves;andhecan scarcelyfail to take away as the result of his observation two well-groundedconvictions.Thefirstisthatsciencehasasyetinitshandsnosoliddatafor a definite estimate of the time during which the human race hasexistedonearth.Thesecondisthatthetremendousdraftsontimewhichwere accustomed to bemadeby the geologists about themiddle of thelastcenturyandwhichcontinuetobemadebyoneschoolofspeculativebiology to-dayhavebeendefinitively set aside, and it is becoming verygenerally understood that man cannot have existed on the earth morethansometenthousandtotwentythousandyears.

It was a result of the manner of looking at things inculcated by theHuttoniangeology,thatspeculationduringthefirstthreequartersofthenineteenth century estimated theageof thehabitableglobe in termsofhundredsofmillionsofyears.Itwasundertheinfluenceofthisteaching,forexample,thatCharlesDarwin,in1859,supposedthatthreehundredmillion years were an underestimate for the period which has elapsedsince the latter part of the Secondary Age.2 In reviewingMr. Darwin'sargument in his "Student's Manual of Geology," Professor Jukesremarked on the vagueness of the data on which his estimates wereformed, and suggested that the sumof years assertedmightwith equalreasonableness be reduced or multiplied a hundredfold: he proposedtherefore three million and thirty billion years as the minimum andmaximumlimitsof theperiod inquestion.Fromthesamefundamentalstandpoint, Professor Poulton in his address as President of theZoological Section of the British Association for the Advancement ofScience (Liverpool, September, 1896) treats as too short from hisbiologicalpointof view the longest timeaskedby thegeologists for thedurationofthehabitableearth-saysomefourhundredmillionsofyears.Dwelling on the number of distinct types of animal existence alreadyfound in the Lower Cambrian deposits, and on the necessarily (as hethinks)slowprogressofevolution,hestretchesoutthetimerequiredforthe advance of life to its present manifestation practically illimitably.Taking up the cudgels for his biological friends, Sir Archibald Geikie3chivalrously offers them all the time they desire, speaking on his ownbehalf, however, of onehundredmillion years as possibly sufficient fortheperiodof theexistenceof lifeon theglobe.Thesegeneral estimates

imply,ofcourse,averygenerousallowanceforthedurationofhumanlifeon earth; butmany anthropologists demand for this period even morethan they allow. Thus, for example, Professor Gabriel de Mortillet4reiterateshisconvictionthat theappearanceofmanonearthcannotbedatedlessthantwohundredandthirtythousandyearsago,andProfessorA. Penck5would agree with this estimate, while Dr. A. R.Wallace hasbeenaccustomedtoaskmorethandoublethatperiod.6

These tremendously long estimates of thedurationof life on earth andparticularlyofthedurationofhumanlifeare,however,speculative,and,indeed,largelythecreationofaspecialtypeofevolutionaryspeculation-a type which is rapidly losing ground among recent scientific workers.This type is thatwhichowes itsorigin to thebroodingmindofCharlesDarwin; and up to recent times it has been the regnant type ofevolutionary philosophy. Its characteristic contention is that the entiredevelopmentofanimateformshasbeentheproductofselection,bythepressure of the environment, of infinitesimal variations in an almostinfiniteseriesofsuccessivegenerations;ortoputitratherbrusquely,butnotunfairly,thatchanceplustimearethetruecauseswhichaccountforthewholebodyofdifferentiatedformswhichanimatenaturepresentstoour observation. Naturally, therefore, heavy drafts have beenmade ontimetoaccountforwhateveritseemedhardtoattributetobrutechance,asifyoucouldadmittheissuingofanyeffectoutofanyconditions,ifyouonlyconceivedtheprocessofproductionasslowenough.JamesHuttonhaddulywarnedhisfollowersagainstthetemptationtoappealtotimeasif itwere itselfanefficientcauseofeffects."Withregardtotheeffectoftime,"hesaid,7"thoughthecontinuanceof timemaydomuch in thoseoperations which are extremely slow, where no change, to ourobservation,hadappearedtotakeplace,yet,whereitisnotinthenatureofthingstoproducethechangeinquestion,theunlimitedcourseoftimewould be no more effectual than the moment by which we measureeventsinourobservations."Thewarningwasnotheeded:menseemedtoimaginethat,ifonlytimeenoughweregivenforit,effects,forwhichnoadequatecausecouldbeassigned,mightbesupposedtocomegraduallyof themselves. Aimless movement was supposed, if time enough wereallowedforit,toproduceanorderedworld.Itmightaswellbesupposedthat if a box full of printers' types were stirred up long enoughwith a

stick,theycouldbecountedontoarrangethemselvesintimeintheorderinwhich theystand, say, inKant's "CritiqueofPureReason."Theywillneverdoso,thoughtheybestirredtoeternity.Dr.J.W.Dawson8pointsout the exact difficulty, when he remarks that "the necessity forindefinitelyprotracted timedoes not arise from the facts, but from theattempttoexplainthefactswithoutanyadequatecause,andtoappealtoaninfiniteseriesofchanceinteractionsapartfromadesignedplan,andwithout regard to the consideration, thatwe know of noway inwhich,withanyconceivableamountoftime,thefirstlivingandorganizedbeingscouldbe spontaneously produced fromdeadmatter."Nothing could bemorecertainthanthatwhatchancecannotbegintheproductionof inamoment, chance cannot complete the production of in an eternity. Theanalysis of the complete effect into an infinite series of parts, and thedistributionofthesepartsoveraninfiniteseriesofyears,leavestheeffectasunaccountedforasever.Whatisneededtoaccountforitisnottimeinanyextension,but anadequate cause.Amassof iron ismadenomoreself-supporting by being forged into an illimitable chain formed ofinnumerableinfinitesimallinks.Wemaycastourdicetoalleternitywithno more likelihood than at the first throw of ever turning up double-sevens.

It isnot,however, the forceof such reasoningbut thepressureofhardfactswhich is revolutionizing the conceptions of biologists to-day as tothelengthoftheperiodduringwhichmanhasexistedonearth.Itisnotpossibletoenumeratehereallthefactswhicharecooperatingtoproducearevisedandgreatlyreducedestimateof thisperiod.Firstamongthemmaydoubtless be placed the calculations of the life-period of the globeitself which have been made by the physicists with ever increasingconfidence.LedbysuchinvestigatorsasLordKelvin, theyhavebecomeever more and more insistent that the time demanded by the olduniformitarianandnewbiologicalspeculatorisnotattheirdisposal.Thepublication in the seventh decade of the past century of Lord Kelvin'scalculations, going to show that the sun had not been shining sixtymillions of years, already gave pause to the reckless drafts which hadbeen accustomed to be made on time; and the situation was renderedmore and more acute by subsequent revisions of Lord Kelvin's work,progressivelydiminishing this estimate. Sir ArchibaldGeikie complains

that "he [LordKelvin]has cutoff sliceafter slice from theallowanceoftime which at first he was prepared to grant for the evolution ofgeologicalhistory,"untilhehasreducedit fromfortytotwentymillionsofyears,"andprobablymuchnearertwentythanforty."9Thisestimateoftheperiodofthesun'slightwouldallowonlysomethinglikesixmillionsofyearsforgeological time,onlysomeone-sixteenthofwhichwouldbeavailableforthecænozoicperiod,ofwhichonlyaboutone-eighthorfortythousand years or so could be allotted to the pleistocene age, in thecourse of which the remains of man first appear.10 Even this meagerallowance is cut inhalfby thecalculationofProfessorTait;11while thegeneral conclusions of these investigators have received the support ofindependent calculations by Dr. George H. Darwin and ProfessorNewcomb; and more recently still Mr. T. J. J. See of the NavalObservatory at Washington has published a very pretty speculation inwhichhedetermines the total longevity of the sun to be only thirty-sixmillionsofyears,thirty-twoofwhichbelongtoitspasthistory.12

It is not merely the physicists, however, with whom the biologicalspeculators have to do: the geologists themselves have turned againstthem.Recentinvestigationsmaybetakenasputtingpre-Quaternarymanoutofthequestion(theevidencewasreviewedbySirJohnEvans,inhisaddress at the Toronto meeting of the British Association, August 18,1897). And revised estimates of the rate of denudation, erosion,deposition of alluvial matter in deltas, or of stalagmitic matter in thefloors or caves have greatly reduced the exaggerated conception of itsslowness,fromwhichsupportwassoughtfortheimmenselylongperiodsof timedemanded.Thepost-glacialperiod,whichwill roughly estimatetheageofman, it isnowprettygenerallyagreed, "cannotbemore thanten thousand years, or probably not more than seven thousand" inlength.13 In this estimate both Professor Winchell14 and ProfessorSalisbury15 agree, and to its establishment a great body of evidencederived from a variety of calculations concur. If man is of post-glacialorigin,then,hisadventuponearthneednotbedatedmorethanfiveorsixthousandyearsago;or ifwesupposehimtohaveappearedatsomepoint in the later glacial period, as Professor G. F. Wright does, thencertainly Professor Wright's estimate of sixteen thousand to twentythousandyearsisanampleone.

Theeffectof theserevisedestimatesofgeological timehasbeengreatlyincreasedbygrowinguncertaintyamongbiologiststhemselves,astothesoundnessoftheassumptionsuponwhichwasfoundedtheirdemandforlong periods of time. These assumptions were briefly those whichunderlie thedoctrine of evolution in its specificallyDarwinian form; inthe form, that is to say, in which the evolution is supposed to beaccomplishedby the fixing through the pressure of the environment ofminute favorable variations, arisingaccidentally in themidst ofminutevariations in every direction indifferently. But in the progress ofbiologicalresearch, thesufficiencyof this "natural selection" to accountforthedevelopmentoforganicformshascomefirsttobequestioned,andtheninlargecirclestobedenied.16Inproportion,however,asevolutionis conceived as advancing in determined directions, come thedeterminationfromwhateversourceyouchoose;17andinproportionasit is conceived as advancingonwardsby large increments insteadof byinsensiblechanges;18inthatproportionthedemandontimeislessenedandeventheevolutionaryspeculatorfeelsthathecangetalongwithlessof it.He is no longer impelled to assume behind the high type ofmanwhoseremainsinthepost-glacialdepositsarethefirstintimationofthepresenceofmanonearth,analmost illimitableseriesof lowerandeverlowertypesofmanthroughwhichgraduallythebrutestruggleduptothehighhumanity,recordsofwhoseexistencealonehavebeenpreservedtous.19Andheno longerrequires topostulate immensestretchesof timefor the progress of this man through paleolithic, neolithic and metal-using periods, for the differentiation of the strongly markedcharacteristics of the several races ofman, for the slow humanizing ofhumannatureandtheslowerdevelopmentofthosepowerswithinitfromwhich at length what we call civilization emerged. Once allow theprincipleofmodificationbyleaps,andthequestionofthelengthoftimerequired for a given evolution passes out of the sphere of practicalinterest.Theheightoftheleapsbecomesamatterofdetail,andthereisreadily transferred to the estimation of it the importance which wasformerly attached to the estimation of the time involved. Thus it hascomeabout,that,intheprogressofscientificinvestigation,themotivefordemanding illimitable stretches of time for the duration of life, andspecifically for the duration of human life on earth, has gradually beenpassing away, and there seems now a very general tendency among

scientific investigators to acquiesce in a moderate estimate - in anestimatewhichdemandsforthelifeofmanonearthnotmorethan,say,tenortwentythousandyears.

Ifthecontroversyupontheantiquityofmanisthusrapidlylosingallbutahistoricalinterest,thatwhichoncesoviolentlyragedupontheunityoftheracemaybesaidalreadytohavereachedthisstage.Thequestionoftheunityof thehumanracediffers fromthequestionof itsantiquity inthat it isof indubitabletheological importance.It isnotmerelythattheBible certainly teaches it, while, as we have sought to show, it has noteaching upon the antiquity of the race. It is also the postulate of theentirebodyoftheBible'steaching-ofitsdoctrineofSinandRedemptionalike:sothatthewholestructureoftheBible'steaching,includingallthatweknowas itsdoctrineofsalvation,restson itand implicates it.Therehavebeentimes,nevertheless,whenithasbeenvigorouslyassailed,fromvariousmotives,fromwithinaswellasfromwithouttheChurch,andtheresources of Christian reasoning have been taxed to support it. Thesetimeshavenow,however,definitelypassedaway.Theprevalenceof theevolutionaryhypotheseshas removedallmotive fordenying a commonorigin to the human race, and rendered it natural to look upon thedifferences which exist among the various types of man asdifferentiations of a common stock. The motive for denying theirconclusiveness having been thus removed, the convincing evidences oftheunityoftheracehavehadopportunitytoasserttheirforce.Theresultis that the unity of the race, in the sense of its common origin, is nolongeramatterofdebate;andalthoughactuallysomeerraticwritersmaystill speakof it as open todiscussion, theyarenot taken seriously, andpractically it isuniversally treatedasa fixed fact thatmankind inall itsvarietiesisone,asinfundamentalcharacteristics,soalsoinorigin.

In our natural satisfaction over this agreement between Scripture andmodern science with respect to the unity of humanity, we must notpermit ourselves to forget that there has always nevertheless existedamongmenastrongtendencytodenythisunityintheinterestsofracialpride.OutsideoftheinfluenceoftheBiblicalrevelation,indeed,thesenseof human unity has never been strong and has ordinarily been non-existent.20 The Stoics seem to have been the first among the classical

peoplestopreachtheunityofmankindandthedutyofuniversal justiceand philanthropy founded upon it. With the revival of classical ideaswhichcame inwithwhatwe call theRenaissance, there came in also atendency to revive heathen polygenism, which was characteristicallyreproduced in the writings of Blount and others of the Deists. Amoredefiniteco-Adamitism,thatistosaytheattributionofthedescentoftheseveral chief racial types to separate original ancestors, has also beentaught by occasional individuals such, for example, as Paracelsus. Andthestillmoredefinitepre-Adamitism,whichconceivesman indeedasasingle species,derived from one stock, but representsAdamnot as therootofthisstock,butasoneofitsproducts,theancestoroftheJewsandwhite races alone, has always found teachers, such as, for example,Zanini.Theadvocacyofthispre-AdamitictheorybyIsaacdelaPeyrèreinthe middle of the seventeenth century roused a great debate which,however, soon died out, although leaving echoes behind it in Bayle,Arnold,Swedenborg.Asortofpre-AdamitismhascontinuedtobetaughtbyaseriesofphilosophicalspeculatorsfromSchellingdown,whichlooksuponAdamasthefirstrealman,risingindevelopedhumanityabovethelow,beastlikeconditionofhisancestors.InourowndayGeorgeCatlin21and especially Alexander Winchell22 have revived in its essentials theteachingofdelaPeyrère."Adam,"saysProfessorWinchell,"isdescendedfrom a black race, not the black race from Adam." The advancingknowledgeof thevariedracesofmanproduced in the latterpartof theeighteenthandtheearliernineteenthcenturyarevivalofco-Adamitism(Sullivan, Crueger, Ballenstedt, Cordonière, Gobineau) which was evenpervertedintoadefenseofslavery(Dobbs,Morton,Nott,andGliddon).Itwas in connectionwithNott andGliddon's "Types ofMankind" thatAgassizfirstpublishedhistheoryofthediverseoriginoftheseveraltypesofman,theonlyoneofthesetheoriesofabidinginterestbecausetheonlyone arising from a genuinely scientific impulse and possessing a reallyscientificbasis.Agassiz'stheorywastheproductofaseriousstudyofthegeographical distribution of animate life, and one of the results ofAgassiz's classificationof thewholeof animate creationintoeightwell-markedtypesoffaunainvolving,sohethought,eightseparatecentersoforigin. Pursuant to this classification he sought to distribute mankindalso into eight types, to each of which he ascribed a separate origin,correspondingwiththetypeof faunawithwhicheachisassociated.But

evenAgassizcouldnotdenythatmenare,despitetheireightfoldseparatecreation,allofonekind:hecouldnoterectspecificdifferencesbetweenthe several types of man.23 The evidence which compelled him torecognize the oneness ofman in kind remains in its full validity, afteradvancing knowledge of the animal kingdom and its geographicaldistribution24 has rendered Agassiz's assumption of eight centers oforigination (not merely distribution) a violent hypothesis; and theentrance into the field of the evolutionary hypothesis has consigned alltheories formed without reference to it to oblivion. Even some earlyevolutionists,itistrue,playedforatimewiththeoriesofmultiplextimesandplaceswheresimilar linesofdevelopment culminatedalike inman(Haeckel, Schaffhausen, Caspari, Vogt, Büchner), and perhaps there isnow some sign of the revival of this view; but it is now agreed withpracticalunanimitythattheunityof thehumanrace, inthesenseof itscommonorigin, is a necessary corollary of the evolutionary hypothesis,and no voice raised in contradiction of it stands much chance to beheard.25

Itis,however,onlyforitsuniversalallowanceatthehandsofspeculativescience that the fact of the unity of the human race has to thank theevolutionaryhypothesis.Theevidencebywhichitissolidlyestablishedisof course independent of all such hypotheses. This evidence is drawnalmost equally from every department of human manifestation,physiological, psychological, philological, and even historical. Thephysiological unity of the race is illustrated by the nice gradations bywhich the several so-called races intowhich it is divided pass into oneanother; andby their undiminishednatural fertilitywhen intercrossed;bywhichProfessorOwenwasledtoremarkthat"manformsonespecies,and...differencesarebutindicativeofvarieties"which"mergeintoeachotherbyeasygradations."26Itisemphasizedbythecontrastwhichexistsbetween the structural characteristics, osteological, cranial, dental,commontotheentireraceofhumanbeingsofeveryvarietyandthoseofthenearestanimaltypes;whichledProfessorHuxleytoassertthat"everyboneofaGorillabearsmarksbywhichitmightbedistinguishedfromthecorrespondingbonesofaMan;andthat, in thepresentcreation,atanyrate, no intermediate link bridges over the gap between Homo andTroglodytes."27Thepsychologicalunityoftheraceisstillmoremanifest.

All men of all varieties are psychologically men and prove themselvespossessors of the same mental nature and furniture. Under the sameinfluencestheyfunctionmentallyandspirituallyinthesamefashion,andprove capable of the same mental reactions. They, they all, and theyalone, in the whole realm of animal existencesmanifest themselves asrationalandmoralnatures;sothatMr.Fiskewasfullyjustifiedwhenhedeclaredthatthoughforzoölogicalmantheerectionofadistinctfamilyfrom the chimpanzee and orangmight suffice, "on the other hand, forpsychologicalmanyoumusterectadistinctkingdom;nay,youmustevendichotomizetheuniverse,puttingManononesideandallthingselseontheother."28Amongthemanifestationsofthepsychologicalpeculiaritiesofmankind, as distinguished from all other animate existences, is thegreat gift of speech which he shares with no other being: if all humanlanguagescannotbereducedtoasingleroot,theyallexhibitauniquelyhuman faculty working under similar laws, and bear themost strikingtestimony to the unity of the race which alone has language at itscommand. The possession of common traditions by numerous widelyseparatedpeoplesisonlyasingleoneofmanyindicationsofahistoricalintercommunion between the several peoples through which theiressential unity is evinced, and by which the Biblical account of theoriginationof thevarious familiesofman inasinglecenter fromwhichtheyhavespreadoutinalldirectionsispowerfullysupported.29

The assertion of the unity of the human race is imbedded in the verystructure of theBiblical narrative. TheBiblical account of the origin ofman(Gen.i.26-28)isanaccountofhisoriginationinasinglepair,whoconstituted humanity in its germ, and from whose fruitfulness andmultiplicationalltheearthhasbeenreplenished.ThereforethefirstmanwascalledAdam,Man,andthe firstwoman,Eve, "becauseshewas themotherofallliving"(Gen.iii.20);andallmenarecurrentlyspokenofasthe"sonsofAdam"or"Man"(Deut.xxxii.8;Ps.xi.4;ISam.xxvi.19;IKings viii. 39; Ps. cxlv. 12; etc.). The absolute restriction of the humanrace within the descendants of this single pair is emphasized by thehistoryoftheFloodinwhichall flesh isdestroyed,andtheracegivenanew beginning in its second father,Noah, bywhose descendants again"thewholeearthwasoverspread"(Gen. ix.19),as is illustratedindetailbythetableofnationsrecordedinGenesisx.Aprofoundreligious-ethical

significanceisgiventothedifferentiationsofthepeoples,inthestoryofthe tower of Babel in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, in which thedivergencesandseparationswhichdividemankindarerepresentedastheproduct of sin: what God had joined together men themselves pulledasunder.Throughout theScriptures thereforeallmankind is treated as,fromthedivinepointofview,aunit,andsharesnotonly ina commonnaturebutinacommonsinfulness,notonlyinacommonneedbutinacommonredemption.

Accordingly, although Israelwas taught toglory in its exaltationby thechoiceoftheLordtobeHispeculiarpeople,Israelwasnotpermittedtobelieve there was anything in itself which differentiated it from otherpeoples; and by the laws concerning aliens and slaves was required torecognizethecommonhumanityofallsortsandconditionsofmen;whattheyhadtodistinguishthemfromotherswasnotofnaturebutofthefreegiftofGod,inthemysteriousworkingoutofHispurposeofgoodnotonlytoIsraelbuttothewholeworld.Thisuniversalisminthedivinepurposesofmercy,alreadyinherent intheOldCovenantandoftenproclaimedinit, andmade the very keynote of theNew - for which theOldwas thepreparation-isthemostemphaticpossibleassertionoftheunityoftherace.Accordingly,notonlydowefindourLordHimselfsettingHissealupontheoriginationof therace inasinglepair,anddrawing fromthatfact the law of life for men at large (Matt. xix. 4); and Paul explicitlydeclaringthat"Godhasmadeofoneeverynationofmen"andhavingforHis own good ends appointed to each its separate habitation, is nowdealing with them all alike in offering them a common salvation (Actsxvii. 26 ff.); but the whole New Testament is instinct with thebrotherhoodofmankindasoneinoriginandinnature,oneinneedandone in theprovisionofredemption.The factofracialsin isbasal to thewholePaulinesystem(Rom,v.12ff.;ICor.xv.21f.),andbeneaththefactofracialsinliesthefactofracialunity.ItisonlybecauseallmenwereinAdamastheirfirstheadthatallmenshareinAdam'ssinandwithhissininhispunishment.And it isonlybecause thesinofman is thusone inoriginandthereforeofthesamenatureandquality,thattheredemptionwhich is suitableandmaybemadeavailable forone is equally suitableandmaybemadeavailable for all. It is because the race is one and itsneedone,JewandGentilearealikeundersin,thatthereisnodifference

between Jew and Gentile in the matter of salvation either, but as thesameGod isLord of all, soHe is rich inChrist Jesus unto all that calluponHim,andwill justifytheuncircumcisionthroughfaithalone,evenasHejustifies the circumcisiononly by faith (Rom. ix. 22-24, 28 ff.; x.12). Jesus Christ therefore, as the last Adam, is the Saviour not of theJews only but of the world (John iv. 42; I Tim. iv. 10; I John iv. 14),havingbeengiventothisHisgreatworkonlybytheloveoftheFatherfortheworld(Johniii.16).TheunityofthehumanraceisthereforemadeinScripturenotmerely the basis of a demand thatwe shall recognize thedignityofhumanity inall itsrepresentatives,ofhowever lowlyestateorfamily, sinceall bear alike the imageofGod inwhichmanwas createdandtheimageofGodisdeeperthansinandcannotbeeradicatedbysin(Gen.v.3;ix.6;ICor.xi.7;Heb.ii.5ff.);butthebasisalsooftheentireschemeofrestorationdevisedbythedivineloveforthesalvationofalostrace.

Sofarisitfrombeingofnoconcerntotheology,therefore,thatitwouldbetruertosaythatthewholedoctrinalstructureoftheBibleaccountofredemption is founded on its assumption that the race of man is oneorganicwhole,andmaybedealtwithassuch.ItisbecauseallareoneinAdamthatinthematterofsinthere isnodifference,butallhavefallenshortofthegloryofGod(Rom.iii.22f.),andaswellthatinthenewmanthere cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision,barbarian,Scythian,bondman,freeman;butChristisallandinall(Col.iii.11).TheunityoftheoldmaninAdamisthepostulateoftheunityofthenewmaninChrist.

Endnotes:

1. ReprintedfromThePrincetonTheologicalReview,ix.1911,pp.1-25.2. "OriginofSpecies,"ed.1,p.287.3. Address as President of the Geological Section of the British

Association, Dovermeeting, September, 1899: Science for October13,1899.

4. RevueMensuelleoftheParisSchoolofAnthropology,forJanuary15,1897.

5. SillimanLecturesatYale,for1908.

6. Nature,October2,1873,pp.462-463;cf."Darwinism,"1889,p.456.7. "TheoryoftheEarth,"ii.p.205.8. "RelicsofPrimevalLife,"1897,p.323.9. Loc.cit.,p.519.10. 10Cf.theestimatesofG.F.Wright,"RecordsofthePast,"vii.1908,

p.24.Hesuggestsforpost-Tertiarytime,say50,000years;andaddsthat, even if this be doubled, there could be assigned to the post-glacialperiodonlysome10,000years.

11. "RecentAdvancesinPhysicalScience,"1876,pp.167-168.12. On the so-called "Planetesimal Hypothesis" of Professors

ChamberlinandMoulton,whichdoesnotpresupposeamoltensunand earth, these calculations which proceed on the basis of the"cooling-globe hypothesis" are of course without validity. And inrecent years a somewhat despairing appeal has been made to thebehaviorofradiumto suggest thatall calculationsbasedon rateofwastearevalueless.

13. Cf.especiallyarticlesintheBibliothecaSacraforJuly,1903(lx.pp.572-582).

14. AmericanGeologist,September,1902,p.193.15. "TheGlacialGeologyofNewJersey"(VolumeVoftheFinalReport

oftheStateGeologist),1902,p.194.16. Cf. V. L. Kellogg, "Darwinism To-day," 1907; R. Otto, "Naturalism

and Religion," 1907; E.Wasmann, "Die moderne Biologie und dieEntwicklungstheorie," ed. 3, 1906; James Orr, "God's Image inMan,"1905;E.Dennert,"VomSterbelagerdesDarwinismus,"1903.

17. That"orthogenesis"isafactismuchmorewidelyrecognizedthanisthevalidityofEimer'sspecialmodeofaccountingforit.

18. Therecognitionoftherealityofthesesaltations-or"mutations,"asDeVries inadequately termsthem- isagain largely independentofanyparticulartheorywithreferencetothem.

19. Cf. Hubrecht in De Gids for June, 1896; Otto, "Naturalism andReligion,"1907,p.110;Orr,"God'sImageinMan,"1905,p.134.E.D.Cope, "ThePrimaryFactors ofOrganic Evolution," 1896, thinksthereisevidenceenoughtoconstitutetwospeciesofthegenushomo-HomosapiensandHomoneanderthalensis, to the latterofwhichhe assigns a greater number of simian characteristics than exist inanyoftheknownracesoftheHomosapiens.Butherequirestoadd

(p.170):"Thereisstill, tousethelanguageofFraipontandLohest,'anabyss'betweenthemanofSpyandthehighestape"-although,onhisownaccountheadds,surelyunwarrantably,"though, fromazoological point of view, it is not a wide one." In point of fact theearliest relics ofmanare relics ofmen,with all that is included inthat, and there lies between them and all other known beings ahithertounbridged"abyss."

20. 20Cf.H.Bavinck,"ThePhilosophyofRevelation,"1909,pp.137ff.21. "O-kee-pa,"London,1867:hereferred theNorthAmerican Indians

toanantediluvianspecies,whichhecalledAnthropusAmericanus.22. "Preadamites,"Chicago,1880.23. SimilarlyHeinrichSchurtz,whileleavingthedescentofmenfroma

singlepairanopenquestion,affirmsthatitisafactthat"humanityformsonegreatunity."

24. ItwasWallace's"GeographicalDistributionofAnimals"whichstruckthefirstcrushingblow.

25. Klaatsch wishes to postulate two distinct stems for man (nowmingled together): seeonhisviews,Keith inNature,December15,1910.

26. E. Burgess, "What is Truth? An Enquiry concerning the AntiquityandUnityoftheHumanRace,"Boston[1871],p.185.

27. "EvidenceastoMan'sPlaceinNature,"1864,p.104.28. "ThroughNaturetoGod,"1899,p.82.29. Cf.thediscussionintheseventhlectureofBavinck's"Philosophyof

Revelation,"1909.

Atonement


Reprinted from "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of ReligiousKnowledge,"editedbySamuelMacauleyJackson,D.D.,LL.D.,i.pp.349-356(copyrightbyFunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1908).

I.SIGNIFICANCEANDHISTORYOFTHEDOCTRINE

Thereplacementoftheterm"satisfaction"(q.v.),todesignate,accordingto its nature, thework of Christ in saving sinners, by "atonement," thetermmoreusualatpresent,issomewhatunfortunate."Satisfaction"isatoncethemorecomprehensive,themoreexpressive,thelessambiguous,andthemoreexact term.Theword"atonement"occursbutonce in theEnglish New Testament (Rom. v. 11, A. V., but not R. V.) and on thisoccasion it bears its archaic sense of "reconciliation," and as suchtranslates the Greek term katallagē. In the English Old Testament,however, it is found quite often as the stated rendering of theHebrewtermskipper,kippurim,inthesenseof"propitiation,""expiation."Itisinthislattersensethatithasbecomecurrent,andhasbeenappliedtotheworkofChrist,whichitaccordinglydescribesas, in itsessentialnature,anexpiatoryoffering,propitiatinganoffendedDeityandreconcilingHimwithman.

1.THENEWTESTAMENTPRESENTATION

InthuscharacterizingtheworkofChrist,itdoesnoinjusticetotheNewTestament representation. The writers of the New Testament employmany other modes of describing the work of Christ, which, takentogether, set it forth asmuchmore than a provision, inHis death, forcancelingtheguiltofman.Tomentionnothingelseatthemoment,theyset it forthequallyasaprovision, inHisrighteousness, for fulfillingthedemandsofthedivinelawupontheconductofmen.Butitisundeniablethat they enshrine at the center of this work its efficacy as a piacular

sacrifice, securing the forgiveness of sins; that is to say, relieving itsbeneficiariesof"thepenalconsequenceswhichotherwisethecurseofthebrokenlawinevitablyentails."TheLordHimself fastensattentionuponthis aspect ofHiswork (Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28); and it is embedded ineveryimportanttypeofNewTestamentteaching-aswellintheEpistletotheHebrews(ii.17),andtheEpistlesofPeter(I.iii.18)andJohn(I.ii.2),ascurrentlyinthoseofPaul(Rom,viii.3;ICor.v.7;Eph.v.2)towhom,obviously,"thesacrificeofChristhadthesignificanceofthedeathofaninnocent victim in the room of the guilty" and who therefore "freelyemploys the category of substitution, involving the conception ofimputation or transference" of legal standing (W. P. Paterson, article"Sacrifice"inHastings,"DictionaryoftheBible,"iv.1909,pp.343-345).Lookingoutfromthispointofviewasfromacenter,theNewTestamentwriters ascribe the saving efficacy of Christ's work specifically to Hisdeath,orHisblood,orHiscross(Rom.iii.25;v.9;ICor.x.16;Eph.i.7;ii.13;Col.i.20;Heb.ix.12,14;IPet.i.2,19;IJohni.7;v.6-8;Rev.i.5),andthiswithsuchpredilectionandemphasisthattheplacegiventothedeath of Christ in the several theories which have been framed of thenature of our Lord'swork,may not unfairly be taken as a test of theirScripturalness. All else that Christ does for us in the breadth of Hisredeemingworkis,intheirview,conditioneduponHisbearingoursinsinHisownbodyon the tree; so that "the fundamental characteristicofthe New Testament conception of redemption is that deliverance fromguiltstandsfirst;emancipationfromthepowerofsinfollowsuponit;andremoval of all the ills of life constitutes its final issue" (O.Kirn, article"Erlösung" in Hauck-Herzog, "Realencyklopadie," v. p. 464; see"Redemption").

2.DEVELOPMENTOFTHEDOCTRINE

TheexactnatureofChrist'sworkinredemptionwasnotmadethesubjectof scientific investigation in the early Church. This was due partly, nodoubt,justtotheclearnessoftheNewTestamentrepresentationofitasapiacularsacrifice;butinpartalsototheengrossmentofthemindsofthefirst teachersofChristianitywithmore immediately pressingproblems,such as the adjustment of the essential elements of the Christiandoctrines ofGod and of the person of Christ, and the establishment of

man'shelplessness insinandabsolutedependenceon thegraceofGodforsalvation.MeanwhileChristianswerecontenttospeakoftheworkofChristinsimpleScripturaloringenerallanguage,ortodevelop,ratherbyway of illustration than of explanation, certain aspects of it, chiefly itsefficacyasasacrifice,butalso,veryprominently,itsworkingasaransomindeliveringusfrombondagetoSatan.Thusitwasnotuntiltheendofthe eleventh century that the nature of the Atonement received at thehandsofAnselm(d.1109)itsfirstthoroughdiscussion.Representingit,intermsderivedfromtheRomanlaw,asinitsessencea"satisfaction"tothe divine justice, Anselm set it once for all in its true relations to theinherentnecessitiesofthedivinenature,andtothemagnitudeofhumanguilt;andthusdeterminedtheoutlinesofthedoctrineforallsubsequentthought. Contemporaries like Bernard and Abelard, no doubt, andperhaps not unnaturally, found difficulty in assimilating at once thenewly frameddoctrine; the former ignored it in the interests of theoldnotionofaransomofferedtoSatan;thelatterrejecteditintheinterestsofatheoryofmoral influenceuponman.Butitgraduallymadeitsway.The Victorines, Hugo and Richard, united with it other elements, theeffectofwhichwastocureitsonesidedness;andthegreatdoctorsoftheageofdevelopedscholasticismmanifestitsvictorybydifferingfromoneanother chiefly in their individual ways of stating and defending it.Bonaventuradevelopsit;Aquinasenrichesitwithhissubtledistinctions;ThomistandScotistalikestartfromit,anddivergeonly inthequestionwhetherthe"satisfaction"offeredbyChristwasintrinsicallyequivalenttothe requirements of the divine justice or availed for this purpose onlythrough the gracious acceptance ofGod. It was not, however, until theReformation doctrine of justification by faith threw its light back uponthe"satisfaction"whichprovideditsbasis,thatthatdoctrinecamefullytoits rights.No one before Luther had spokenwith the clarity, depth, orbreadthwhichcharacterizehisreferencestoChristasourdeliverer,firstfromtheguiltofsin,andthen,becausefromtheguiltofsin,alsofromallthatisevil,sinceallthatisevilspringsfromsin(cf.T.Harnack,"LuthersTheologie," Erlangen, ii. 1886, chaps. 16-19, andKirn, ut sup., p. 467).ThesevitalreligiousconceptionswerereducedtoscientificstatementbytheProtestantscholastics,bywhomitwasthatthecompletedoctrineof"satisfaction" was formulated with a thoroughness andcomprehensivenessofgraspwhichhasmadeitthepermanentpossession

of the Church. In this, its developed form, it represents our Lord asmakingsatisfactionforus"byHisbloodandrighteousness";ontheonehand,tothejusticeofGod,outragedbyhumansin,inbearingthepenaltyduetoourguilt inHisownsacrificialdeath;and,ontheotherhand, tothedemandsofthelawofGodrequiringperfectobedience,infulfillinginHis immaculate life on earth as the second Adam the probation whichAdam failed tokeep;bringing tobearonmenat the same timeandbymeansof the samedoublework every conceivable influence adapted todeter themfromsinand towin themback togoodand toGod-by thehighest imaginabledemonstrationofGod's righteousnessandhatredofsinand thesuprememanifestationofGod's loveandeagerness tosave;byagraciousproclamationoffullforgivenessofsininthebloodofChrist;byawinningrevelationofthespiritualorderandthespiritualworld;andby themoving exampleofHisownperfect life in the conditionsof thisworld;but,aboveall,bythepurchaseofthegiftoftheHolySpiritforHispeople as a power not themselves making for righteousness dwellingwithin them, and supernaturally regenerating their hearts andconforming their lives to His image, and so preparing them for theirpermanent place in the new order of things which, flowing from thisredeemingwork,shallultimatelybeestablishedastheeternalformoftheKingdomofGod.

3.VARIOUSTHEORIES

Of course, this great comprehensive doctrine of "the satisfaction ofChrist" has not been permitted to hold the field without controversy.Many"theoriesoftheatonement"havebeenconstructed,eachthrowinginto emphasis a fragment of the truth, to the neglect or denial of thecomplementary elements, includingordinarily the centralmatter of theexpiation of guilt itself (cf. T. J. Crawford, "The Doctrine of HolyScripture respecting theAtonement,"Edinburgh, 1888, pp. 395-401;A.B.Bruce, "TheHumiliationofChrist,"Edinburgh, 1881, lecture7;A.A.Hodge,"TheAtonement,"Philadelphia,1867,pp.17ff.).Eachmainformofthesetheories,insomemethodofstatementorother,hasatonetimeoranotherseemedonthepointofbecomingthecommondoctrineofthechurches. In the patristic agemen spoke with such predilection of theworkofChristasissuinginourdeliverancefromthepowerofSatanthat

thefalseimpressionisveryreadilyobtainedfromacursorysurveyoftheteachingoftheFathersthattheypredominantlyconceiveditasdirectedtothatsoleend.Theso-called"mystical"view,whichhadrepresentativesamong theGreekFathers andhas alwayshad advocates in theChurch,appeared about themiddle of the last century almost ready to becomedominant in at least Continental Protestantism through the immenseinfluence of Schleiermacher. The "rectoral or governmental theory,"inventedbyGrotiusearlyintheseventeenthcenturyintheefforttosavesomething from the assault of the Socinians, has ever since provided ahalf-way house for those who, while touched by the chilling breath ofrationalism,haveyetnotbeenreadytosurrendereverysemblanceofan"objectiveatonement,"andhasthereforecomeveryprominentlyforwardineveryeraofdecayingfaith.The"moralinfluence"theory,whichintheperson of perhaps the acutest of all the scholastic reasoners, PeterAbelard,confrontedthedoctrineof"satisfaction"atitsformulation,initsvigorouspromulgationby theSociniansandagainby the lowerclassofrationalists obtained thewidest currency; and again in our own day itsenthusiasticadvocates,byperhapsanotunnaturalillusion,aretemptedto claim for it the final victory (so e.g. G. B. Stevens, "The ChristianDoctrineofSalvation,"NewYork, 1905;but cf. per contra, of the sameschool,T.V.Tymms,"TheChristianIdeaofAtonement,"London,1904,p. 8). But no one of these theories, however attractively they may bepresented,or howeverwide an acceptance eachmay from time to timehave found in academic circles, has ever been able to supplant thedoctrineof"satisfaction,"eitherintheformalcreedsof thechurches,orin the hearts of simple believers. Despite the fluidity of much recentthinkingonthesubject,thedoctrineof"satisfaction"remainsto-daytheestablisheddoctrineof thechurchesas to thenatureofChrist'sworkofredemption,andisapparentlyimmovablyentrenchedintheheartsoftheChristian body (cf. J. B. Remensnyder, "The Atonement and ModernThought,"Philadelphia,1905,p.xvi.).

II.THEFIVECHIEFTHEORIESOFTHEATONEMENT

A survey of the various theories of the Atonement which have beenbroached, may be made from many points of view (cf. especially thesurveyinT.G.Crawford,utsup.,pp.285-401;Bruce,utsup., lecture7;

and for recent German views, F. A. B. Nitzsch, "Lehrbuch derevangelischenDogmatik,"Freiburg, 1892, part 2, §§43-46;O. Bensow,"Die Lehre von der Versöhnung," Gütersloh, 1904, pp. 7-153; G. A. F.Ecklin,"ErlösungundVersöhnung,"Basel,1903,part4).Perhapsasgoodamethod as any other is to arrange them according to the conceptioneach entertains of the person or persons on whom the work of Christterminates.Whensoarrangedthey fallnaturally into fiveclasseswhichmaybeenumeratedhereintheascendingorder.

1.TheorieswhichconceivetheworkofChristasterminatinguponSatan,soaffectinghimastosecurethereleaseofthesoulsheldinbondagebyhim. These theories, which have been described as emphasizing the"triumphantorial"aspectofChrist'swork(Ecklin,utsup.,p.113)hadveryconsiderable vogue in the patristic age (e.g. Irenaeus, Hippolytus,Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, the two Gregories, Cyril ofAlexandria, down to and including John of Damascus and Nicholas ofMethone;Hilary,Rufinus,Jerome,Augustine,LeotheGreat,andevensolateasBernard).Theypassedoutofviewonlygraduallyasthedoctrineof"satisfaction"becamemorewidelyknown.NotonlydoesthethoughtofaBernardstillruninthischannel,butevenLutherutilizedtheconception.Theidearunsthroughmanyforms-speakinginsomeofthemofbuyingoff, in someofovercoming, in someeven of outwitting (so e.g.Origen)thedevil.ButitwouldbeunfairtosupposethatsuchtheoriesrepresentinanyoftheirformsthewholethoughtastotheworkofChristofthosewhomadeuseofthem,orwereconsideredbythemascientificstatementoftheworkofChrist.They ratherembodyonly theirauthor'sprofoundsenseofthebondageinwhichmenareheldtosinanddeath,andvividlyset forth the rescue they conceive Christ has wrought for us inovercominghimwhohasthepowerofdeath.

2.Theorieswhichconceive theworkofChristas terminating physicallyon man, so affecting him as to bring him by an interior and hiddenworkinguponhim intoparticipationwith theone lifeofChrist; the so-called "mystical theories." The fundamental characteristic of thesetheoriesistheirdiscoveryofthesavingfactnotinanythingwhichChristtaughtordid,butinwhatHewas.ItisupontheIncarnation,ratherthanuponChrist'steachingorHisworkthattheythrowstress,attributingthe

savingpowerofChristnottowhatHedoesforusbuttowhatHedoesinus. Tendencies to this type of theory are already traceable in thePlatonizing Fathers; and with the entrance of the more developedNeoplatonismintothestreamofChristianthinking,throughthewritingsof the Pseudo-Dionysius naturalized in the West by Johannes ScotusErigena,aconstanttraditionofmysticalteachingbeganwhichneverdiedout.IntheReformationagethistypeofthoughtwasrepresentedbymenlike Osiander, Schwenckfeld, Franck, Weigel, Boehme. In the modernChurch a new impulse was given to essentially the same mode ofconceptionbySchleiermacherandhisfollowers(e.g.C.I.Nitzsch,Rothe,Schöberlein, Lange, Martensen), among whom what is known as the"MercersburgSchool" (see "MercersburgTheology")will beparticularlyinteresting to Americans (e.g. J. W. Nevin, "The Mystical Presence,"Philadelphia,1846).AveryinfluentialwriteramongEnglishtheologiansof the same general class was F. D.Maurice (1805-1872), although headded tohis fundamentalmystical conceptionof theworkofChrist thefurther notions that Christ fully identified Himself with us and, thuspartakingofoursufferings,setusaperfectexampleofsacrificeofselftoGod(cf.especially"TheologicalEssays,"London,1853;"TheDoctrineofSacrifice,"Cambridge,1854;newedition,London,1879).Here,too,mustbeclassedthetheorysuggestedinthewritingsofthelateB.F.Westcott("The Victory of the Cross," London, 1888), which was based on ahypothesisoftheefficacyofChrist'sblood,borrowedapparentlydirectlyfromWilliamMilligan (cf. "The Ascension andHeavenly Priesthood ofour Lord," London, 1892), though it goes back ultimately to theSocinians, to the effect that Christ's offering of Himself is not to beidentifiedwithHissufferingsanddeath,butratherwiththepresentationofHis life (which is inHisblood, set freebydeath for thispurpose) inheaven."TakingthatBloodasefficaciousbyvirtueofthevitalitywhichitcontains,he[Dr.Westcott]holdsthat itwasset freefromChrist'sBodythatitmightvitalizeours,asitwerebytransfusion"(C.H.Waller,inthePresbyterian and Reformed Review, iii. 1892, p. 656). Somewhatsimilarly H. Clay Trumbull ("The Blood Covenant," New York, 1885)looks upon sacrifices as only a form of blood covenanting, that is, ofinstituting blood-brotherhood betweenman and God by transfusion ofblood;andexplainsthesacrificeofChristasrepresentingcommuninginblood, that is, in the principle of life, between God and man, both of

whomChristrepresents.Thetheorywhichhasbeencalled"salvationbysample," or salvation "by gradually extirpated depravity," also has itsaffinities here. Something like it is as old as Felix ofUrgel (d. 818; see"Adoptionism"),andithasbeentaughtinitsfulldevelopmentbyDippel(1673-1734), Swedenborg (1688-1772), Menken (1768-1831), andespeciallybyEdwardIrving (1792-1834),and,ofcourse,by themodernfollowersofSwedenborg(e.g.B.F.Barrett).TheessenceofthistheoryisthatwhatwasassumedbyourLordwashumannature asHe found it,thatis,asfallen;andthatthishumannature,asassumedbyHim,wasbythe power of His divine nature (or of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Himbeyondmeasure)notonlykept fromsinning,butpurified fromsinandpresentedperfectbeforeGodasthefirst-fruitsofasavedhumanity;menbeingsavedastheybecomepartakers(byfaith)ofthispurifiedhumanity,as they become leavened by this new leaven. Certain of the elementswhich thegreatGermantheologianJ.C.K.vonHofmannbuilt intohiscomplicated and not altogether stable theory - a theory which was theoccasionofmuchdiscussionaboutthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury-reproducesomeofthecharacteristiclanguageofthetheoryof"salvationbysample."

3.TheorieswhichconceivetheworkofChristasterminatingonman,intheway of bringing to bear onhim inducements to action; so affectingmanastoleadhimtoabetterknowledgeofGod,ortoamorelivelysenseofhisrealrelationtoGod,ortoarevolutionarychangeofheartandlifewith reference to God; the so-called "moral influence theories." Theessenceofallthesetheoriesisthattheytransfertheatoningfactfromthework of Christ to the response of the human soul to the influences orappeals proceeding from the work of Christ. The work of Christ takesimmediateeffectnotonGodbutonman,leadinghimtoastateofmindandheartwhichwillbeacceptabletoGod,throughthemediumofwhichalonecantheworkofChristbesaidtoaffectGod.Atitshighestlevel,thiswillmeanthattheworkofChristisdirectedtoleadingmantorepentanceandfaith,whichrepentanceandfaithsecureGod'sfavor,aneffectwhichcan be attributed to Christ's work only mediately, that is, through themediumof therepentanceand faith itproduces inman.Accordingly, ithas become quite common to say, in this school, that "it is faith andrepentancewhichchangethefaceofGod";andadvocatesofthisclassof

theories sometimes say with entire frankness, "There is no atonementotherthanrepentance"(AugusteSabatier,"LaDoctrinedel'expiationetsonevolutionhistorique,"Paris,1901,E.T.London,1904,p.127).

Theories of this general type differ from one another, according as,amongtheinstrumentalitiesbymeansofwhichChristaffectsthemindsandheartsandactionsofmen,thestressislaiduponHisteaching,orHisexample,ortheimpressionmadebyHislifeoffaith,orthemanifestationof the infinite love of God afforded by His total mission. The mostpowerful presentation of the first of these conceptions ever made wasprobably that of the Socinians (followed later by the rationalists, bothearlierand later, -Töllner,Bahrdt,Steinbart,Eberhard,Löffler,Henke,Wegscheider).TheylookedupontheworkofChristassummedupintheproclamation of the willingness of God to forgive sin, on the soleconditionofitsabandonment;andexplainedHissufferingsanddeathasmerelythoseofamartyr inthecauseofrighteousnessor insomeothernon-essentialway.The theorieswhich lay thestressofChrist'sworkontheexampleHehassetusofahighandfaithful life,orofa lifeofself-sacrificinglove,havefoundpopularrepresentativesnotonlyinthesubtletheorywithwhichF.D.Mauricepiecedouthismysticalview,andinthesomewhat amorphous ideas with which the great preacher F. W.Robertson clothed his conception of Christ's life as simply a long (andhopeless) battle against the evil of the world to which it at lastsuccumbed; butmore lately inwriters like Auguste Sabatier, who doesnotstopshortoftransmutingChristianityintobaldaltruism,andmakingitintowhathecallsthereligionof"universalredemptionbylove,"thatisto say, anybody's love,not specificallyChrist's love - for everyonewholoves takeshispositionbyChrist's sideas, ifnotequally,yetastruly, asaviour as He ("The Doctrine of the Atonement in its HistoricalEvolution,"utsup.,pp.131-134;soalsoOttoPfleiderer,"DasChristusbilddes urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung,"Berlin, 1903, E.T. London, 1905, pp. 164-165; cf. Horace Bushnell,"VicariousSacrifice,"NewYork,1865,p.107:"Vicarioussacrificewasinnowaypeculiar").InthissamegeneralcategorybelongsalsothetheorywhichAlbrechtRitschlhasgivensuchwideinfluence.Accordingtoit,theworkofChristconsistsintheestablishmentoftheKingdomofGodintheworld, that is, in the revelation of God's love tomen andHis gracious

purposesformen.ThusJesusbecomesthefirstobjectofthisloveandassuchitsmediator toothers;His sufferings anddeathbeing, on the oneside,atestofHissteadfastness,and,ontheother,thecrowningproofofHis obedience ("Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung," iii. §§ 41-61, ed. 3,Bonn, 1888, E.T. Edinburgh, 1900). Similarly also, though with manymodifications,whichareinsomeinstancesnotinsignificant,suchwritersasW.Herrmann("DerVerkehrdesChristenmitGott,"Stuttgart,1886,p.93,E.T.London,1895),J.Kaftan("Dogmatik,"Tübingen,1901,pp.454ff.),F.A.B.Nitzsch("LehrbuchderevangelischenDogmatik,"Freiburg,1892,pp.504-513),T.Häring (inhis "UeberdasBleibende imGlaubenanChristus,"Stuttgart,1880,wherehesoughttocompleteRitschl'sviewbytheadditionoftheideathatChristofferedtoGodaperfectsorrowfortheworld'ssin,whichsupplementsourimperfectrepentance;inhislaterwritings, "Zu Ritschl's Versöhnungslehre," Zurich, 1888, "ZurVersöhnungslehre," Göttingen, 1893, he assimilates to the Grotiantheory),E.Kühl("DieHeilsbedeutungdesTodesChristi,"Berlin,1890),G. A. F. Ecklin (" Der Heilswert des Todes Jesu," Gütersloh, 1888;"Christus unser Bürge," Basel, 1901; and especially "Erlösung undVersöhnung,"Basel, 1903,which is an elaboratehistory of thedoctrinefrom the point of view of what Ecklin calls in antagonism to the"substitutional-expiatory" conception, the "solidaric-reparatory"conceptionoftheAtonement-theconception,thatis,thatChristcomestosavemennotprimarilyfromtheguilt,butfromthepowerofsin,andthat "the sole satisfaction God demands for His outraged honor is therestorationofobedience,"p.648).Themostpopularformofthe"moralinfluence"theorieshasalwaysbeenthatinwhichthestressislaidonthemanifestation made in the total mission and work of Christ of theineffableandsearching loveofGod forsinners,which,beingperceived,breaksdownour opposition toGod,melts ourhearts, andbringsusasprodigalshometotheFather'sarms.Itisinthisformthatthetheorywasadvocated (butwith the suggestion that there is another side to it), forexample, by S. T. Coleridge ("Aids to Reflection"), and that it wascommended toEnglish-speaking readersof the last generationwith thehighestabilitybyJohnYoungofEdinburgh("TheLifeandLightofMen,"London, 1866), and with the greatest literary attractiveness by HoraceBushnell("VicariousSacrifice,"NewYork,1865;seebelow,§7;seealsoarticle "Bushnell, Horace"); and has been more recently set forth in

elaborateandvigorouslypolemicformbyW.N.Clarke ("AnOutline ofChristianTheology,"NewYork,1898, pp. 340-368), T.VincentTymms("TheChristianIdeaofAtonement,"London,1904),G.B.Stevens("TheChristian Doctrine of Salvation," New York, 1905), and C. M. Mead("IrenicTheology,"NewYork,1905).

InavolumeofessayspublishedfirstintheAndoverReview(iv.1885,pp.56 ff.) and afterward gathered into a volume under the title of"Progressive Orthodoxy" (Boston, 1886), the professors in AndoverSeminarymade an attempt (the writer here being, as was understood,GeorgeHarris) toenrichthe"moral influence"theoryof theAtonementaftera fashionquitecommoninGermany(cf.e.g.Häring,utsup.)withelements derived from other well-known forms of teaching. In thisconstruction, Christ's work is made to consist primarily in bringing tobear onman a revelation ofGod's hatred of sin, and love for souls, bywhich He makes man capable of repentance and leads him to repentrevolutionarily; by this repentance, then, together with Christ's ownsympathetic expressionof repentanceGod is renderedpropitious.HereChrist's work is supposed to have at least some (though a secondary)effect upon God; and a work of propitiation of God by Christ may bespokenof,althoughitisaccomplishedbya"sympatheticrepentance."Ithasaccordinglybecomeusualwiththosewhohaveadoptedthismodeofrepresentationtosaythat therewas in thisatoningwork,not indeed"asubstitution of a sinless Christ for a sinful race," but a "substitution ofhumanity plus Christ for humanity minus Christ." By such curiouslycompactedtheoriesthetransitionismadetothenextclass.

4. Theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating on bothmanandGod,butonmanprimarily andonGodonly secondarily.Theoutstandinginstanceofthisclassoftheoriesissuppliedbytheso-called"rectoral or governmental theories." These suppose that the work ofChristsoaffectsmanbythespectacleofthesufferingsbornebyHimastodetermenfromsin;andbythusdeterringmenfromsinenablesGodtoforgive sinwith safety toHismoral government of the world. In thesetheories the sufferingsanddeathofChristbecome, for the first time inthis conspectus of theories, of cardinal importance, constituting indeedtheveryessenceoftheworkofChrist.Buttheatoningfactheretoo,no

less than in the "moral influence" theories, is man's own reformation,though this reformation is supposed in the rectoral view to bewroughtnot primarily by breaking downman's opposition to God by amovingmanifestation of the love of God in Christ, but by inducing in man ahorrorofsin,throughthespectacleofGod'shatredofsinaffordedbythesufferingsofChrist-throughwhich,nodoubt,thecontemplationofmanisledontoGod'slovetosinnersasexhibitedinHiswillingnesstoinflictall these sufferings on His own Son, that He might be enabled, withjusticetoHismoralgovernment,toforgivesins.

This theory was worked out by the great Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius("DefensiofideicatholicaedesatisfactioneChristi,"Leyden,1617;modernedition,Oxford,1856;E.T.withnotesandintroductionbyF.H.Foster,Andover,1889)asanattempttosavewhatwassalvableoftheestablisheddoctrine of satisfaction from disintegration under the attacks of theSocinian advocates of the "moral influence" theories (see "Grotius,Hugo").Itwasatonceadoptedby thoseArminianswhohadbeenmostaffected by the Socinian reasoning; and in the next age became theespecial property of the better class of the so-called supranaturalists(Michaelis, Storr,Morus,Knapp, Steudel, Reinhard,Muntinghe, Vinke,Egeling). It has remained on the continent of Europe to this day, therefugeofmostofthose,who,influencedbythemodernspirit,yetwishtopreserve some form of "objective," that is, of God-ward atonement. Agreat variety of representations have grown up under this influence,combiningelementsofthesatisfactionandrectoralviews.Tonamebutasingle typical instance, the commentator F. Godet, both in hiscommentaries (especially that on Romans) and in amore recent essay(publishedin"TheAtonementinModernReligiousThought,"byvariouswriters,London,1900,pp.331ff.),teaches(certainlyinaveryhighform)therectoraltheorydistinctly(andiscorrectedthereforbyhiscolleagueatNeuchatel,ProfessorGretillat,whowishesan"ontological"ratherthanamerely "demonstrative" necessity for atonement to be recognized). Itshistoryhas runonsimilar lines inEnglish-speakingcountries. InGreatBritainandAmericaalikeithasbecomepracticallytheorthodoxyoftheIndependents. It has, for example, been taught as such in the formercountry by JosephGilbert ("TheChristianAtonement," London, 1836),andinespeciallywellworked-outformsbyR.W.Dale("TheAtonement,"

London, 1876) and Alfred Cave ("The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice,"Edinburgh, 1877; new edition with title, "The Scriptural Doctrine ofSacrifice and Atonement," 1890; and in "The Atonement in ModernReligiousThought,"utsup.,pp.250ff.).WhentheCalvinismoftheNewEnglandPuritansbegantobreakdown,oneofthesymptomsofitsdecaywasthegradualsubstitutionoftherectoralforthesatisfactionviewoftheAtonement.TheprocessmaybetracedinthewritingsofJosephBellamy(1719-1790), Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), John Smalley (1734-1820),Stephen West (1735-1819), Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801),Nathanael Emmons (1745-1840); and Edwards A. Park was able,accordingly, in themiddle of the nineteenth century to set the rectoraltheory forth as the "traditional orthodox doctrine" of the AmericanCongregationalists ("The Atonement: Discourses and Treatises byEdwards,Smalley,Maxcy,Emmons,Griffin,Burge,andWeeks,withanIntroductoryEssaybyEdwardsA.Park,"Boston,1859;cf.DanielT.Fisk,in the Bibliotheca Sacra, xviii. 1861, pp. 284 ff., and further N. S. S.Beman, "FourSermonson theDoctrineof theAtonement,"Troy, 1825,neweditionwithtitle"Christ,theonlySacrifice:ortheAtonementinitsRelationstoGodandMan,"NewYork,1844;N.W.Taylor,"Lecturesonthe Moral Government of God," New York, 1859; Albert Barnes, "TheAtonement, in its Relations to Law and Moral Government,"Philadelphia,1859;FrankH.Foster,"ChristianLifeandTheology,"NewYork,1900;LewisF.Stearns,"PresentDayTheology,"NewYork,1893).The earlyWesleyans also gravitated toward the rectoral theory, thoughnot without some hesitation, a hesitation which has sustained itselfamongBritishWesleyansuntilto-day(cf.e.g.W.B.Pope,"CompendiumofChristianTheology,"London,1875;MarshallRandles,"Substitution:aTreatiseontheAtonement,"London,1877;T.O.Summers,"SystematicTheology,"2vols.,Nashville,Tenn., 1888;J.J.Tigert, in theMethodistQuarterlyReview,April,1884),althoughmanyamongthemhavetaughttherectoraltheorywithgreatdistinctnessanddecision(e.g.JosephAgarBeet, in the Expositor, Fourth Series, vi. 1892, pp. 343-355; "ThroughChristtoGod,"London,1893).Ontheotherhand,therectoraltheoryhasbeentheregnantoneamongAmericanMethodistsandhasreceivedsomeof itsbest statements from their hands (cf. especially JohnMiley, "TheAtonementinChrist,"NewYork,1879;"SystematicTheology,"NewYork,ii.1894,pp.65-240),althoughtherearevoicesraisedoflateindenialof

its claim to be considered distinctively the doctrine of the MethodistChurch(J.J.Tigert,utsup.;H.C.Sheldon,inTheAmericanJournalofTheology,x.1906,pp.41-42).

The final form which Horace Bushnell gave his version of the "moralinfluence" theory, inhis"ForgivenessandLaw"(NewYork, 1874;madethesecondvolumetohisrevised"VicariousSacrifice,"1877),standsinnorelationtotherectoraltheories;butitrequirestobementionedherebytheir side, because it supposes like them that the work of Christ has asecondary effect onGod, although its primary effect is onman. In thispresentation, Bushnell represents Christ's work as consisting in aprofoundidentificationofHimselfwithman,theeffectofwhichis,ontheoneside,tomanifestGod's lovetomanandsotoconquermantoHim,and, on the other, as he expresses it, "tomake cost" onGod's part forman, and so, by breaking down God's resentment to man, to prepareGod'sheart toreceivemanbackwhenhecomes.Theunderlying idea isthat whenever we do anything for those who have injured us, and inproportionasitcostsussomethingtodoit,ournaturalresentmentoftheinjurywehave suffered is undermined, andwe are prepared to forgivethe injury when forgiveness is sought. By this theory the transition isnaturallymadetothenextclass.

5.TheorieswhichconceivetheworkofChristasterminatingprimarilyonGod and secondarily on man. The lowest form in which this ultimatepositioncanbe said tobe fairly taken, isdoubtless that set forth inhisremarkablyattractivewaybyJohnMcLeodCampbell("TheNatureoftheAtonement and its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life,"London,1856;ed.4,1873),andlatelyarguedoutafreshwithevenmorethanCampbell'swinningnessandfarmorethanhiscogency,depth,andrichness, by the late R. C. Moberly ("Atonement and Personality,"London, 1901). This theory supposes that our Lord, by sympatheticallyentering into our condition (an idea independently suggested bySchleiermacher, and emphasized bymany Continental thinkers, as, forexample, to name only a pair with little else in common, by Gess andHäring), so keenly felt our sins asHis own, thatHe could confess andadequatelyrepentofthembeforeGod;andthisisalltheexpiationjusticeasks. Here "sympathetic identification" replaces the conception of

substitution; "sodality," of race-unity; and "repentance," of expiation.Nevertheless, the theory rises immeasurably above the mass of thosealready enumerated, in looking upon Christ as really a Saviour, whoperformsareallysavingwork,terminatingimmediatelyonGod.Despiteits insufficiencies, therefore,whichhavecausedwriters likeEdwardsA.Park,andA.B.Bruce("TheHumiliationofChrist,"utsup.,pp.317-318)to speak of it with a tinge of contempt, it has exercised a very wideinfluence and elements of it are discoverable in many constructionswhichstandfarremovedfromitsfundamentalpresuppositions.

Theso-called"middletheory"oftheAtonement,whichowesitsnametoits supposed intermediate position between the "moral influence"theories and the doctrine of "satisfaction," seems to have offeredattractions to the latitudinarian writers of the closing eighteenth andopeningnineteenthcenturies.AtthattimeitwastaughtinJohnBalguy's"EssayonRedemption"(London,1741),HenryTaylor's"ApologyofBenMordecai" (London, 1784), and Richard Price's "Sermons on ChristianDoctrine" (London, 1787; cf. Hill's "Lectures in Divinity," ed. 1851, pp.422ff.).Basingontheconceptionofsacrificeswhichlooksuponthemasmerelygiftsdesignedtosecurethegood-willoftheKing,theadvocatesofthistheoryregardtheworkofChristasconsistingintheofferingtoGodof Christ's perfect obedience even to death, and by it purchasingGod'sfavorandtherighttodoasHewouldwiththosewhomGodgaveHimasa reward. By the side of this theory may be placed the ordinaryRemonstrant theory of acceptilatio, which, reviving this Scotistconception,iswillingtoallowthattheworkofChristwasofthenatureofanexpiatorysacrifice,but isunwillingtoallowthatHisbloodanymorethanthatof"bullsandgoats"had intrinsicvalueequivalent to the faultforwhichitwasgraciouslyacceptedbyGodasanatonement.Thistheorymay be found expounded, for example, in Limborch ("TheologiaChristiana," ed. 4, Amsterdam, 1715, iii. chaps. xviii.-xxiii.). Suchtheories, while preserving the sacrificial form of the Biblical doctrine,and,withit,itsinseparableimplicationthattheworkofChristhasasitsprimaryendtoaffectGodandsecurefromHimfavorableregardforman(foritisalwaystoGodthatsacrificesareoffered),yetfallsofarshortofthe Biblical doctrine of the nature and effect of Christ's sacrifice as toseemlittlelessthantravestiesofit.

TheBiblicaldoctrineofthesacrificeofChristfindsfullrecognitioninnoother construction than that of the established church-doctrine ofsatisfaction.According to it, ourLord's redeemingwork is at its core atrueandperfectsacrificeofferedtoGod,ofintrinsicvalueamplefortheexpiation of our guilt; and at the same time is a true and perfectrighteousness offered toGod in fulfillment of the demands ofHis law;boththeoneandtheotherbeingofferedinbehalfofHispeople,and,onbeing accepted by God, accruing to their benefit; so that by thissatisfaction they are relieved at once from the curse of their guilt asbreakersofthelaw,andfromtheburdenofthelawasaconditionoflife;andthisbyaworkofsuchkindandperformedinsuchamanner,as tocarry home to the hearts of men a profound sense of the indefectiblerighteousness of God and to make to them a perfect revelation of Hislove;sothat,bythisoneandindivisiblework,bothGodisreconciledtous,andwe,underthequickeninginfluenceoftheSpiritboughtforusbyit, are reconciled toGod, somaking peace - external peace between anangry God and sinful men, and internal peace in the response of thehumanconsciencetotherestoredsmileofGod.Thisdoctrine,whichhasbeen incorporated in more or less fullness of statement in the creedaldeclarations of all the great branches of the Church, Greek, Latin,Lutheran, andReformed, andwhichhasbeenexpoundedwithmoreorlessinsightandpowerbytheleadingdoctorsofthechurchesforthelasteighthundredyears,wasfirstgivenscientificstatementbyAnselm(q.v.)in his "CurDeus homo" (1098); but reached its complete developmentonly at the hands of the so-called Protestant Scholastics of theseventeenthcentury(cf.e.g.Turretin,"TheAtonementofChrist,"E.T.byJ.R.Willson,NewYork, 1859;JohnOwen, "TheDeathofDeath in theDeathofChrist"(1648),Edinburgh,1845).Amongthenumerousmodernpresentations of the doctrine the following may perhaps be mostprofitablyconsulted.OfContinentalwriters:AugustTholuck,"DieLehrevon der Sünde und vom Versöhner," Hamburg, 1823; F. A. Philippi,"KirchlicheGlaubenslehre" (Stuttgart andGütersloh, 1854-1882), IV. ii.1863, pp. 24 ff.; G. Thomasius, "Christi Person und Werk," ed. 3,Erlangen,1886-1888,vol.ii.;E.Böhl,"Dogmatik,"Amsterdam,1887,pp.361 ff.; J. F. Bula, "Die Versöhnung des Menschen mit Gott durchChristum," Basel, 1874; W. Kolling, "Die Satisfactio vicaria," 2 vols.,Gütersloh, 1897-1899; Merle d'Aubigné, "L'Expiation de la croix,"

Geneva, 1867; A. Gretillat, "Exposé de théologie systématique" (Paris,1885-1892), iv. 1890, pp. 278 ff.; A. Kuyper, "E Voto Dordraceno,"Amsterdam, i. 1892, pp. 79 ff., 388 ff.; H. Bavinck, "GereformeerdeDogmatick,"Kampen, iii. 1898,pp.302-424.Ofwriters inEnglish:Theappropriate sections of the treatises on dogmatics by C. Hodge, A. H.Strong, W. G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney; and the following separatetreatises:W. Symington, "On the Atonement and Intercession of JesusChrist,"NewYork,1853(defective,asexcludingthe"activeobedience"ofChrist); R. S. Candlish, "The Atonement: its Efficacy and Extent,"Edinburgh,1867;A.A.Hodge,"TheAtonement,"Philadelphia,1867,newedition, 1877; George Smeaton, "The Doctrine of the Atonement asTaught by Christ Himself," Edinburgh, 1868, ed. 2, 1871; idem, "TheDoctrine of the Atonement as Taught by the Apostles," 1870; T. J.Crawford, "The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement,"Edinburgh, 1871, ed. 5, 1888; Hugh Martin, "The Atonement: in itsRelationstotheCovenant,thePriesthood,theIntercessionofourLord,"London,1870.See"Satisfaction."

BIBLIOGRAPHY:Themore important treatiseson theAtonement havebeen named in the body of the article. The history of the doctrine hasbeen written with a fair degree of objectivity by Ferdinand ChristianBaur,"DiechristlicheLehrevonderVersöhnunginihrergeschichtlichenEntwicklung," Tübingen, 1838; and with more subjectivity by AlbrechtRitschl in the first volume of his "Die christliche Lehre von derRechtfertigungundVersöhnung," ed.3,Bonn, 1889,E.T. from the firstedition,1870,"ACriticalHistoryoftheChristianDoctrineofJustificationandReconciliation," Edinburgh; 1872. Excellent historical sketches aregivenbyG.Thomasius,inthesecondvolumeofhis"ChristiPersonundWerk,"pp.113ff.,ed.3,Erlangen,1888,fromtheconfessional,andbyF.A.B.Nitzsch,inhis"LehrbuchderevangelischenDogmatik,"pp.457ff.,Freiburg, 1892, from themoral influence standpoint.More recentlythehistory has been somewhat sketchily written from the generalconfessional standpoint by Oscar Bensow as the first part of his "DieLehre von der Versöhnung," Gütersloh, 1904, and with more fullnessfromthemoralinfluencestandpointbyG.A.F.Ecklin, inhis"Erlösungund Versöhnung," Basel, 1903. Consult also E. Ménégoz, "La Mort deJésusetledogmedel'expiation,"Paris,1905.TheEnglishstudentofthe

history of the doctrine has at his disposal not only the sections in thegeneral histories of doctrine (e.g. Hagenbach, Cunningham, Shedd,Harnack)andthecomprehensivetreatiseofRitschlmentionedabove,butalsointerestingsketchesintheappendicesofG.Smeaton's"TheDoctrineoftheAtonementasTaughtbytheApostles,"Edinburgh,1870,andJ.S.Lidgett's"TheSpiritualPrincipleoftheAtonement,"London,1897,fromthe confessional standpoint, as well asH. N. Oxenham's "The CatholicDoctrineoftheAtonement,"London,1865,ed.3,1881,fromtheRomanCatholic standpoint. Consult also: J. B. Remensnyder, "TheAtonementand Modern Thought," Philadelphia, 1905; D. W. Simon, "TheRedemptionofMan,"Edinburgh, 1889;C.A.Dinsmore, "Atonement inLiteratureandLife,"Boston,1906;L.Pullan,"TheAtonement,"London,1906.AninterestingepisodeistreatedbyAndrewRobertson,"HistoryoftheAtonementControversyintheSecessionChurch,"Edinburgh,1846.

ModernTheoriesoftheAtonement1


Wemay as well confess at the outset that there is no such thing as amoderntheoryoftheAtonement,inthesenseinwhichthereisamoderntheory, say, of the Incarnation - the kenosis theory to wit, which is abrand-new conception, never dreamed of until the nineteenth centurywaswellonitscourse,andlikely,wemayhope,topassoutofnoticewiththat century. All the theories of the Atonement now current readilyarrange themselves under the old categories, andhave their prototypesrunningbackmoreorlessremotelyintothedepthsofChurchhistory.

Thefactis,theviewsmentakeoftheatonementare largelydeterminedby their fundamental feelings of need - by what men most long to besavedfrom.Andfromthebeginningthreewell-markedtypesof thoughtonthissubjecthavebeentraceable,correspondingtothreefundamentalneedsofhumannatureasitunfoldsitselfinthisworldoflimitation.Menareoppressedbytheignorance,orbythemisery,orbythesininwhichtheyfeelthemselvessunk;and,lookingtoChristtodeliverthemfromtheevilunderwhichtheyparticularlylabor,theyareapttoconceiveHisworkasconsistingpredominantly inrevelationofdivineknowledge,or intheinaugurationofareignofhappiness,orindeliverancefromthecurseofsin.

In the early Church, the intellectualistic tendency allied itself with theclassofphenomenawhichwecallGnosticism.Thelongingforpeaceandhappinessthatwasthenaturalresultofthecryingsocialevilsofthetime,founditsmostremarkableexpressioninwhatweknowasChiliasm.Thatnosuchparty-namesuggestsitselftodescribethemanifestationgiventothelongingtobedeliveredfromthecurseofsin,doesnotmeanthatthislongingwas lessprominentor lesspoignant:butprecisely thecontrary.The other views were sloughed off as heresies, and each received itsappropriatedesignationassuch:thiswasthefundamentalpointofsightof theChurch itself, andas such foundexpression innumberlessways,

someofwhich,nodoubt,weresufficientlybizarre-as, forexample, thesomewhatwidespread representation of the atonement as centering inthesurrenderofJesusasaransomtoSatan.

OurmodernChurch,youwillnotneedmetotellyou, isverymuchlikethe early Church in all this. All three of these tendencies find as fullrepresentationinpresent-daythoughtasinanyageof theChurch's life.PerhapsatnootherperiodwasChristsofrequentlyorsopassionatelysetforthasmerelyasocialSaviour.CertainlyatnootherperiodhasHisworkbeensoprevalentlysummedupinmererevelation.Whilenow,asever,thehopeofChristiansatlargecontinuestobesetuponHimspecificallyastheRedeemerfromsin.

The forms inwhich these fundamental types of thinking are clothed inourmodern days, differ, as amatter of course, greatly from those theyassumedinthefirstage.Thisdifferenceislargelytheresultofthehistoryof thought through the intervening centuries. The assimilation of thedoctrinesof revelationby theChurchwasagradualprocess;and itwasalsoanorderlyprocess-theseveraldoctrinesemergingintheChristianconsciousnessforformaldiscussionandscientificstatementinanaturalsequence.Inthisprocessthedoctrineoftheatonementdidnotcomeupforformulationuntil theeleventhcentury,whenAnselmgave it its firstreally fruitful treatment,and laiddown forall time thegeneral linesonwhich theatonementmustbeconceived, if it is thoughtofasaworkofdeliverancefromthepenaltyofsin.TheinfluenceofAnselm'sdiscussionisnotonlytraceable,buthasbeendetermininginallsubsequentthoughtdowntoto-day.Thedoctrineofsatisfactionsetforthbyhimhasnotbeenpermitted,however, tomake itswayunopposed. Its extremeopposite -thegeneralconceptionthattheatoningworkofChristfindsitsessenceinrevelationandhaditsprimeeffect,therefore,indeliverancefromerror-wasadvocatedinAnselm'sowndaybyperhapstheacutestreasonerofallthe schoolmen, Peter Abelard. The intermediate view which wasapparently invented fivecenturies laterby the greatDutch jurist,HugoGrotius,lovestothinkofitselfasrunningback,ingermatleast,tonearlyasearlyadate.Inthethousandyearsofconflictwhichhasragedamongthese generic conceptions each has taken on protean shapes, and amultitudeofmixedormediatinghypotheseshavebeenconstructed.But,

broadly speaking, the theories that have divided the suffrages of meneasilytakeplacesunderoneorotherofthesethreetypes.

Thereisafourthgeneralconception,tobesure,whichwouldneedtobebroughtintoviewwerewestudyingexhaustiveenumeration.ThisisthemysticalideawhichlooksupontheworkofChristassummedupintheincarnation;anduponthesavingprocessasconsistinginanunobservedleaveningofmankindbytheinworkingofavitalgermthenplantedinthemass.Butthoughthereneverwasanageinwhichthisideafailedentirelyof representation, it bears a certain aristocratic character which hascommended it ordinarily only to the few, however fit: and it probablynever was very widely held except during the brief period when theimmense geniusof Schleiermacher so overshadowed theChurch that itcould hardly think at all save in the formulas taught by him. Broadlyspeaking, thefieldhasbeenheldpracticallyby the three theorieswhicharecommonlydesignatedbythenamesofAnselm,Grotius,andAbelard;andagehasdifferedfromageonlyinthechangingexpressiongiventhesetheoriesandtherelativedominanceofoneoranotherofthem.

TheReformers,itgoeswithoutsaying,wereenthusiasticpreachersoftheAnselmicconception-ofcourseascorrected,developed,andenrichedbytheir own deeper thought and truer insight. Their successors adjusted,expounded, and defended its details, until it stood forth in theseventeenth century dogmatics in practical completeness. During thiswholeperiodthisconceptionheldthefield; thenumerouscontroversiesthat arose about it were rather joined with the Socinian or the mysticthaninternaltothecircleofrecognizedChurchteachers.ItwasnotuntiltheriseofRationalismthatawidelyspreaddefectionbecameobservable.Under this blight men could no longer believe in the substitutiveexpiationwhichistheheartoftheAnselmicdoctrine,andablood-boughtredemption went much out of fashion. The dainty Supranaturalistsattained the height only of the Grotian view, and allowed only a"demonstrative" asdistinguished froman "ontological" necessity for anatonement,andan"executive"asdistinguishedfroma"judicial"effecttoit.Thegreat evangelical revivals of the eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies,however,sweptawayallthat.Itisprobablethatahalf-centuryago the doctrine of penal satisfaction had so strong a hold on the

churches that not more than an academic interest attached to rivaltheories.

About that timeagreat changebegan to set in. Ineedonly tomentionsuch names as those ofHorace Bushnell,McLeod Campbell, FrederickDennisonMaurice,AlbrechtRitschl,tosuggestthestrengthoftheassaultthat was suddenly delivered against the central ideas of an expiatoryatonement. The immediate effect was to call out an equally powerfuldefense.Ourbesttreatisesontheatonementcomefromthisperiod;andPresbyteriansinparticularmaywellbeproudofthepartplayedbytheminthecrisis.Butthisdefenseonlystemmedthetide:itdidnotsucceedinrolling it back. The ultimate result has been that the revolt from theconceptions of satisfaction, propitiation, expiation, sacrifice, reinforcedcontinuallybytendenciesadversetoevangelicaldoctrinepeculiartoourtimes, has grown steadily more and more widespread, and in somequarters more and more extreme, until it has issued in an immenseconfusion on this central doctrine of the gospel. Voices are raised allaboutusproclaiminga"theory"oftheatonementimpossible,whilemanyofthosethatessaya"theory"seemtobefeelingtheirtortuouswayverymuchinthedark.That,ifImistakenot,istherealstateofaffairsinthemodernChurch.

Iamnotmeaningtoimplythatthedoctrineofsubstitutiveatonement-which is, after all, theveryheartof thegospel - hasbeen lost from theconsciousnessof theChurch.Ithasnotbeenlost fromtheheartsof theChristian community. It is in its terms that the humble Christianeverywherestillexpressesthegroundsofhishopeofsalvation.Itisinitsterms that the earnest evangelist everywhere still presses the claims ofChrist upon the awakened hearer. It has not even been lost from theforum of theological discussion. It still commands powerful advocateswhereveravitalChristianityentersacademicalcircles:and,asarule,themore profound the thinker, themore clear is the note he strikes in itsproclamation anddefense.But ifwewere to judge only by the popularliteratureoftheday-aprocedurehappilynotpossible-thedoctrineofasubstitutiveatonementhasretiredwellintothebackground.Probablythemajorityof thosewhohold thepublic ear,whether as academicaloraspopular religious guides, have definitely broken with it, and are

commending to their audiences something other and, as theyno doubtbelieve,somethingverymuchbetter.Atoneofspeechhasevengrownupregarding itwhich isnotonlyscornfulbutpositivelyabusive.Therearenoepithets tooharshtobeappliedto it,no invectivestoo intensetobepouredoutonit.AnhonoredbishopoftheMethodistEpiscopalChurchtellsusthat"thewholetheoryofsubstitutionalpunishmentasagroundeitherofconditionalorunconditionalpardonisunethical,contradictory,and self-subversive."2 He may rightly claim to be speaking in thissweepingsentencewithmarkeddiscretionandunwontedcharity.Todojustice to the hateful theme requires, it seems, the tumid turmoil andrushing rantofDr.Farrar's rhetoric. Surely if hardwordsbrokebones,thedoctrineofthesubstitutionalsacrificeoftheSonofGodforthesinofmanwouldlongagohavebeengroundtopowder.

What,then,areweofferedinsteadofit?Wehavealreadyintimatedthatit is confusion which reigns here: and in any event we cannot go intodetails. We may try, however, to set down in few words the generalimpressionthatthemostrecentliteratureofthesubjectmakes.

Toobtainajustviewofthesituation,Ithinkweoughttonote,firstofall,the wide prevalence among the sounder thinkers of the Grotian orRectoraltheoryoftheatonement-thetheory,thatis,thatconceivestheworkofChristnotassupplyingthegroundonwhichGodforgivessin,butonlyassupplyingthegroundonwhichHemaysafelyforgivesinsonthesolegroundofHiscompassion.Thetheoryofhypotheticaluniversalism,accordingtowhichChristdiedasthepropersubstituteforallmenonthecondition,namely,thattheyshouldbelieve-whetherinitsRemonstrantorinitsAmyraldianform-hasintheconflictoftheorieslongsincebeencrushedoutofexistence-as, indeed,itwelldeservedtobe.Thishavingbeen shoved out of the way, the Grotian theory has come to be theorthodoxArminianviewandistaughtassuchbytheleadingexponentsofmodern Arminian thought whether in Britain or America; and he whowillreadthepowerfulargumentation to thateffectby the lateDr.JohnMiley,say,forexample,willbecompelledtoagreethatitis, indeed,thehighestformofatonement-doctrineconformabletotheArminiansystem.But not only is it thus practically universal among the WesleyanArminians. Ithas become also, under the influence of such teachers as

Drs. Wardlaw and Dale and Dr. Park, the mark also of orthodoxNonconformity in Great Britain and of orthodox Congregationalism inAmerica. Nor has it failed to take a strong hold also of ScottishPresbyterianism: it is specifically advocated by such men of mark andleadingas,forexample,Dr.MarcusDods.OntheContinentofEuropeitis equally widespread among the saner teachers: one notes withoutsurprise, forexample, that itwas taughtby the lateDr.FredericGodet,though one notes with satisfaction that it was considerably modifiedupwardbyDr.Godet,andthathiscolleague,Dr.Gretillat,wascarefultocorrect it. In a word, wherever men have been unwilling to drop allsemblanceofan"objective"atonement,asthewordnowgoes,theyhavetakenrefugeinthishalf-wayhousewhichGrotiushasbuildedforthem.Idonotmyselflookuponthisasaparticularlyhealthfulsignofthetimes.Idonotmyselfthinkthat,atbottom,thereisinprinciplemuchtochoosebetween theGrotianand theso-called"subjective" theories. It seems tomeonlyanillusiontosupposethatitpreservesan"objective"atonementat all. But meanwhile it is adopted by many because they deem it"objective,"anditsofarbearswitnesstoaremanentdesiretopreservean"objective"atonement.

We are gettingmore closely down to the real characteristic ofmoderntheoriesof theatonementwhenwenote that there isastrong tendencyobservable all around us to rest the forgiveness of sins solely onrepentance as its ground. In its last analysis, the Grotian theory itselfreducestothis.ThedemonstrationofGod'srighteousness,whichisheldby it to be the heart of Christ's work and particularly of His death, issupposedtohavenoothereffectonGodthantorenderitsafeforHimtoforgivesin.AndthisitdoesnotasaffectingHim,butasaffectingmen-namely,byawakinginthemsuchapoignantsenseoftheevilofsinastocausethemtohateitsoundlyandtoturndecisivelyawayfromit.ThisisjustRepentance.Wecoulddesirenobetter illustrationof this featureofthe theory than is afforded by the statement of it by one of its mostdistinguished living advocates, Dr. Marcus Dods.3 The necessity ofatonement,he tellsus, lies in the "needof somesuchdemonstration ofGod'srighteousnessaswillmakeitpossibleandsafe forHimtoforgivetheunrighteous" (p. 181).Whateverbegets in the sinner truepenitenceandimpelshimtowardthepracticeofrighteousnesswillrenderitsafeto

forgive him. Hence Dr. Dods asserts that it is inconceivable that Godshouldnotforgivethepenitentsinner,andthatChrist'sworkissummedupinsuchanexhibitionofGod'srighteousnessandloveasproduces,onits apprehension, adequate repentance. "By being the source, then, oftrue and fruitful penitence, the death of Christ removes the radicalsubjective obstacle in the way of forgiveness" (p. 184). "The death ofChrist, then, hasmade forgiveness possible, because it enablesman torepent with an adequate penitence, and because it manifestsrighteousnessandbindsmentoGod"(p.187).Thereisnohintherethatmanneedsanythingmoretoenablehimtorepentthanthepresentationofmotivescalculatedpowerfullytoinducehimtorepent.That is tosay,thereisnohinthereofanadequateappreciationofthesubjectiveeffectsofsinonthehumanheart,deadeningittotheappealofmotivestorightactionhoweverpowerful,andrequiringthereforeaninternalactionoftheSpiritofGoduponitbeforeitcanrepent:orofthepurchaseofsuchagiftoftheSpiritbythesacrificeofChrist.Aslittleisthereanyhinthereoftheexistenceof any senseof justice inGod, forbiddingHim to account theguilty righteous without satisfaction of guilt. All God requires forforgivenessisrepentance:allthesinnerneedsforrepentanceisamovinginducement.It isallverysimple;butweareafraid itdoesnotgototheroot ofmatters as presented either in Scripture or in the throes of ourawakenedheart.

The widespread tendency to represent repentance as the atoning factmightseem,then,tobeaccountablefromtheextensiveacceptancewhichhas been given to the Rectoral theory of the atonement. Neverthelessmuchofithashadaverydifferentoriginandmaybetracedbackratherto some such teaching as that, say, of Dr. McLeod Campbell. Dr.Campbelldidnothimselffindtheatoningfactinman'sownrepentance,butratherinourLord'ssympatheticrepentanceforman.Hereplacedtheevangelical doctrine of substitution by a theory of sympatheticidentification,andtheevangelicaldoctrineofexpiatorypenalty-payingbyatheoryofsympatheticrepentance.Christsofullyenterssympatheticallyintoour case,washis idea, thatHe is able tooffer toGodanadequaterepentance for our sins, and theFather says, It is enough!Manhere isstillheldtoneedaSaviour,andChristispresentedasthatSaviour,andislookeduponasperformingformanwhatmancannotdoforhimself.But

the gravitation of this theory is distinctly downward, and it has evertendedtofindits lower level.Thereare, therefore,numerous transitiontheoriesprevalent - someof themvery complicated, someof themverysubtle - which connect it by a series of insensible stages with theproclamation of human repentance as the sole atonement required. Astypical of these we may take the elaborate theory (which, like manhimself,maybesaid tobe fearfullyandwonderfullymade)set forthbythemodernAndoverdivines.Thisfindstheatoningfactinacombinationof Christ's sympathetic repentance forman andman's own repentanceundertheimpressionmadeuponhimbyChrist'sworkonhisbehalf-notin the one without the other, but in the two in unison. A similarcombination of the revolutionary repentance ofman induced by ChristandthesympatheticrepentanceofChristformanmeetsusalsoinrecentGerman theorizing, as, for example, in the teaching of Häring. It issometimes clothed in "sacrificial" language and made to bear anappearance even of "substitution." It is just the repentance of Christ,however, which is misleadingly called His "sacrifice," and oursympatheticrepentancewithHimthat iscalledourparticipation inHis"sacrifice"; and it is carefully explained that though there was "asubstitutiononCalvary,"itwasnotthesubstitutionofasinlessChristforasinful race,but thesubstitutionofhumanityplusChrist forhumanityminusChrist.Allofwhichseemsbutaconfusingwayofsayingthattheatoningfactconsists intherevolutionaryrepentanceofmaninducedbythespectacleofChrist'ssympatheticrepentanceforman.

Theessentialemphasis inall thesetransitiontheories fallsobviouslyonman'sownrepentanceratherthanonChrist's.Accordinglythelatterfallsawayeasilyandleavesuswithhumanrepentanceonlyasthesoleatoningfact-theentirereparationwhichGodasksorcanaskforsin.Nordomenhesitate to-day toproclaim this openly and boldly. Scores of voices areraised about us declaring it not only with clearness but with passion.Even those who still feel bound to attribute the reconciling of GodsomehowtotheworkofChristareoftencarefultoexplainthattheymeanthisultimatelyonly,andonlybecausetheyattributeinonewayorothertotheworkofChristthearousingoftherepentanceinmanwhichistheimmediategroundofforgiveness.ThusDeanFremantletellsusthatitis"repentanceandfaith"that"changeforusthefaceofGod."Andthenhe

adds,doubtlessasaconcessiontoingrained,thoughoutgrown,habitsofthought:"If,then,thedeathofChrist,viewedastheculminatingpointofHislifeoflove,isthedestinedmeansofrepentanceforthewholeworld,wemaysay,also,thatitisthemeansofsecuringthemercyandfavourofGod, of procuring the forgiveness of sins."4 And Dr. (now Principal)Forsyth, whose fervid address on the atonement at a greatCongregationalistgatheringafewyearsagoquitetookcaptivetheheartsof the whole land, seems really to teach little more than this. Christsympathetically enters into our condition, he tells us, and givesexpressiontoanadequatesenseofsin.We,perceivingtheeffectofthis,Hisentrance intooursinfulatmosphere,aresmittenwithhorrorof thejudgmentoursinhasthusbroughtonHim.Thishorrorbegets inusanadequaterepentanceofsin:Godacceptsthisrepentanceasenough;andforgives our sin. Thus forgiveness rests proximately only on ourrepentanceasitsground:butourrepentanceisproducedonlybyChrist'ssufferings: and hence, Dr. Forsyth tells us, Christ's sufferings may becalledtheultimategroundofforgiveness.5

ItissufficientlyplainthatthefunctionservedbythesufferingsanddeathofChristinthisconstructionissomewhatremote.Accordinglytheyquitereadilyfallawayaltogether.ItseemsquitenaturalthattheyshoulddosowiththosewhosedoctrinalinheritancecomesfromHoraceBushnell,say,or from the Socinian theorizing of the school of Ritschl. We feel nosurprisetolearn,forexample,thatwithHarnackthesufferingsanddeathofChristplaynoappreciablepart.WithhimthewholeatoningactseemstoconsistintheremovalofafalseconceptionofGodfromthemindsofmen.Men, because sinners, are prone to look upon God as a wrathfuljudge. He is, on the contrary, just Love. How can the sinner'smisjudgmentbecorrected?BytheimpressionmadeuponhimbythelifeofJesus,keyedtotheconceptionoftheDivineFatherhood.Withallthiswearefamiliarenough.Butwearehardlypreparedfortheextremitiesoflanguagewhichsomepermit themselves ingivingexpressionto it."Thewholedifficulty,"arecentwriterofthisclassdeclares,"isnotininducingorenablingGodtopardon,butinmovingmentoabhorsinandtowantpardon."Eventhisdifficulty,however,weareassuredisremovable:andwhat isneededfor itsremoval isonlyproper instruction."Christianity,"cries our writer, "was a revelation, not a creation." Even this false

antithesisdoesnot,however,satisfyhim.Herisesbeyondittotheacmeof his passion. "Would there have been no Gospel," he rhetoricallydemands-as ifnonecouldventure tosayhimnay - "would therehavebeen no Gospel had not Christ died?"6 Thus "the blood of Christ" onwhichtheScriptureshangthewholeatoningfactisthoughtnolongertobeneeded: thegospelofPaul,whichconsistednot inChrist simpliciterbut specifically in "Christ as crucified," is scouted. We are able to getalongnowwithoutthesethings.

To such a pass have we been brought by the prevailing gospel of theindiscriminateloveofGod.Foritisherethatweplaceourfingerontheroot of the whole modern assault upon the doctrine of an expiatoryatonement. In the attempt to give effect to the conception ofindiscriminateandundiscriminatingloveasthebasalfactofreligion,theentireBiblical teaching as to atonement has been ruthlessly torn up. IfGodis loveandnothingbutlove,whatpossibleneedcantherebeofanatonement?CertainlysuchaGodcannotneedpropitiating.IsnotHetheAll-Father? IsHe not yearning forHis childrenwith an unconditionedandunconditioningeagernesswhichexcludesallthoughtof"obstaclestoforgiveness"?What doesHewant but - justHis children?Ourmoderntheorizers are never weary of ringing the changes on this singlefundamentalidea.Goddoesnotrequiretobemovedtoforgiveness;ortobeenabledtopardon;oreventobeenabledtopardonsafely.HeraisesnoquestionofwhetherHecanpardon,orwhether itwouldbe safe forHimtopardon.Suchisnotthewayoflove.Loveisboldenoughtosweepallsuchchillingquestionsimpatientlyoutofitspath.Thewholedifficultyistoinducementopermitthemselvestobepardoned.Godiscontinuallyreachinglongingarmsoutofheaventowardmen:oh,ifmenwouldonlyletthemselvesbegathereduntotheFather'seagerheart!Itisabsurd,wearetold-nay,wicked-blasphemouswithawfulblasphemy-tospeakofpropitiatingsuchaGodasthis,ofreconcilingHim,ofmakingsatisfactiontoHim.Loveneedsnosatisfying,reconciling,propitiating;nay,willhavenothingtodowithsuchthings.Ofitsverynatureitflowsoutunbought,unpropitiated,instinctivelyandunconditionally,toitsobject.AndGodisLove!

Well, certainly, God is Love. And we praise Him that we have better

authority for telling our souls this glorious truth than the passionateassertionofthesesomewhatcrasstheorizers.GodisLove!ButitdoesnotintheleastfollowthatHeisnothingbutlove.GodisLove:butLoveisnotGodandtheformula"Love"mustthereforeeverbeinadequatetoexpressGod.Itmaywellbe-toussinners,lostinoursinandmiserybutforit,itmustbe-thecrowningrevelationofChristianitythatGodislove.ButitisnotfromtheChristianrevelationthatwehavelearnedtothinkofGodasnothing but love. That God is the Father of all men in a true andimportant sense,weshouldnotdoubt.But this term"All-Father" - it isnot from the lips ofHebrew prophet or Christian apostle thatwe havecaughtit.AndtheindiscriminatebenevolencismwhichhastakencaptivesomuchofthereligiousthinkingofourtimeisaconceptionnotnativetoChristianity,butofdistinctlyheathenquality.Asonereadsthepagesofpopularreligiousliterature,teemingasitiswithill-consideredassertionsofthegeneralFatherhoodofGod,hehasanoddfeelingoftransportationbackintotheatmosphereof,say,thedecadentheathenismofthefourthandfifthcenturies,whenthegodsweredying,andtherewaslefttothosewhowouldfainclingtotheoldwayslittlebeyondasomewhatsaddenedsenseof thebenignitasnuminis. Thebenignitasnuminis!How studdedthe pages of those genial old heathen are with the expression; howsuffusedtheirrepressedlifeiswiththeconvictionthatthekindDeitythatdwells above will surely not be hard on men toiling here below! Howshocked theyareat the stern righteousnessof theChristian'sGod,wholoomedbeforetheirstartledeyesasHeloomsbeforethoseofthemodernpoet in no other light than as "the hardGod that dwelt in Jerusalem"!SurelytheGreatDivinity is toobroadlygoodtomark thepeccadillosofpoor puny man; surely they are the objects of His compassionateamusementratherthanofHisfiercereprobation.LikeOmarKhayyam'spot, theywere convinced, before all things, of theirMaker that "He's agoodfellowand'twillallbewell."

The query cannot help rising to the surface of ourminds whether ourmodernindiscriminatebenevolencismgoesmuchdeeperthanthis.Doesall this one-sided proclamation of the universal Fatherhood of Godimportmuchmorethantheheathenbenignitasnuminis?Whenwetakethoseblessedwords,"GodisLove,"uponourlips,arewesurewemeantoexpressmuchmorethanthatwedonotwishtobelievethatGodwillhold

mantoanyrealaccountforhissin?Arewe,inaword,inthesemoderndays,somuchsoaringupwardtowardamoreadequateapprehensionofthetranscendenttruththatGodislove,aspassionatelyprotestingagainstbeing ourselves branded and dealt with as wrath-deserving sinners?Assuredlyitisimpossibletoputanythingliketheirrealcontentintothesegreat words, "God is Love," save as they are thrown out against thebackgroundofthoseotherconceptionsofequalloftiness,"GodisLight,""GodisRighteousness,""GodisHoliness,""Godisaconsumingfire."TheloveofGodcannotbeapprehendedinitslengthandbreadthandheightanddepth-allofwhichpassknowledge-saveasitisapprehendedasthelove of a God who turns from the sight of sin with inexpressibleabhorrence, and burns against it with unquenchable indignation. Theinfinitude of His love would be illustrated not by His lavishing of Hisfavor on sinners without requiring an expiation of sin, but by His -throughsuchholinessandthroughsuchrighteousnessascannotbutcryout with infinite abhorrence and indignation - still loving sinners sogreatly that He provides a satisfaction for their sin adequate to thesetremendous demands. It is the distinguishing characteristic ofChristianity, after all, not that it preaches a God of love, but that itpreachesaGodofconscience.

Asomewhatflippantcritic,contemplatingthereligionofIsrael,hastoldus, as expressive of his admiration for what he found there, that "anhonest God is the noblest work of man."7 There is a profound truthlurking in theremark.Only itappears that theworkwere toonoble forman;andprobablymanhasnevercompassedit.AbenevolentGod,yes:men have framed a benevolent God for themselves. But a thoroughlyhonestGod,perhapsnever.Thathasbeen left for therevelationofGodHimself togiveus.Andthis is thereallydistinguishingcharacteristicofthe God of revelation: He is a thoroughly honest, a thoroughlyconscientiousGod-aGodwhodealshonestlywithHimselfandus,whodeals conscientiously with Himself and us. And a thoroughlyconscientious God, we may be sure, is not a God who can deal withsinnersasiftheywerenotsinners.Inthisfactlies,perhaps,thedeepestgroundofthenecessityofanexpiatoryatonement.

And it is in this fact also that there lies the deepest ground of the

increasing failureof themodernworld toappreciate thenecessityof anexpiatory atonement. Conscientiousness commends itself only toawakened conscience; and in much of recent theologizing consciencedoesnotseemespeciallyactive.Nothing,indeed,ismorestartlinginthestructureofrecenttheoriesofatonement,thantheapparentlyvanishingsenseofsinthatunderliesthem.Surely,itisonlywherethesenseofguiltofsinhasgrowngrievouslyfaint,thatmencansupposerepentancetobeall that is needed to purge it. Surely it is only where the sense of thepowerofsinhasprofoundlydecayed,thatmencanfancythattheycanatwillcastitofffromthemina"revolutionaryrepentance."Surelyitisonlywhere the sense of the heinousness of sin has practically passed away,thatmancanimaginethattheholyandjustGodcandealwithitlightly.Ifwe have not much to be saved from, why, certainly, a very littleatonementwill suffice forourneeds. It is,afterall,only thesinnerthatrequiresaSaviour.But ifwearesinners,andinproportionasweknowourselves tobe sinners,andappreciatewhat itmeans tobesinners,wewillcryoutforthatSaviourwhoonlyafterHewasperfectedbysufferingcouldbecometheAuthorofeternalsalvation.

Endnotes:

1. An address delivered at the "Religious Conference," held in theTheological Seminary, Princeton, on October 13, 1902. ReprintedfromThePrincetonTheologicalReview,i.1903,pp.81-92.

2. BishopFoster, inhis"PhilosophyofChristianExperience":1891,p.113.

3. Inanessayinavolumecalled"TheAtonementinModernReligiousThought:ATheologicalSymposium"(London:JamesClarke&Co.,1900). In this volume seventeen essays from as many writers arecollected,andfromitaveryfairnotioncanbeobtainedoftheideascurrentincertaincirclesofourday.

4. "TheAtonementinModernReligiousThought,"ascited:pp.168f.5. Ibid.,pp.61ff.6. Mr. Bernard J. Snell, in "The Atonement in Modern Religious

Thought":pp.265,267.7. Cf.Mr.EdwardDay's"TheSocialLifeoftheHebrews,"1901,p.207.

HeisquotingapparentlythelateMr.Ingersoll.

Imputation


Reprinted from "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of ReligiousKnowledge,"editedbySamuelMacauleyJackson,D.D.,LL.D.,v.pp.465-467(copyrightbyFunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1909).

I.ORIGINANDMEANINGOFTHETERM

The theological use of the term "imputation" is probably rootedultimately in the employment of the verb imputo in the Vulgate totranslatetheGreekverblogizesthaiinPs.xxxii.2.ThispassageisquotedbyPaul inRom. iv.8andmadeoneof thefoundationsofhisargumentthat,insavingman,Godsetstohiscreditarighteousnesswithoutworks.It isonly in these twopassages,andinthe twoaxiomaticstatementsofRom.iv.4andv.13thattheVulgateusesimputointhisconnection(cf.,with special application, II Tim. iv. 16; Philemon 18). There are otherpassages,however,where itmight justaswellhavebeenemployed,butwhere we have instead reputo, under the influence of the mistakenrendering of theHebrew ḥashabh inGen. xv. 6. In these passages theAuthorizedEnglishVersionimprovesontheLatinbyrenderinganumberofthem(Rom.iv.11,22,23,24;IICor.v.19;Jamesii.23)by"impute,"andemployingfortherestsynonymousterms,allofwhichpreservethe"metaphor from accounts" inherent in logizesthai (and ellogein) in thisusage(cf.W.SandayandA.C.Headlam,"CommentaryontheEpistletotheRomans,"iv.3),suchas"count"(Rom.iv.3,5),"account"(Gal.iii.6),and "reckon" (Rom. iv. 4, 9, 10); the last ofwhich theRevisedEnglishVersion makes its uniform rendering of logizesthai. Even the meageremploymentof imputo in theLatinversion,however,suppliedoccasionenoughfortheadoptionofthatwordinthepreciselanguageoftheologyasthetechnical termfor thatwhich isexpressedby theGreekwords intheirso-called"commercialsense,orwhatmay,morecorrectly,becalledtheirforensicor"judicial"sense,"thatis,puttingtoone'saccount,"or,initstwofoldreferencetothecreditanddebitsides,"settingtoone'scredit"

or"layingtoone'scharge."

II.THREEACTSOFIMPUTATION

From the time of Augustine (early fifth century), at least, the term"imputation" is found firmly fixed in theological terminology in thissense.But theapplicationsandrelationsof thedoctrineexpressedby itwerethoroughlyworkedoutonlyinthediscussionswhichaccompaniedandsucceededtheReformation.Inthedevelopedtheologythusbroughtintothepossessionof theChurch,threeseveralactsof imputationwereestablishedandexpounded.ThesearetheimputationofAdam'ssintohisposterity;theimputationofthesinsofHispeopletotheRedeemer;theimputation of the righteousness of Christ to His people. Though, ofcourse, with more or less purity of conception and precision ofapplication,thesethreegreatdoctrinesbecamethepropertyofthewholeChurch, and found a place in the classical theology of the Roman,Lutheran, and Reformed alike. In the proper understanding of theconception, it is important to bear in mind that the divine act called"imputation" is in itself precisely the same in each of the three greattransactions intowhich it enters as a constituent part. The grounds onwhich itproceedsmaydiffer; the things imputedmaybedifferent; andthe consequent treatment of the person or persons to which theimputation ismademay andwill differ as the things imputed to themdiffer.Butineachandeverycasealikeimputationitselfissimplytheactof setting to one's account; and the act of setting to one's account is initself the same act whether the thing set to his account stands on thecreditordebit sideof the account, andwhatevermaybe the ground inequityonwhichitissettohisaccount.ThatthesinofAdamwassosettothe account of his descendants that they have actually shared in thepenaltywhichwasthreatenedtoit;andthatthesinsofHispeopleweresosettotheaccountofourLordthatHeboretheminHisownbodyonthetree,andHismeritsaresosettotheiraccountthatbyHisstripestheyare healed, the entirety of historical orthodox Christianity unites inaffirming.

III.PELAGIANOPPOSITIONTOTHEDOCTRINE

Opposition to these doctrines has, of course, not been lacking in the

historyofChristianthought.Thefirstinstanceofimportantcontradictionof the fundamental principle involved is presented by the Pelagianmovement (see "Pelagius, Pelagian Controversies"), which arose at thebeginning of the fifth century. The Pelagians denied the equity and,therefore, under the government of God, the possibility of theinvolvementofonefreeagentintheactsofanother;theyutterlydenied,therefore, that men either suffer harm from Adam's sin or profit byChrist's merits. By their examples only, they said, can either Adam orChristaffectus;andbyfreeimitationofthemalonecanweshareintheirmerits or demerits. It is not apparent why Pelagius permitted himselfsuch extremity of denial. What he had at heart to assert was theinamissibility by the human subject of plenary ability of will to do allrighteousness.Tosafeguardthishehadnecessarilytodenyallsubjectiveinjury tomen from Adam's sin (and from their own sins too, for thatmatter),andtheneedoractualityofsubjectivegracefortheirperfecting.ButtherewasnoreasongrowingoutofthispointofsightwhyhemightnotallowthattheguiltofAdam'ssinhadbeenimputedtohisposterity,and had supplied the ground for the infliction upon them of externalpenalties temporal or eternal; or that the merits of Christ might beimputedtoHispeopleasthemeritoriousgroundoftheirrelieffromthesepenalties,aswellasoftheforgivenessoftheirownactualsinsandoftheirreception into the favor of God and the heavenly blessedness. LaterPelagianizers found this out; and it became not uncommon (especiallyafter Duns Scotus' strong assertion of the doctrine of "immediateimputation")fortheimputationofAdam'ssintobeexploitedpreciselyinthe interest of denial or weakening of the idea of the derivation ofinherentcorruptionfromAdam.Averygoodexampleofthistendencyofthought is supplied by the Roman Catholic theologian AmbrosiusCatharinus,whoseadmirablespeechtothiseffectattheCouncilofTrentis reported by Father Paul ("History of the Council of Trent," E. T.London, 1676, p. 165). Even Zwingli was not unaffected by it. He wasindeedfreefromthePelagianizingattenuationofthecorruptionofnaturewhich is the subjective effect onhis posterity ofAdam's sin.Withhim,"originalsin"wasbothextensivelyand intensivelya totaldepravity, thefertile source of all evil action. But he looked upon it rather as amisfortune than a fault, a disease than a sin; and he hung the wholeweightofourruinonourdirectparticipationinAdam'sguilt.Asaslave

canbegetonlyaslave,sayshe,soalltheprogenyofmanunderthecursearebornunderthecurse.

IV.IMPORTANCEOFTHEDOCTRINE

Insharpcontradictiontothecurrenttendencytoreducetothevanishing-point the subjective injurywrought byAdam's sin on his posterity, thechurches gave themselves to emphasizing the depth of the injury andespecially its sinfulness. Even the Council of Trent acknowledged thetransfusionintotheentirehumanraceof"sin,whichisthedeathofthesoul."TheProtestants,who, as convincedAugustinians,were free fromthe Pelagianizing bias ofRome,were naturally evenmore strenuous inasserting the evil and guilt of native depravity. Accordingly theyconstantly remark thatmen's native guilt in the sight of God rests notmerelyupontheimputationtothemofAdam'sfirstsin,butalsouponthecorruption which they derive from him - a mode of statement whichmeetsus, indeed, as early asPeterLombard ("Sentences," II. xxx.) andforthesamereason.Thepolemicturngiventothesestatementshasbeentheoccasionofaremarkablemisapprehension,as if itwere intendedtosubordinatetheimputationofAdam'stransgressiontothetransmissionof his corrupted nature as the source of human guilt. Precisely thecontrary is the fact.The imputationofAdam's transgressionwasnot indispute;allpartiestothegreatdebateoftheagefullyrecognizedit;anditis treated therefore as amatter of course.What was important was tomake it clear that native depravitywas alongwith it the ground of ourguiltbeforeGod.Thusitwassoughttoholdthebalancetrue,andtodojusticetobothelementsinacompletedoctrineoforiginalsin.Meanwhiletherecoveryof thegreatdoctrineof justificationby faith threwback itslightuponthedoctrineofthesatisfactionofChristwhichhadbeeninthepossessionoftheChurchsinceAnselm;andthebetterunderstandingofthisdoctrine,thusinduced,inturnilluminatedthedoctrineofsin,whosecorrelative it is. Thus it came about that in the hands of the greatProtestant leaders of the sixteenth century, and of their successors, theProtestant systematizers of the seventeenth century, the threefolddoctrineofimputation-ofAdam'ssintohisposterity,ofthesinsofHispeopletotheRedeemer,andoftherighteousnessofChristtoHispeople-atlastcametoitsrightsasthecoreofthethreeconstitutivedoctrinesof

Christianity- thesinfulnessof thehumanrace, thesatisfactionofJesusChrist, and justification by faith. The importance of the doctrine ofimputation is that it is the hinge on which these three great doctrinesturn,andtheguardianoftheirpurity.

V.SOCINIAN,ARMINIAN,ANDRATIONALISTICOPPOSITION

Of course the Church was not permitted to enjoy in quiet its newunderstandingofitstreasuresofdoctrine.RadicalopponentsaroseintheReformationage itself, themost importantofwhomweretheSocinians(see "Socinus, Faustus, Socinians"). By them it was pronounced aninanitytospeakof thetransferenceofeithermeritordemerit fromoneperson toanother:wecanbebadwithanother'sbadness, or goodwithanother'sgoodness,theysaid,aslittleaswecanbewhitewithanother'swhiteness.ThecenteroftheSocinianassaultwasuponthedoctrineofthesatisfactionofChrist: it isnotpossible, theyaffirmed, foronepersontobear the punishment due to another. But their criticism cut equallydeeply into the Protestant doctrines of original sin and justification byfaith. The influence of their type of thought, very great from the first,increasedastimewentonandbecameafactorofimportancebothintheArminian revolt at thebeginningof the seventeenth century and in therationalisticdefectionahundredyearslater.NeithertheArminians(e.g.Limborch, Curcellaeus) nor the Rationalists (e.g. Wegscheider) wouldhearofan imputationofAdam'ssin,andbothattackedwithargumentsverysimilarto thoseof theSociniansalso the imputationofoursins toChristorofHisrighteousnesstous.RationalismalmostatetheheartoutoftheLutheranChurches;andtheReformedChurchesweresavedfromthesamefateonlybythepromptextrusionoftheArminianpartyandthestrengtheningoftheirpositionbyconflictwithit.Inparticular,aboutthemiddleoftheseventeenthcenturythe"covenant"or"federal"methodofexhibiting the plan of the Lord's dealings with men (see "Cocceius,Johannes, and his School") began to find great acceptance among theReformedChurches.Therewasnothingnovelinthismodeofconceivingtruth.Theideawaspresenttothemindsof theChurchFathersandtheSchoolmen; and it underlay Protestant thought, both Lutheran andReformed, from the beginning, and in the latter had come to clearexpression, first inUrsinus.Butnowitquicklybecamedominantasthe

preferablemanner of conceiving themethod of the divine dealingwithmen.Theeffectwastothrowintothehighestreliefthethreefolddoctrineof imputation,andtomakemanifestasneverbefore thedependencyofthegreatdoctrinesofsin,satisfaction,andjustificationuponit.

VI.LAPLACEANDLATERTHEOLOGIANSANDSCHOOLS

AboutthesametimeabrilliantFrenchprofessor,Josuéde laPlace(see"Placeus, Josua"), of the Reformed school at Saumur, reduced all thatcould be called the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity simply tothis - that because of the sin inherent in us from our origin we aredeservingofbeingtreatedinthesamewayas ifwehadcommittedthatoffense.ThisconfinementoftheeffectofAdam'ssinuponhisposteritytothe transmission to them of a sinful disposition - inherent sin - wascertainlynew in thehistoryofReformed thought:AndreasRivetus (see"Rivet,Andre")hadnodifficultyincollectingalonglineof"testimonies"from the confessionsand representative theologians explicitlydeclaringthatmenareaccountedguiltyinGod'ssight,bothbecauseofAdam'sactof transgression imputed to them and of their own sinful dispositionderivedfromhim.Theconflictofviewswasnodoubtrenderedsharper,however, by the prevalence at the time of the "Covenant theology" inwhichthe immediate imputationofAdam's transgression isparticularlyclearlyemphasized.Thus"immediate"and"mediate"imputation(forbythelatternameLaPlacecamesubsequentlytocallhisview)werepittedagainsteachotherasmutuallyexclusivedoctrines:as if thequestion atissuewerewhethermanstoodcondemnedinthesightofGodsolelyonaccountofhis"adherent"sin,orsolelyonaccountofhis"inherent"sin.The former of these doctrines had never been held in the ReformedChurches, since Zwingli, and the latter had never been held in thembeforeLaPlace. From the first both "adherent" and "inherent" sin hadbeenconfessedasthedoublegroundofhumanguilt;andtheadvocatesofthe"Covenanttheology"wereasfaraspossiblefromdenyingtheguiltof"inherent" sin. La Place's innovation was as a matter of coursecondemnedbytheReformedworld,formallyattheSynodofCharenton(1644-1645)andintheHelveticConsensus(1675)andbyargumentatthehandsoftheleadingtheologians-Rivetus,Turretin,Maresius,Driessen,Leydecker, andMarck.But the tendencies of the timewere in its favor

and it made its way. It was adopted by theologians like Wyttenbach,Endemann,Stapfer,Roell,Vitringa,Venema;andafterawhile it foundits way through Britain to America, where it has had an interestinghistory-forming one of the stages through which the New EnglandTheology(q.v.)passedon itswayto itsultimatedenialof thequalityofsininvolvingguilttoanythingbutthevoluntaryactsofafreeagent;andfinally becoming one of the characteristic tenets of the so-called "NewSchoolTheology"of thePresbyterianChurches.Thus ithascomeaboutthat therehasbeenmuchdebate inAmerica upon "imputation," in thesenseoftheimputationofAdam'ssin,anddiversetypesoftheologyhavebeenframed,especiallyamongtheCongregationalistsandPresbyterians,centering in differences of conception of this doctrine. Among thePresbyterians, for example, four such types are well marked, each ofwhich has been taught by theologians of distinction. These are (1) the"Federalistic," characterized by its adherence to the doctrine of"immediate imputation," represented, for example, by Dr. CharlesHodge; (2) the "New School," characterized by its adherence to thedoctrineof"mediateimputation,"represented,forexample,byDr.HenryB.Smith;(3)the"Realistic,"whichteachesthatallmankindwerepresentinAdamasgenerichumanity,andsinnedinhim,andarethereforeguiltyofhisand theircommonsin, represented, forexample,byDr.W.G.T.Shedd;and(4)onewhichmaybecalledthe"Agnostic,"characterizedbyan attempt to accept the fact of the transmission of both guilt anddepravity from Adam without framing a theory of the mode of theirtransmission or of their relations one to the other, represented, forexample,byDr.R.W.Landis.See"Adam";"Atonement";"Justification""Redemption""Satisfaction";"Sin."

BIBLIOGRAPHY:The literatureof the subject is the literatureof "Sin,""Atonement," and "Justification" (qq. v.). Special treatment is usuallygiven also in the systems of doctrinal theology, especially of theCalvinistic type. Consult: A.Rivetus, "Opera,"Rotterdam, iii. 1660, pp.798ff.;R.Rüetschi,"GeschichteundKritikderkirchlichenLehrevon...Sündenfall,"Leiden,1881;C.Hodge,in"TheologicalEssays,"NewYork,1846,pp.128-217;A.Schweizer,"DieprotestantischenCentraldogmen,"Zürich,1854-1856;W.Cunningham,"TheReformersandtheTheologyofthe Reformation," Edinburgh, 1866, pp. 371 ff.; J. Buchanan, "The

DoctrineofJustification,"Edinburgh,1867,pp.279,321-323,334,337;G.P.Fisher, in theNewEnglander,xxvii. 1868,pp.468-516;J.Müller,"The Christian Doctrine of Sin," Edinburgh, ii. 1868, pp. 342 ff.; T. J.Crawford, "The Doctrine of Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement,"Edinburgh, 1871, pp. 181-183, 424; R. W. Landis, "The Doctrine ofOriginal Sin as Received and Taught by the Churches of theReformation," Richmond, 1884;W. G. T. Shedd, "Dogmatic Theology,"NewYork, ii. 1888,pp.29,42,57-63,192-194;H.B.Smith, "SystemofChristianTheology,"ed.W.S.Karr,NewYork,1886,pp.283-323;R.V.Foster, "Systematic Theology," Nashville, 1898, pp. 408-413; W. A.Brown, "ChristianTheology inOutline,"NewYork,1906,pp.285,290-291,311,362.

OnFaithinItsPsychologicalAspects


TheEnglishword"faith"came into the languageunder the influenceoftheFrench,andisbutamodificationoftheLatin"fides,"whichis itselfcognate with the Greek pi,stij. Its root-meaning seems to be that of"binding."Whateverwediscover to be "binding" onus, is the object of"faith."2The correspondingGermanic term, representedby theEnglishword"believe"(andtheGerman"glauben"),goesbacktoarootmeaning"to be agreeable" (represented by our English "lief"), and seems topresenttheobjectofbeliefassomethingwhichwe"esteem"-whichwehave"estimatedor"weighed"and"approved."Thenotionof"constraint"isperhapslessprominentin"belief"thanin"faith,"itsplacebeingtakenin"belief"bythatof"approval."We"believe"inwhatwefindworthyofour confidence;we "have faith" inwhat compels our confidence.But itwould be easy to press this too far, and it is likely that the two terms"faith,""belief"reallyexpressmuchthesameidea.3Inthenaturaluseoflanguage, therefore, which is normally controlled by what we calletymology,thatis,bytheintrinsicconnotationoftheterms,whenwesay"faith," "belief," our minds are preoccupied with the grounds of theconvictionexpressed:wearespeakingofamentalactor state towhichwefeelconstrainedbyconsiderationsobjectivetoourselves,oratleasttothe act or state in question. The conception embodied in the terms"belief," "faith," in other words, is not that of an arbitrary act of thesubject's; it is that of a mental state or act which is determined bysufficientreasons.

In their fundamental connotation, thus, these terms are very broad.There seems nothing in the terms themselves, indeed, to forbid theiremploymentinsowideasenseastocoverthewholefieldof"sureness,""conviction."Whateverweacceptastrueorreal,wemayveryproperlybesaid to"believe," to"have faith in";all thatweareconvincedofmaybesaidtobematterof"belief,""faith."Sothetermsare,accordingly,veryoften employed. Thus, for example, Professor J. M. Baldwin defines "belief" simply as "mental endorsement or acceptance of something

thoughtof,asreal";andremarksof"conviction,"thatit"isa loosetermwhoseconnotation,sofarasexact,isneartothatheregiventobelief."4Heevenadds-wethinkwithlessexactness-that"judgment"ismerely"the logical or formal side of the same state of mind" which, on thepsychologicalside,iscalled"belief."Tous,"judgment"appearsabroaderterm than "belief," expressing - a mental act which underlies beliefindeed,butcannotbeidentifiedwithit.5

Meanwhilewe notewith satisfaction that Professor Baldwin recognizestheelementofconstraint("bindingness")in"belief,"anddistinguishesitclearly from acts of the will, thereby setting aside the definition of it -quite commonly given - which finds the differentia of beliefs, amongconvictions,inthis-thattheyare"voluntaryconvictions.""Thereis,"hesays,6 "a distinct difference in consciousness between the consent ofbelief and the consent of will. The consent of belief is in a measure aforced consent: it attaches to what is - to what stands in the order ofthingswhetherIconsentorno.Theconsentofwillisaforcefulconsent-aconsent towhat shall be throughme." That is to say,with respect tobelief,itisamentalrecognitionofwhatisbeforethemind,asobjectivelytrueandreal,andthereforedependsontheevidencethatathingistrueandrealandisdeterminedbythisevidence;itistheresponseofthemindtothisevidenceandcannotariseapartfromit.Itis,therefore,impossiblethatbeliefshouldbetheproductofavolition;volitionslooktothefutureandrepresentourdesires;beliefs look to thepresentandrepresentourfindings.

ProfessorBaldwindoesnotrecognizethis,however, in itsentirety,as isalready apparent from the qualification inserted into his description of"belief."It is,sayshe,"inameasurea forcedconsent."Hewishes,afterall, to leave room for "voluntary beliefs." Accordingly, he proceeds: "Incasesinwhichbeliefisbroughtaboutbydesireandwill,thereisasubtleconsciousnessofinadequateevidence,untilbyrepetitiontheitemdesiredandwillednolongerneedsvolitiontogiveitaplaceintheseriesdeemedobjective:thenitisforthefirsttimebelief,butthenitisnolongerwill.""Beliefs," then, according to Professor Baldwin, although not to beconfoundedwithactsofthewill,mayyetbeproducedbytheactionofthewill,evenwhilethe"evidence"onwhichtheyshouldmoreproperlyrest,

isrecognizedbythemindwillingthemtobeinsufficient.

Wecannothelpsuspectingthissuggestiontorestonadefectiveanalysisof what actually goes on in the mind in the instances commented on.These appear to us to be cases in which we determine to act onsuppositions recognizedas lacking sufficient evidence to establish themin our minds as accordant with reality and therefore not accepted asaccordant with reality, that is to say, as "beliefs." If they pass, as Dr.Baldwinsuggests,graduallyinto"beliefs,"whenrepeatedlysoactedupon- is that not because the mind derives from such repeated action,resulting successfully, additional evidence that the suppositions inquestiondorepresentrealityandmaybesafelyactedonassuch?Wouldnotthethingactedoninsuchcasesbemorepreciselystatedasthebeliefthatthesesuppositionsmaybeaccordantwithreality,notthattheyare?The consciousness that the evidence is inadequate which accompaniessuchaction(thoughDr.Baldwincallsit"subtle")-isitnotinfactjustthewitnessofconsciousnessthat itdoesnotassertthesesuppositionstobeaccordantwithreality,anddoesnotrecognizethemas"beliefs,"thoughitis willing to act on them on the hypothesis that theymay prove to beaccordantwith reality and thusmake good their aspirations to becomebeliefs?Andcananynumberofrepetitions(repetitionsofwhat,

bytheway?)makethistestimonyofconsciousnessvoid?Apparentlywhatwerepeatissimplyvolitionsfoundedanthepossibilityorprobabilityofthe suppositions in question being in accordancewith reality; and it isdifficult to see how the repetition of such volitions can elevate thesuppositions in question into the rank of beliefs except by eliminatingdoubt as to their accordancewith reality by creating evidence for themthroughtheir"workingwell."Therepetitionofavolitiontotreatagivenproposition as true - especially if it is accompanied by a consciousness(howeversubtle) that there isnosufficientevidencethat it is true -cancertainlynotresult inmaking it true;andcanscarcelyof itselfresult inproducing an insufficiently grounded conviction in themind (always atleastsubtlyconsciousthatitrestsoninsufficientevidence)thatitistrue,and so in giving it "a place in the series deemed objective." A habit oftreating a given proposition as correspondent to realitymay indeed beformed;andasthishabitisformed,theaccompanyingconsciousnessthat

itisinpointoffactgroundedininsufficientevidence,maynodoubtdropintothebackground,orevenwhollyoutofsight;thuswemaycometoact-instinctively,shallwesay?orinadvertently?-onthesuppositionofthetruthofthepropositioninquestion.Butthisdoesnotseemtocarrywithitasinevitableimplicationthat"beliefs"maybecreatedbytheactionofthe will. Itmay only show thatmore or less probable, ormore or lessimprobable, suppositions, more or less clearly envisaged as such, mayenterintothecomplexofconditionswhichinfluenceaction,andthatthehumanmindintheprocessesofitsordinaryactivitydoesnotalwayskeepbeforeitinperfectclearnessthelinesofdemarcationwhichseparatethetwoclassesof itsbeliefsanditsconjectures,butmaysometimesruboffthe labelswhich serve tomark its convictions off from its suppositionsandtokeepeachinitsproperplace.

It would seem to be fairly clear that "belief" is always the product ofevidenceandthat itcannotbecreatedbyvolitions,whethersinglyor inany number of repetitions. The interaction of belief and volition is,questionless, most intimate and most varied, but one cannot besuccessfullytransmutedintotheother,noronebemistakenfortheother.Theconsentofbelief is in its verynatureandmust alwaysbewhatDr.Baldwincalls"forcedconsent,"thatistosay,determinedbyevidence,notby volition; and when the consent of will is secured by a supposition,recognized by consciousness as inadequately based in evidence, thisconsent of will has no tendency to act as evidence and raise thesuppositionintoabelief-itstendencyisonlytogivetoasuppositiontheplaceofabeliefintheorderingoflife.

Wemay infer from this state of the case that "preparedness to act" isscarcely a satisfactory definition of the state ofmindwhich is properlycalled"faith,""belief."ThiswasthedefinitionsuggestedbyDr.AlexanderBain."Faith,""belief"certainlyexpressesastateofpreparedness toact;anditmaybeveryfairlycontendedthat"preparednesstoact"suppliesaverygoodtestof thegenuinenessof"faith," "belief."Aso-called"faith,""belief" onwhichwe are not prepared to act is near to no real "faith,""belief"atall.Whatweareconvincedof,weshouldcertainlyconfidein;andwhatweareunwillingtoconfideinweseemnotquitesureof-wedonotappearthoroughlytobelieve,tohavefaithin.Butthoughall"faith,"

"belief"ispreparednesstoact,itdoesnotfollowthatallpreparednesstoactis"faith,""belief."Wemaybepreparedtoact,onsomeothergroundthan "faith," "belief"; on "knowledge," say - if knowledge may bedistinguished from belief - or, as we have already suggested, on"supposition" - onaprobabilityor evenapossibility.Tobe sure, aswehavealreadynoted, the real groundof our action in such casesmaybestatedintermsof"faith,""belief."Ourpreparednesstoactmaybesaidtobeourbelief-ourconviction-that,ifthesuppositioninquestionisnotyetshowntobeinconformitytoreality,ityetmaybeso.Meanwhile,itisclear that the supposition in question is not a thing believed to be inaccordancewithfact,andisthereforenotabeliefbuta"supposition";nota"conviction"butaconjecture."Belief,""faith"istheconsentofthemindto therealityof the thing inquestion;andwhenthemindwithholds itsconsenttothereality,"belief,""faith"isnotpresent.Thesetermsarenotproperly employed except when a state of conviction is present; theydesignate the response of the mind to evidence in a consent to theadequacyoftheevidence.

It, of course, does not follow that all our "beliefs," "faiths" correspondwithreality.Ourconvictionsarenotinfallible.Whenwesaythat"belief,""faith" is the product of evidence and is in that sense a compelledconsent,this isnotthesameassayingthatconsent isproducedonlybycompelling evidence, that is, evidence which is objectively adequate.Objectiveadequacyand subjective effect arenot exactly correlated.Theamount,degree,andqualityofevidencewhichwillsecureconsentvariesfrom mind to mind and in the same mind from state to state. Someminds, or allminds in some states,will respond to veryweak evidencewithfullconsent;somemindsorallmindsinsomestates,willresistverystrongevidence.Thereisno"faith,""belief"possiblewithoutevidenceorwhat the mind takes for evidence; "faith," "belief" is a state of mindgrounded in evidence and impossiblewithout it. But the fullest "faith,""belief"maygrounditselfinveryweakevidence-ifthemindmistakesitforstrongevidence."Faith,""belief"doesnotfollowtheevidenceitself,inotherwords,but the judgmentof the intellecton theevidence.And thejudgmentoftheintellectnaturallywillvaryendlessly,asintellectdiffersfrom intellect or as the states of the same intellect differ from oneanother.

From this circumstance has been taken an attempt to define "faith,""belief"more closely thanmerelymental endorsement of something astrue-as,broadly,thesynonymof"conviction"-andtodistinguishitasaspecific form of conviction from other forms of conviction. "Faith,""belief,"itissaid(e.g.byKant),isconvictionfoundedonevidencewhichissubjectivelyadequate."Knowledge"isconvictionfoundedonevidencewhich is objectively adequate. That "faith" and "knowledge" do differfromoneanother,wealldoubtlessfeel;butit isnoteasytobelievethattheir specific difference is found in this formula. It is of course plainenough that every act of "faith," "belief" rests on evidence which issubjectivelyadequate.Butitisfarfromplainthatthisevidencemustbeobjectively inadequate on pain of the mental response ceasing to be"faith," "belief" and becoming "knowledge." Are all "beliefs," "faiths,"specifically such, in their very nature inadequately establishedconvictions;convictions, indeed-mattersofwhichwe feelsure-butofwhichwe feel sure on inadequate grounds - groundseither consciouslyrecognizedbyusas

inadequate,or,ifsupposedbyustobeadequate,yetreallyinadequate?

Nodoubtthereisausageofthetermscurrent-especiallywhentheyareset in contrast with one another - which does conceive them after thisfashion; a legitimate enough usage, because it is founded on a realdistinctionintheconnotationofthetwoterms.Wedosometimessay,"Idonotknowthisorthattobetrue,butIfullybelieveit"-meaningthatthough we are altogether persuaded of it we are conscious that thegroundsforbelievingitfallshortofcompleteobjectivecoerciveness.Butthisspecialusageofthetermsoughtnottodeceiveusastotheiressentialmeaning. And it surely requires little consideration to assure us that itcannotbeoftheessenceof"faith,""belief"thatthegroundsonwhichitrests are - consciously or unconsciously - objectively inadequate. Faithmust not be distinguished from knowledge only that it may beconfounded with conjecture. And how, in any case, shall the proposedcriterionoffaithbeapplied?Tobelieveongroundsoftheinadequacyofwhichweareconscious,isonthefaceofitanimpossibility.Themomentwe perceive the objective inadequacy of the grounds on which wepronounce the reality of anything, they become subjectively inadequate

also.Andsolongastheyappeartoussubjectivelyadequate,theresultingconviction will be indistinguishable from "knowledge." To say that"knowledge"isajustifiedrecognitionofrealityand"faith,""belief"isanunjustifiedrecognitionofreality,istoerectadistinctionwhichcanhaveno possible psychological basis. The recognizing mind makes and canmakenosuchdistinctionbetweenthesoundnessandunsoundnessofitsown recognitions of reality. An outside observer might certainlydistribute into two such categories the "convictions" of amind broughtunder his contemplation; but the distribution would represent theoutsideobserver's judgmentupon thegroundsof these convictions,notthat of the subject himself. The moment the mind observed itselfintroducingsuchadistributionamongits"convictions"itwouldremovethe whole class of "convictions" to which it assigned an inadequategrounding out of the category of "convictions" altogether. To becomeconscious that some of its convictions were unjustified would be toabolish them at once as convictions, and to remove them into thecategory at best of conjectures, at worst of erroneous judgments. WeaccordwithDr.Baldwin, therefore,whenhedeclaresof thisdistinctionthatitis"notpsychological."7Themindknowsandcanknownothingofobjectivelyandsubjectivelyadequategroundsinformingitsconvictions.All it is conscious of is the adequacy or inadequacy of the grounds onwhichitsconvictionsarebased.Iftheyappealtoitasadequate,themindis convinced; if theydonot, it remainsunconvinced.Faith, belief, is toconsciousness just an act or state of conviction, of being sure; andtherefore cannot be explained as something less than a conviction,something less than being sure, or as a conviction indeed, but aconviction which differs from other convictions by being, if notungrounded,yetnotadequatelygrounded.Thatwereallonewithsayingit is a conviction, no doubt, but nevertheless not quite a conviction - amanifestcontradictioninterms.

The failure of this special attempt to distinguish between faith andknowledgeneednotargue,however,thatthereisnodistinctionbetweenthe two. Faithmay not be inadequately grounded conviction anymorethanitisvoluntaryconviction- thetwocometomuchthesamething-and yet be a specific mode of conviction over against knowledge as adistinct mode of conviction. The persistence with which it is set over

against knowledge in our popular usage of the words as well as in thedefinitions of philosophersmay be taken as an indication that there issomecognizabledistinctionbetweenthetwo,couldwebutfastenuponit.Andthepersistencewithwhichthisdistinctionissoughtinthenatureofthegroundsonwhichfaithindistinctionfromknowledgerestsisequallynotable. Thus we find Dr. Alexander T. Ormond8 a defining "faith" as"the personal acceptance of something as true or real, but - thedistinguishing mark - on grounds that, in whole or part, are differentfromthoseoftheoreticcertitude."Herefaithisdistinguishedfromotherformsofconviction-"knowledge"beingapparentlyinmindastheothertermof the contrast.And thedistinguishingmarkof "faith" is found inthenatureofthegroundsonwhichitrests.Thenatureofthesegrounds,however,isexpressedonlynegatively.Wearenottoldwhattheyarebutonly that they are (inwhole or in part) different to "those of theoreticcertitude." The effect of the definition as it stands is therefore only todeclarethattheterm"faith"doesnotexpressallformsofconviction,butone form only; and that this form of conviction differs from the formwhichisgiventhenameof"theoreticcertitude"-thatistosay,doubtless,"knowledge" - in the grounds on which it rests. But what the positivedistinguishing mark of the grounds on which the mode of convictionwhichwecall"faith"restsis,wearenottold.Dr.Ormonddoes, indeed,goontosaythat"themomentofwillentersintotheassentoffaith,"andthat "in the formof somesubjective interestor considerationofvalue."From this it might be inferred that the positive differentia of faith,unexpressed in the definition, would be that it is voluntary conviction,conviction determined not by the evidence of reality present to ourminds,butbyourdesireorwillthatitshouldbetrue-thisdesireorwillexpressing"somesubjectiveinterestorconsiderationofvalue."9

Putbaldly,thismightbeinterpretedasmeaningthatwe"know"whatisestablished to us as true, we "believe what we think we should beadvantaged by if true; we "know" what we perceive to be real, we"believe"whatweshouldliketobereal.Toputitsobaldlymaynodoubtpress Dr. Ormond's remark beyond his intention. He recognizes that"some faith-judgments are translatable into judgments of knowledge."Buthedoesnotbelievethatallare;andhesuggeststhat"thefinaltestofvalidity"oftheselattermustliein"thesphereofthepracticalratherthan

in that of theoretical truth." The meaning is not throughout perfectlyclear.ButtheupshotseemstobethatinDr.Ormond'sopinion,thatclassof convictions which we designate "faith" differs from that class ofconvictionswhichwedesignate"knowledge"bythefactthattheyrest(inwholeorinpart)noton"theoretical"buton"practical"grounds-thatistosay,notonevidencebutonconsiderationsofvalue.Andthatappearsultimatelytomeanthatweknowathingwhichisprovedtoustobetrueor real; butwebelieve a thingwhichwewould fain shouldprove tobetrueorreal.Someofthethingswhichwethusbelievemaybereducedto"knowledge"becausetheremaybeproofsoftheirrealityavailablewhichwerenot,ornotfully,presenttoourminds"whenwebelieved."Othersofthemmaybeincapableofsuchreductioneitherbecausenosuchproofsoftheirtruthorrealityexist,orbecause thoseproofsarenotaccessible tous.Butouracceptanceofthemallalikeastruerests,notonevidencethattheyare true,but (inwholeor inpart)on "somesubjective interest"or"considerationofvalue."Failing"knowledge"wemaytakethesethings

"onfaith" -becauseweperceive that itwouldbewell if theywere true,andwecannotbelievethatthatatleastisnottrueofwhichitiscleartousthatitwouldbeinthehighestdegreewellifitweretrue.

Itisnotnecessarytodenythatmanythingsareacceptedbymenastrueand accordant with reality on grounds of subjective interest orconsiderations of value; or that men may be properly moved to theacceptance of many things as true and real by such considerations.Considerations of value may be powerful arguments - they may evenconstitute proofs - of truth and reality. But it appears obvious enoughthatallof thoseconvictionswhichweknowas "beliefs," "faiths"donotreston"subjectiveinterestorconsiderationsofvalue"-eitherwhollyoreven inpart. Indeed, itwouldbe truer tosay thatnoneof themrestonsubjectiveinterestsorconsiderationsofvalueassuch,butwheneversuchconsiderations enter into their grounds they enter in as evidences ofrealityorasfactorsofmentalmovementlendingvividnessandvitalitytoelementsofproperevidencebeforethemind.Mendonotmeanbytheir"faiths,""beliefs"thingstheywouldfainweretrue;theymeanthingstheyareconvincedaretrue.Theirmindsarenotrestingonconsiderationsofvalue,butonwhattheytaketobeevidencesofreality.Theemployment

ofthesetermstodesignate"acceptancesastrueandreal"onthegroundofsubjective interestorofconsiderationsofvaluerepresents, therefore,no general usage but is purely an affair of the schools, or rather of aschool.And itdoesviolencenot only to the general convictions ofmenbut also to the underlying idea of the terms. No terms, in fact,lendthemselves more reluctantly to the expression of a "voluntaryacceptance,"inanyform,thanthese.Aswehavealreadyseen,theycarrywiththemtheunderlyingideaofbindingness,worthinessofacceptance;theyexpress,inDr.Baldwin'sphrase,a"forcedconsent";andwheneverweemploythemthereispresenttothemindaconsciousnessofgroundsonwhich they firmly rest as expressiveof reality.Whatevermaybe thedifferentiaof"belief,""faith"asaspecificformofconviction,wemaybesure,therefore,thatdesireorwillcannotbethedeterminingelementofthe grounds on which this conviction rests. What we gain from Dr.Ormond'sdefinitionthenisonlytheassurancethatby"faith"isdenotednotallformsofconviction,butaspecificform-thatthisspecificformisdifferentiatedfromotherformsbythenatureofthegroundsonwhichtheconvictioncalled"faith"rests-andthatthegroundsonwhichthisformof conviction rests are not those of theoretic certitude. The form ofconvictionwhich rests on grounds adapted to give "theoretic certitude"wecall"knowledge."Whatthespecialcharacterofthegroundsonwhichtheformofconvictionwecall"faith"restsremainsyettoseek.

This gain, although we may speak of it as, for the main matter, onlynegative, isnotthereforeunimportant.Tohave learnedthat inadditiontothegeneralusageof"faith,""belief," inwhichitexpressesall"mentalendorsementoracceptance"ofanything"asreal,"andisequipollentwiththe parallel term "conviction," there is a more confined usage of itexpressing a specific form of "conviction" in contrast with the form ofconviction called "knowledge," is itself an important gain.And to learnfurtherthatthespecificcharacteroftheformofconvictionwhichwecall"knowledge"isthatitrestsongroundswhichgive"theoreticcertitude,"isan important aid, by way of elimination, in fixing on the specificcharacteristicoftheformofconvictionwhichincontrastto"knowledge"wecall"faith.""Faith"weknownowisaformofconvictionwhicharisesdifferentlyto"theoreticcertitude";andifcertainbasesforitsaffirmationof reality which have been suggested have been excluded in the

discussion-suchasthatitrestsonavolitionoraseriesofvolitions,onconsiderations of value rather than of reality, on evidence onlysubjectively but not objectively adequate - the way seems pretty wellclearedforapositivedeterminationofpreciselywhatitisthatitdoesreston. We have at least learned that while distinguishing it from"knowledge,"whichisconvictionoftheorderof"theoreticcertitude,"wemust find some basis for "faith," "belief" which will preserve its fullcharacter as "conviction" and not sublimate it into a wish or a will, aconjecturalhypothesisoramistake.

It was long ago suggested that what we call "faith," "belief," ascontradistinguished from "knowledge," is conviction grounded inauthority, as distinguished from conviction grounded in reason. "Weknow," says Augustine, "what rests upon reason;we believewhat restsuponauthority";andSirWilliamHamiltonpronouncesthis"accurately"said.10 It is not intended of course to represent "faith," "belief" asirrational,anymorethanitisintendedtorepresent"knowledge"asfreefrom all dependence on taking-on-trust. It was fully recognized byAugustine - as by Sir William Hamilton - that an activity of reasonunderlies all "faith," and an act of "faith"underlies all knowledge. "Butreason itself," says Sir William Hamilton, expounding Augustine'sdictum,11"mustrestatlastuponauthority;fortheoriginaldataofreasondo not rest on reason, but are necessarily accepted by reason on theauthority of what is beyond itself. These data are, therefore, in rigidpropriety,Beliefs or Trusts. Thus it is, that in the last resort,wemust,perforce, philosophically admit, that belief is the primary condition ofreason, and not reason the ultimate ground of belief." With equalfrankness Augustine allows that reason underlies all acts of faith. Thatmental act which we call "faith," he remarks, is one possible only torationalcreatures,andofcourseweactasrationalbeingsinperformingit;12andweneverbelieveanythinguntilwehavefounditworthyofourbelief.13 As we cannot accord faith, then, without perceiving goodgroundsforaccordingit,reasonastrulyunderliesfaithasfaithreason.Itiswithnointention,then,ofdenyingorevenobscuringthisinteractionoffaithandknowledge-whatmaybejustlycalledtheirinterdependence-that they are distinguished from one another in their secondaryapplicationsasdesignatingtwodistinguishablemodesofconviction,the

one resting on reason, the other on authority. What is intended is todiscriminate the proximate grounds on which the mental consentdesignatedbytheoneandtheotherrests.Whentheproximategroundofourconvictionisreason,wecall it"knowledge";whenit isauthoritywecallit"faith,""belief."Ortoputitinotherbutequivalentterms,weknowwhatweareconvincedofon thegroundofperception:webelievewhatweareconvincedofonthegroundoftestimony."Withrespecttothingswehaveseenorsee,"saysAugustine,14"weareourownwitnesses;butwith respect to those we believe, we are moved to faith by otherwitnesses." We cannot believe, any more than we can know, withoutadequate grounds; it is not faith but "credulity" to accord credit toinsufficientevidence;andan

unreasonable faith is no faith at all. But we are moved to this act ofconviction by the evidence of testimony, by the force of authority -rationally determined to be trustworthy - and not by the immediateperceptionofourownrationalunderstandings.15Inaword,whilebothknowingandbelievingarestatesofconviction,sureness-andthesuretymay be equally strong - they rest proximately on different grounds.Knowledgeisseeing,faithiscrediting.16

Itpowerfullycommendsthisconceptionofthedistinctionbetweenfaithand knowledge, that it employs these terms to designate a distinctionwhichisundoubtedlyreal.Whateverwechoosetocallthesetwoclassesofconvictions, these twoclassesof convictionsunquestionablyexist.AsAugustineputsit,"noonedoubtsthatweareimpelledtotheacquisitionofknowledgebyadoubleimpulse-ofauthorityandofreason."17Wedopossess convictions which are grounded in our own rationalapprehension;andwedopossessconvictionswhicharegroundedinourrecognition of authority. We are erecting no artificial categories, then,whenwedistinguishbetween these twoclassesof convictionsand labelthem respectively "knowledges" and "beliefs," "faiths." At the worstweareonlyapplyingtorealdistinctionsartificial labels. Itmaypossiblybesaid that there is no reason in the fitness of thingswhywe should callthose convictions which are of the order of "theoretical certitude,"knowledge; and those which represent the certitude born of approvedtestimony,faith.Butitcannotbesaidthatnotwosuchcategoriesexist.It

ispatenttoallofus,thatsomeofourconvictionsrestonourownrationalperception of reality, and that others of them rest on the authorityexercisedoverusbytestedtestimony.Theonlyquestionwhichcanariseiswhether"knowledge,""faith"areappropriatedesignationsbywhichtocallthesetwoclassesofconvictions.

No one, of course, would think of denying that the two terms"knowledge," and "faith," "belief" are frequently employed as whollyequivalent-eachdesignatingsimplyaconviction,withoutrespecttothenature of its grounds. Augustine already recognized this broad use ofbothtermstocoverthewholegroundofconvictions.18Butneithercanitbedenied that theyareoftenbrought intocontrastwithoneanotherasexpressiveeachofaparticularclassofconvictions,distinguishablefromone another. The distinction indicated, no doubt, is often a distinctionnot in the nature of the evidence on which the several classes ofconvictionrestbutin-shallwesaythefirmness,theclearness,theforceoftheconviction?Thedifficultyoffindingtheexactwordtoemployheremayperhapsbeinstructive.Whenwesay,forexample,"Idonotknowit-but I fully believe it," is it entirely clear thatwe are using "knowledge"merelyofahigherdegreeofconvictionthan"faith"expresses?Nodoubtsuch a higher degree of conviction is intimated when, for example, toexpresstheforceofourconvictionofamatterwhichneverthelessweareassured of only by testimony, we say emphatically, "I do not merelybelieveit;Iknowit."Butmayitnotbethatitwouldbemoreprecisetosaythat"knowledge"evenhereexpressesprimarilyratheramoredirectand immediate grounding of conviction, and "faith," "belief" a moreremote andmediate grounding of it - and that it is out of this primarymeaningof the two terms thata secondaryusageof themhasarisen toexpresswhat on the surface appears as differing grades of convictions,but in theultimateanalysis is reallydiffering relationsof immediacyofthe evidence on which the conviction rests? It adds not a little to thecommendationofthedistinctionbetween"knowledge"and"faith"underdiscussion, at all events, that it provides a starting-point on theassumption ofwhich other current usages of the termsmay find readyandsignificantexplanations.

When we come to inquire after the special appropriateness of the

employmentof the terms"faith," "belief" todesignate thoseconvictionswhichrestonauthorityortestimony,indistinctionfromthosewhichreston our immediate perception (physical ormental), attention should bedirectedtoanelementin"faith,""belief"ofwhichwehaveasyetspokenlittlebutwhich seems always present and indeed characteristic. This istheelementoftrust.Thereisanelementoftrustlyingatthebottomofallourconvictions,eventhosewhichwedesignate"knowledge,"because,aswe say, they are of the order of "theoretic certitude," or "rationalassurance." "The original data of reason," says Sir William Hamiltontruly, "donot reston reason,butarenecessarilyacceptedby reasononthe authority of what is beyond itself." "These data," he adds, "are,therefore, in rigid propriety, Beliefs or Trusts." The collocation of theterms here, "beliefs or trusts," should be observed; it betrays thepropinquityofthetwoideas.Tosaythatanelementoftrustunderliesallourknowledgeisthereforeequivalenttosayingthatourknowledgerestson belief. The conceptions of believing and trusting go, then, together;andwhat we have now to suggest is that it is this open implication of"trust"intheconceptionof"belief,""faith"whichrulestheusageoftheseterms.

There is, we have said, an element of trust in all our convictions, andtherefore "faith," "belief" may be employed of them all. And whenconvictionsaredistinguishedfromconvictions,theconvictionsinwhichthe element of trust ismost prominent tend to draw to themselves thedesignationsof"faith,""belief."Itisnotpurelyarbitrary,therefore, thatthose convictions which rest on our rational perceptions are called"knowledge,"whilethosewhichreston"authority"or"testimony"receivethe name of "belief," "faith." It is because the element of trust is, notindeedmore really,butmoreprominently,present in the latter than inthe former.We perceive and feel the element of trust in according ourmental assent to facts brought to us by the testimony of others andaccepted as facts on their authority aswedonot in the findings of ourown rational understandings. And therefore we designate the formermattersoffaith,belief,andthelattermattersofknowledge.Knowing,wethensay,isseeing;believingiscrediting.Andthatisonlyanotherwayofsaying that "knowledge" is the appropriate designation of thoseconvictions which rest on our own mental perceptions, while "faith,"

"belief"istheappropriatedesignationofthoseconvictionswhichrestontestimony or authority. While we may use either term broadly for allconvictions, we naturally employ them with this discrimination whentheyarebroughtincontrastwithoneanother.

It appears, therefore, not only that we are here in the presence of twoclasses of convictions - the difference between which is real - but thatwhenthesetwoclassesaredesignatedrespectivelyby

the terms "knowledge" and "faith," "belief" they are appropriatelydesignated. These designations suggest the real difference which existsbetweenthetwoclassesofconvictions.Mattersoffaith,mattersofbeliefare different frommatters of knowledge - not as convictions less clear,firm, or well-grounded, not as convictions resting on grounds lessobjectively valid, not as convictions determined rather by desire, will,thanbyevidence-butasconvictionsrestingongroundslessdirectandimmediatetothesoul,andthereforeinvolvingamoreprominentelementof trust, in a word, as convictions grounded in authority, testimony asdistinguished from convictions grounded in rational proof. The twoclassesofconvictionsarepsychologicallyjustconvictions;theyarealike,inDr.Baldwin'sphrase,"forcedconsents";theyrestequallyonevidenceandareequallytheproductofevidence;theymaybeequallyclear,firm,and assured; but they rest on differing kinds of evidence and differ,therefore, in accordancewith thisdifference of kind in the evidence onwhich they rest. In "knowledge" as the mental response to rationalconsiderations, the movement of the intellect is prominent to theobscurationofallelse.Ofcoursethewholemanisactivein"knowledge"too- for it is themaninhiscomplexpresentationwhois thesubjectoftheknowledge.Butitis"reason"whichisprominentintheactivitywhichassuresitselfofrealityongroundsofmentalperception.In"faith,"ontheother hand, as the mental response to testimony, authority, themovementofthesensibilityintheformoftrustiswhatisthrustforwardto observation. Of course, every other faculty is involved in the act ofbelief - and particularly the intellectual faculties to which the act of"crediting"belongs;butwhatattracts theattentionof the subject is theprominence in this act of crediting, of the element of trust which hasretiredintothebackgroundinthoseotheractsofassentwhichweknow

as "knowledge." "Faith" thenemergesas theappropriatenameof thoseacts of mental consent in which the element of trust is prominent.Knowledgeisseeing;faith,belief,istrusting.

Inwhatwecallreligiousfaiththisprominentimplicationoftrustreachesitsheight.Religiousbeliefmaydifferfromotherbeliefonlyinthenatureof its objects; religious beliefs are beliefs which have religiousconceptions as their contents. But the complex of emotions whichaccompanyactsofassent topropositionsof religiouscontent,and formthe concrete state of mind of the believer, is of course indefinitelydifferentfromthatwhichaccompaniesanyotheractofbelieving.Whatisprominent in this state of mind is precisely trust. Trust is the activeexpressionofthatsenseofdependenceinwhichreligionlargelyconsists,anditisitspresenceintheseactsoffaith,belief,whichcommunicatestothem their religious quality and raises them from mere beliefs ofpropositions,thecontentsofwhichhappentobeofreligiouspurport,toacts possessed of religious character. It is the nature of trust to seek apersonalobjectonwhichtorepose,anditisonlynatural,therefore,thatwhat we call religious faith does not reach its height in assent topropositionsofwhateverreligiouscontentandhoweverwellfittedtocalloutreligioustrust,butcomestoitsrightsonlywhenitrestswithadoringtrustonaperson.Theextensionof theterms"faith,""belief" toexpressanattitudeofmindtowardsaperson,doesnotwait,ofcourse,ontheirreligiousapplication.Wespeakfamiliarlyofbelievingin,orhavingfaithin,personsincommonlife;andweperceiveatoncethatourjustificationindoingsorestsonthestrongimplicationoftrustresidentintheterms.Ithasbeensuggestednotwithoutjustice,thatthetermsshoweverywhereatendencytogravitatetowardssuchanapplication.19Thiselementatallevents becomes so prominent in the culminating act of religious faithwhen it rests on the person of God our benefactor, or of Christ ourSaviour,astoabsorbthepriorimplicationofcreditingalmostaltogether.FaithinGod,andaboveall,faith,inJesusChrist,isjusttrustinHiminits purity. Thus in its higher applications the element of trustwhich ispresent in faith inall itsapplications,growsmoreandmoreprominentuntilitfinishesbybecomingwell-nightheentireconnotationoftheterm;and "to believe in," "to have faith in" comes to mean simply "entrustyourselfto."When"faith"cancomethustomeanjust"trust"wecannot

wonder that it is the implication of "trust" in the termwhich rules itsusageanddeterminesitsapplicationsthroughoutthewholecourseofitsdevelopment.

The justification of the application of the terms "believing," "faith" tothesehighreligiousactsofentrustingoneself toapersondoesnotrest,however,entirelyuponthecircumstancethattheelementoftrustwhichintheseactsabsorbsattentionispresentinallotheractsoffaithandonlyherecomesintofullprominence.Itrestsalsoonthecircumstancethatallthe other constituent elements of acts of faith, belief, in the generalconnotation of these terms, are present in these acts of religious faith.Themoregeneralactsoffaith,beliefandtheculminatingactsofreligiousbelief, faith, that is, differ from one another only in the relativeprominenceineachofelementscommontoboth.Forexample,religiousfaith at its height - the act by which we turn trustingly to a BeingconceivedasourRighteousGovernor, inwhosehands isourdestiny,orto a Being conceived as ourDivine Saviour, throughwhomwemay berestoredfromoursin,andentrustourselvestoHim-isaslittleamatterof"thewill"andastrulya"forced"consentasisanyotheractcalledfaith,belief. The engagement of the whole man in the act - involving theresponseofalltheelementsofhisnature-isnodoubtmoreobservableinthesehighestactsoffaiththaninthelower,asit isaltogethernaturalitshouldbefromthemerefactthattheyarethehighestexercisesoffaith.Butthedeterminationof the responseby theappropriate evidence - itsdependence on evidence as its ground - is no less stringent or plain.Wheneverweobtainaclearconceptionof therise inthehumansoulofreligious faith as exercised thus at its apex as saving trust inChristweperceivewithperfectplainnessthatitrestsonevidenceasitsground.

It isnotunusual forwriterswhowishtorepresentreligious faith in theformofsavingtrust inChristasanactofthewill topresentthecaseintheformofastrictalternative.This faith, theysay, isanexercisenotofthe intellect but of the heart. And then they proceed to develop anargument, aiming at a reductio ad absurdum of the notion that savingfaithcanpossiblybeconceivedasamereassentoftheintellect.Asimpleassent of themind, we are told, "always depends upon the nature andamountofproof"presented,andisinatruesense"involuntary."Whena

propositionispresentedandsufficientlysupportedbyproof"amindinasituationtoappreciatetheproofbelieves inevitably.""If thepropositionordoctrine isnot supportedbyproof,or if themind is incapable, fromanycause,ofappreciatingtheproof,unbeliefordoubtisequallycertain.""Sucha theoryof faithwould, therefore, suspendourbelieforunbelief,andconsequentlyoursalvation

ordamnation,uponthemannerinwhichtruthispresentedtoourminds,orour intellectual capability of its appreciation." "To express thewholematter briefly," concludes the writer whose argument we have beenfollowing,"itexcludestheexerciseofthewill,andmakesfaithorunbeliefamatterofnecessity."20

Itisnotnecessarytopausetoexaminethisargumentindetail.Whatitisat themoment important topointout is that the fullestagreement thatsaving faith is a matter not of the intellect but of the heart, that it is"confidence" rather than "conviction," does not exclude the element ofintelligent assent from it altogether, or escape the necessity ofrecognizingthatitrestsuponevidence.Isthe"confidence"whichfaithinthisitshighestexercisehasbecome,anungroundedconfidence?Ablindandcapriciousactofthesoul'sduetoapurelyarbitrarydeterminationofthewill?Mustitnotrestonaperceived-thatistosayawell-grounded-trustworthiness in theobject onwhich it reposes? In aword, it is clearenoughthataconvictionliesbeneaththisconfidence,aconvictionofthetrustworthiness of the object; and that this conviction is produced likeother convictions, just by evidence. Is it not still true, then, that theconfidenceinwhichsavingfaithconsists is inevitable if theproofof thetrustworthinessof theobjectonwhich itreposes issufficient-oraswetrulyphraseit,"compelling"-andthemindisinasituationtoappreciatethisproof;anddoubtisinevitableiftheproofisinsufficientorthemindis incapable from any cause of appreciating the proof? Is not theconfidencewhichisthefaithoftheheart,therefore,inanycase,astrulyastheconvictionwhichisthefaithoftheintellect,suspended"uponthemanner in which truth is presented," or our "capability of itsappreciation"?Inaword,isitnotclearthattheassentoftheintelligenceis an inamissible element of faith even in its highest exercises, and itnevercomestobeanarbitrary"matterofchoice,"inwhichImaydo"asI

choose"?21For the exercise of this faithmust therenot thenalwaysbepresenttothemind,(1)theobjectonwhichitistoreposeinconfidence;(2) adequate grounds for the exercise of this confidence in the object?Andmust not themind be in a situation to appreciate these grounds?Here,too,faithis,inDr.Baldwin'sphrase,a"forcedconsent,"andistheproductofevidence.

Theimpulseof thewriterwhoseviewswehave justbeenconsideringtomake"saving faith"a so-called "actof freevolition" isderived fromthenotion that only thus can man be responsible for his faith. It is asufficiently odd notion, however, that if our faith be determined byreasonsandthesereasonsaregood,wearenotresponsibleforit,becauseforsooth, we then "believe inevitably" and our faith is "a matter ofnecessity."Arewetoholdthatresponsibilityattachestofaithonlywhenit does not rest on good reasons, or in other words is ungrounded, orinsufficientlygrounded,andisthereforearbitrary?Inpointoffact,weareresponsible for our volitions only because our volitions are neverarbitraryactsofafacultywithinuscalled"will,"butthedeterminedactsofourwholeselves,andthereforerepresentus.Andweareresponsiblefor our faith in precisely the same way because it is our faith, andrepresentsus.Foritistobeborneinmindthatfaith,thoughrestingonevidenceandthusinatruesense,asProfessorBaldwincallsit,a"forcedconsent," is not in such a sense the result of evidence that themind ispassive in believing - that the evidence when adequate objectively isalways adequate subjectively, or vice versa, quite independently of thestateofthemindthatbelieves.Faithisanactofthemind,andcancomeintobeingonlybyanactofthemind,expressiveof itsownstate.Therearetwofactors intheproductionof faith.Ontheonehand,there is theevidenceonthegroundofwhichthefaithisyielded.Ontheotherhand,thereisthesubjectiveconditionbyvirtueofwhichtheevidencecantakeeffectintheappropriateactoffaith.Therecanbenobelief,faithwithoutevidence; it isonevidencethatthementalexercisewhichwecallbelief,faithrests;andthisexerciseorstateofmindcannotexistapart fromitsgroundinevidence.Butevidencecannotproducebelief,faith,exceptinamind open to this evidence, and capable of receiving, weighing, andresponding to it.Amathematicaldemonstration isdemonstrative proofofthepropositiondemonstrated.Butevensuchademonstrationcannot

produceconviction inamind incapableof followingthedemonstration.Wheremusicaltasteislacking,noevidencewhichderivesitsforcefromconsiderationsofmelodycanworkconviction.Noconviction,whetherofthe order of what we call knowledge or of faith, can be produced byconsiderationstowhichthemindtobeconvincedisinhabile.

Something more, then, is needed to produce belief, faith, besides theevidencewhich constitutes its ground. The evidencemay be objectivelysufficient,adequate,overwhelming.Thesubjectiveeffectofbelief,faithisnotproducedunlessthisevidenceisalsoadaptedtothemind,andtothepresent state of thatmind, which is to be convinced. Themind, itself,therefore-andthevaryingstatesofthemind-havetheirpartstoplayintheproductionofbelief,faith;andtheeffectwhichissodesignatedisnotthemechanicalresultoftheadductionoftheevidence.Nofaithwithoutevidence;butnot,noevidencewithoutfaith.Theremaystandinthewayof the proper and objectively inevitable effect of the evidence, thesubjectivenatureorconditiontowhichtheevidenceisaddressed.Thisisthegroundofresponsibilityforbelief,faith;itisnotmerelyaquestionofevidence but of subjectivity; and subjectivity is the other name forpersonality. Our action under evidence is the touchstone by which isdeterminedwhatweare.Ifevidencewhichisobjectivelyadequateisnotsubjectivelyadequatethefaultisinus.Ifwearenotaccessibletomusicalevidence, then we are by nature unmusical, or in a present state ofunmusicalness. Ifwe are not accessible tomoral evidence, thenwe areeitherunmoral,or,beingmoralbeings,immoral.Theevidencetowhichwe are accessible is irresistible if adequate, and irresistibly producesbelief, faith. And no belief, faith can arise except on the ground ofevidence duly apprehended, appreciated, weighed. We may cherishopinionswithoutevidence,orwithinadequateevidence;butnotpossessfaithanymorethanknowledge.Allconvictionsofwhateverorderaretheproductsofevidenceinamindaccessibletotheevidenceappropriatetotheseparticularconvictions.

These things being so, it is easy to see that the sinful heart - which isenmitytowardsGod-isincapableofthatsupremeactoftrustinGod-orratherof entrusting itself toGod, itsSaviour -whichhasabsorbed intoitselftheterm"faith"initsChristianconnotation.Anditistoavoidthis

conclusionthatmanyhavebeentemptedtomakefaithnotarationalactof conviction passing into confidence, resting on adequate grounds intestimony,butanarbitraryactofsheerwill,producednooneknowshow.Thisisnot,however,thesolutionofthedifficultyofferedbythe

Christian revelation. The solution it offers is frankly to allow theimpossibilityof"faith"tothesinfulheartandtoattributeit,therefore,tothegiftofGod.Not,ofcourse,asifthisgiftwerecommunicatedtomanin somemechanicalmanner, whichwould ignore or do violence to hispsychological constitution or to the psychological nature of the act offaith. The mode of the divine giving of faith is represented rather asinvolvingthecreationbyGodtheHolySpiritofacapacityforfaithunderthe evidence submitted. It proceeds by the divine illumination of theunderstanding,softeningoftheheart,andquickeningofthewill,sothatthemansoaffectedmayfreelyandmustinevitablyperceivetheforceandyield to the compelling power of the evidence of the trustworthiness ofJesusChristasSavioursubmittedtohiminthegospel.Inonewordthecapacity for faithand the inevitable emergence in theheart of faith areattributedby theChristian revelation to that great act ofGod theHolySpiritwhichhascomeinChristiantheologytobecalledbythesignificantname of Regeneration. If sinfulman as such is incapable of the act offaith,becauseheisinhabiletotheevidenceonwhichalonesuchanactofconfidentrestingonGodtheSaviourcanrepose,renewedmanisequallyincapable of not responding to this evidence, which is objectivelycompelling, by an act of sincere faith. In this its highest exercise faiththus, though ina true sense the gift ofGod, is in an equally true senseman's ownact, and bears all the character of faith as it is exercised byunrenewedmaninitslowermanifestations.

Itmayconduce toabetterapprehensionof theessentialnatureof faithanditsrelationtotheevidenceinwhichitisgrounded,ifweendeavortoformsomenotionoftheeffectofthisevidenceonthemindsofmeninthethreegreatstagesoftheirlifeonearth-assinlessinParadise,assinful,asregeneratedbytheSpiritofGodintonewnessoflife.Likeeveryothercreature,manisofcourseabsolutelydependentonGod.Butunlikemanyother creatures, man, because in his very nature self-conscious, isconsciousofhisdependenceonGod;hisrelationofdependenceonGod

isnotmerelyafactbutafactofhisself-consciousness.Thisdependenceisnotconfinedtoanyoneelementofhumannaturebutrunsthroughthewholeofman'snature; andas self-consciousbeingman is consciousofhis absolute dependence on God, physically, psychically, morally,spiritually.ItisthiscomprehensiveconsciousnessofdependenceonGodfor and in all the elements of his nature and life, which is thefundamental basis in humanity of faith, in its general religious sense.This faith is but the active aspect of the consciousness of dependence,which, therefore, is the passive aspect of faith. In this sense no manexists,oreverhasexistedoreverwillexist,whohasnot"faith."Butthis"faith" takes very different characters inman as unfallen and as fallenandasrenewed.

Inunfallenman, theconsciousnessofdependenceonGod is far fromabarerecognitionofafact;ithasarichemotionalresultintheheart.Thisemotional product of course includes fear, in the sense of awe andreverence.But itspeculiarquality is justactiveand loving trust.Sinlessman delights to be dependent on God and trusts Him wholly. Heperceives God as his creator, upholder, governor, and bountifulbenefactor, and findshis joy in living,moving, andhavinghis being inHim.AllthecurrentsofhislifeturntoHimfordirectionandcontrol.Inthisspontaneoustrustofsinlessmanwehavefaithatitspurest.

Now when man fell, the relation in which he stood to God wasfundamentally altered.Not as if he ceased to be dependent onGod, inevery sphere of his being and activity. Nor even as if he ceased to beconsciousofthishiscomprehensivedependenceonGod.Evenassinnermancannotbutbelieve inGod; theverydevilsbelieveand tremble.HecannotescapetheknowledgethatheisutterlydependentonGodforallthat he is and does. But his consciousness of dependence on God nolongertakestheformofgladandlovingtrust.Preciselywhatsinhasdonetohim is to render this trust impossible. Sin has destroyed the naturalrelationbetweenGodandHiscreatureinwhichthecreaturetrustsGod,andhas institutedanewrelation,whichconditionsallhis immanentaswellastransientactivitiesGodward.ThesinnerisatenmitywithGodandcan look to God only for punishment. He knows himself absolutelydependentonGod,but inknowing this,heknowshimselfabsolutely in

thepowerofhisenemy.Afearfullookingforwardtojudgmentconditionsall his thought of God. Faith has accordingly been transformed intounfaith; trust into distrust. He expects evil and only evil from God.KnowinghimselftobedependentonGodheseekstobeasindependentofHimashecan.AshethinksofGod,miseryandfearandhatredtaketheplaceofjoyandtrustandlove.Instinctivelyandbyhisverynaturethesinner, not being able to escape from his belief in God, yet cannotpossiblyhavefaithinGod,thatistrustHim,entrusthimselftoHim.

Thereëstablishmentofthisfaithinthesinnermustbetheactnotofthesinner himself but of God. This because the sinner has no power torenderGod gracious,which is the objective root, or to look toGod forfavor,whichisthesubjectiverootoffaithinthefiducialsense.Beforehecan thus believe there must intervene the atoning work of Christcanceling theguiltbywhich the sinner iskeptunder thewrathofGod,andtherecreativeworkoftheHolySpiritbywhichthesinner'sheart isrenewedintheloveofGod.Thereisnotrequiredacreationofsomethingentirely new, but only a restoration of an old relation and a renewaltherewith of an old disposition. Accordingly, although faith in therenewed man bears a different character from faith in unfallen man,inasmuchasitistrustinGodnotmerelyforgeneralgoodnessbutforthespecific blessing of salvation - that is to say it is soteriological - it yetremains essentially the same thing as in unfallenman. It is in the onecaseasintheotherjusttrust-thattrustwhichbelongsofnaturetomanasmaninrelationtohisGod.And,therefore,thoughinrenewedmanitisagiftofGod'sgrace, itdoesnot come tohimas somethingalien tohisnature. It is beyond the powers of his nature as sinful man; but it issomethingwhichbelongstohumannatureassuch,whichhasbeenlostthroughsinandwhichcanberestoredonlybythepowerofGod.Inthissensefaithremainsnaturalevenintherenewedsinner,andthepeculiarcharacter which belongs to it as the act of a sinner, namely itssoteriologicalreference,onlyconditionsanddoesnotessentiallyalterit.BecausemanisasinnerhisfaithterminatesnotimmediatelyonGod,butimmediatelyonthe

mediator,andonlythroughHismediationonGod;anditisproximatelytrustinthismediatorforsalvation-relieffromtheguiltandcorruption

of sin - and only mediately through this relief for other goods. But itmakes its way through these intermediating elements to terminateultimatelyonGodHimselfandtorestonHimforallgoods.Andthusitmanifests its fundamental and universal character as trust in God,recognized by the renewed sinner, as by the unfallen creature, as theinexhaustiblefountaintoHiscreaturesofallblessedness,inwhomtoliveandmoveandhavehisbeingisthecreature'shighestfelicity.

In accordance with the nature of this faith the Protestant theologianshavegenerallyexplainedthatfaithincludesinitselfthethreeelementsofnotitia, assensus, fiducia. Their primary object has been, no doubt, toprotestagainsttheRomishconceptionwhichlimitsfaithtotheassentoftheunderstanding.The stressof theProtestantdefinition lies thereforeuponthefiducialelement.ThisstresshasnotledProtestanttheologiansgenerally,however,toeliminatefromtheconceptionoffaiththeelementsofunderstandingandassent.Nodoubtthishasbeendonebysome,anditisperhapsnotrareevento-daytohearitassertedthatfaithissopurelytrust that there is no element of assent in it at all. And no doubttheologians have differed among themselves as to whether all theseelementsaretobecountedasincludedinfaith,orsomeofthemtreatedrather as preliminary steps to faith or effects of faith. But speakingbroadly Protestant theologians have reckoned all these elements asembracedwithinthementalmovementwecallfaithitself;andtheyhaveobviouslybeenright in sodoing. Indeed,wemaygo furtherandaffirmthatall threeof theseelementsarealwayspresent in faith -notonly inthatculminatingformoffaithwhichwasinthemindofthetheologiansinquestion - saving faith in Christ - but in every movement of faithwhatever,fromthelowesttothehighestinstancesofitsexercise.Notruefaith has arisen unless there has been a perception of the object to bebelieved or believed in, an assent to its worthiness to be believed orbelievedin,andacommitmentofourselvestoitastrueandtrustworthy.Wecannotbesaidtobelieveortotrustinathingorpersonofwhichwehave no knowledge; "implicit faith" in this sense is an absurdity. Ofcourse we cannot be said to believe or to trust the thing or person towhoseworthinessofourbeliefortrustassenthasnotbeenobtained.Andequallywecannotbesaidtobelievethatwhichwedistrusttoomuchtocommitourselves to it. Ineverymovementof faith, therefore, from the

lowest to the highest, there is an intellectual, an emotional, and avoluntaryelement,thoughnaturallytheseelementsvaryintheirrelativeprominenceintheseveralmovementsoffaith.Thisisonlyasmuchastosay that it is themanwhobelieves,who is the subjectof faith, and themanintheentiretyofhisbeingasman.Thecentralmovementinallfaithisnodoubttheelementofassent;itisthatwhichconstitutesthementalmovement so called a movement of conviction. But the movement ofassent must depend, as it always does depend, on a movement, notspecificallyof thewill,butof the intellect; theassensus issues from thenotitia.Themovementofthesensibilitieswhichwecall"trust,"isonthecontrary the product of the assent. And it is in this movement of thesensibilities that faith fulfills itself, and it is by it that, as specifically"faith,"itis"formed."

Endnotes:

1. ReprintedfromThePrincetonTheologicalReview, ix.1911,pp.537566.

2. The Hebrew !ymah, hnwma go back to the idea of "holding": webelieveinwhat"holds."Inboththesacredlanguages,therefore,thefundamentalmeaningoffaithis"surety."Cf.Latin"credo."

3. Cf. M. Heyne's German Dictionary, sub voc. "Glaube": "Glaube isconfidingacceptanceofatruth.Atthebasisof thewordis therootlub, which, with the general meaning of agreeing with and ofapproving,appearsalsoinerlaubenandloben."

4. Baldwin and Stout, " Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology," i.1901,pp.110and112.

5. Professor Baldwin does not allow any psychological distinctionbetween"belief"and"knowledge."Seesubvoc."Knowledge."

6. Ibid., p. 112. The passage is quoted from Baldwin, "Handbook ofPsychology:FeelingandWill,"1891,p.171.

7. "DictionaryofPhilosophyandPsychology,"i.1901,p.603.8. Baldwin's "Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology," i. 1901, p.

369.9. In his fuller discussion in his "Foundations of Knowledge," 1900,

Part iii. chap. 1, Dr. Ormond tells us that what positivelycharacterizes belief as over against knowledge is, subjectively, that

"the volitional motive begins to dominate the epistemological" (p.306), and,objectively, that thequality of "coerciveness" (p. 307) islacking.Thetwocriteriacomeverymuchtothesamething.

10. "TheWorksofThomasReid,"ed.2,1849,p.760(NoteA,§v.).11. Loc.cit.12. Ep.120,[i.]3("OperaOmnia,"Paris,ii.1836,col.518):"weshould

notbeabletobelieveifwedidnothaverationalminds."13. "Deprædestinationesanctorum,"[ii.]5("OperaOmnia,"X.i.1838,

col.1349).14. Ep.147,[iii.]8("OperaOmnia,"ii.1836,col.709).15. On Augustine's doctrine of Faith and Reason see The Princeton

TheologicalReview,v.1907,pp.389ff.(orB.B.Warfield,"StudiesinTertullianandAugustine,"1930,pp.170ff.).

16. This conception of "faith" naturally became traditional. Thus e.g.ReginaldPecock(middleofthefifteenthcentury)definesfaithas"aknowyngwherbiweassententoenythingastotrouth,forasmychaswehavesureevydencisgretter thanto thecontrarie that it is tooldand affermid to us to be trewe, bi him of whom we have sureevydencis, or notable likli evydencis, gretter than to the contrarie,thattherinnehenotlied"("TheFolewertotheDonet,"f.28,citedinJ.L.Morison's"ReginaldPecock'sBookofFaith,"1909,p.85).Herewe have "faith" resting on evidence; and the specific evidence onwhichitrests,testimony.AccordinglyhedefinesChristianfaiththus:"thatfeith,ofwhichwespekennow,intowhichwebenbounde,andwhichisoonofthefoundementisofCristenreligioun,isthilkekindeor spice of knowyng, which a man gendrith and getith into hisundirstonding, principali bi the telling or denouncing of anotherpersoone,whichmaynotlie,orwhichisGod"("TheBookeofFaith,"I. i. f.9a,Morison'sedition,p.123).Attheendofthediscussion(f.10a) Pecock plainly adds: "and bi this maner of his geting andgendring, feith isdyvers fromotherkindisandspicisofkunnyngis,which aman gendrith and getith intohis undirstondingbi bisynesand labour of his natural resoun, bi biholding upon the causis oreffectisorcircumstancisinnatureoftheconclusiounortrouthe,andwithouteenyattendauncemaadtoenysuretellerordenouncer,thatthilkconclusiounisatrouthe."

17. "Contraacademicos,"iii.[xx.]43("OperaOmnia,"Paris,i.1836,col.

488).Cf."Deordine,"ii.[ix.]26("OperaOmnia,"i.coll.568f.).18. "Retractationea,"I,xiv.3("OperaOmnia,"i.coll.52f.).19. "It is thenatureandtendencyof theword,"saysBishopMoule,"to

go out towards a person. . . . When we speak of having Faith wehabitually direct the notion either towards a veritable person, ortowards something which we personify in the mind. . . . I do notattempttoexplainthefact,asfactIthinkitis.Perhapswemaytraceinitafar-offechoofthatprimevalSanskritwordwhosemeaningis'tobind'..."("Faith:itsNatureanditsWork,"1909,pp.10-11).

20. Dr.RichardBeard,"LecturesonTheology,"ii.1871,pp.362-363.21. Dr.Beard,ascited,p.364.

TheArchologyoftheModeofBaptism

byB.B.Warfield

ITISratherstrikingtoobservethediversitywhichhasgrownup intheseveral branches of the Christian Church in themode of administeringtheinitiatoryriteofChristianity.ThroughoutthewholeWest,affusionisinuse.TheritualofthegreatLatinChurchdirectsasfollows:"Thenthegodfatherorgodmother,orboth,holdingtheinfant,thepriesttakesthebaptismalwater ina littlevesselor jug,andpoursthesamethreetimesupontheheadoftheinfantintheformofthecross,andatthesametimehe says, uttering the words once only, distinctly and attentively: 'N, IbaptizetheeinthenameoftheFather,'-hepoursfirst;'andoftheSon'-hepoursasecondtime;'andoftheHolyGhost'-hepoursthethirdtime."Here is a trine affusion. With the exception of the large Baptistdenominations,Protestantsuseasingleaffusion.TheBaptistsemployasingle immersion. Throughout the East a trine immersion is the rule.Althoughpracticeseemssometimestovarywhetherallthreeimmersionsshallbetotal, theOrthodoxGreekChurchinsistssomewhatstrenuouslyupontrineimmersion.TheritualinuseintheRussianChurchdirectsasfollows:"AndafterhehasanointedthewholebodythePriestbaptizesthecandidate,helderectandlookingtowardstheeast,andsays:'Theservant(handmaid)ofGod,N,isbaptizedintheNameoftheFather,Amen;andof theSon,Amen; andof theHolyGhost,Amen;nowandever, and toagesofages,Amen.'Ateach invocationhe immerses thecandidateandraises him again." Significant variations obtain, however, among theother Oriental communions. The Nestorians, for example, cause thecandidatetostanderectinwaterreachingtotheneck,anddiptheheadthree times. The Syrians, whether Jacobite or Maronite, place thecandidateuprightonhisfeetandpourwaterthreetimesoverhisheadinthe name of the Trinity. The office of the Syrian Church of Jerusalemprovides as follows: "Thepriest… first lets the candidatedown into thebaptistery. Then laying his right hand on the head of the person to bebaptized,withhis lefthandhe takesupwater successively frombefore,behind,andfromeachsideofthecandidate,andpoursituponhishead,andwasheshiswholebody(funditquesupercaputejus,etabluit totum

ipsiuscorpus)."IntheCopticChurchthecustomhasbecomefixedforthepriesttodipthebodythefirsttimeuptothemiddle,thesecondtimeuptotheneck,andthethirdtimeoverthehead.f353Sometimes,however,apparently, theactualpractice is that thechild isdippedonlyup to theneck, and the immersion is completed by pouring the water over thehead.TheArmeniansduplicatetheriteinaveryoddway.Amongthem,wearetold,"thepriestasksthechild'sname,andonhearingit, letsthechilddownintothewater,saying, 'ThisN,servantofGod,who iscomefrom the state of childhood (or from the state of a Catechumen) toBaptism,isbaptizedintheNameoftheFather,andoftheSon,andoftheHoly Ghost.'… While saying this the priest buries the child (orCatechumen)threetimesinthewater,asafigureofChrist'sthreedays'burial.Thentakingthechildoutofthewaterhethricepoursahandfulofwater on its head, saying, 'Asmany of you as have been baptized intoChrist have put on Christ. Hallelujah! As many of you as have beenenlightenedoftheFather,theHolySpiritisputintoyou.Hallelujah!'

AsmanyofyouashavebeenenlightenedoftheFather,theHolySpiritisputintoyou.Hallelujah!'"f355IfweneglectforthemomenttheusagesofminordivisionsoftheChurch,wemaysaythatthepracticeoftheChurchis divided into an Eastern and aWesternmode. Broadly speaking, theEast baptizes by a trine immersion; the West by affusion. When wescrutinize the history of these differing practices, however, we quicklylearn that,withwhatever unessential variations in details, the usage oftheEast runsback intoahighantiquity;while thereare indicationsonthesurfaceoftheWesternusagethatitiscomparativelyrecentinorigin,andsurvivalsofanoldercustompersistsidebysidewithit.Tobesure,the immersion as practised by the Protestant Baptists can scarcely benumbered among these survivals. The original Baptists apparently didnot immerse; andDr.Dexter appears tohave shown that even the firstEnglishBaptistswhosecededfromthePuritanemigrantsand formedacongregationatAmsterdam,baptizedbyaffusion.f356ItwouldseemthatitwasbytheEnglishBaptistsoftheseventeenthcenturythatimmersionwas first declared to be essential to valid baptism; and the practice ofimmersionbythemcanbelookeduponasasurvivalfromanearliertimeonlyinthesensethatitwasareturntoanearliercustom,althoughwiththe variation of a single instead of a trine immersion. We may more

properly designate as a survival the practice of immersion which hassubsisted in the great cathedral ofMilanf357- a diocese inwhichmanypeculiar customs survive to remind us of its original independence ofRome. The Roman ritual itself, indeed, continues to provide forimmersionaswellasforaffusion,therubricreading:

"If he baptizes by immersion, the priest retaining the mitre, rises andtakestheinfant;andbeingcarefulnottohurtit,cautiouslyimmersesitshead in the water, and baptizing with a trine immersion, says only asingletime:"'N,IbaptizetheeinthenameoftheFather,andoftheSon,andoftheHolySpirit.'"

AsimilarsurvivalappearsintheAnglicanPrayerBook,f358therubricinwhichrunsasfollows:"Thenthepriestshalltakethechildintohishands,and shall say to thegodfathers andgodmothers, 'Name this child.'Andthen, naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the childmaywellendureit),heshalldipitintothewaterdiscreetlyandwarily,saying,'N, Ibaptize thee in thenameof theFather,andof theSon,andof theHolyGhost.Amen.'Butiftheyshallcertifythatthechildisweak,itshallsuffice to pour water upon it, saying the foresaid words," etc. Hereimmersion—thoughasingleimmersion—ismadetherule;andaffusionappears only as an exception — although an exception which has inpractice become the rule. The Prayer Book of the Protestant EpiscopalChurch in America accordingly parallels the two modes, the rubricreading: "And then, naming it [the child] after them, he shall dip it inwater discreetly or else pour water upon it, saying," etc. A similarreminiscence of the older usage was near being perpetuated in theformularies of the British and American Presbyterian churches. JohnLightfoot has preserved for us a curious account of the debate in theWestminsterAssemblyuponthequestionwhetherthenewDirectoryforWorship should recognize immersion alongside of affusion as analternativemodeofbaptism,or should exclude it altogether in favor ofaffusion.Thelatterwasdeterminedupon;butLightfoottellsus,"Itwasvoted so indifferently, that we were glad to count names twice: for somanywereunwillingtohavedippingexcluded,thatthevotescametoanequalitywithinone;fortheonesidewastwenty-four—theother,twenty-five."f359 The guarded clauses which finally took their places in the

Westminster Directory and Confession of Faith, reflect the state ofopinionintheAssemblyrevealedbythisclosevote;and,whenreadinitslight,willnotfailtooperatetoenshrinestillareminiscenceoftheearliercustomofbaptismby immersion. Ifwewillbear inmindthehistoryofthe mode of baptism in the English Church as thus exhibited in theformularies framedbyher,we shall be at no loss tounderstandhow itcame about that the English Baptists desired to revive the custom ofimmersion,orhowithappenedthat,inrevivingit,theygaveittheformofasingleimmersion.

Survivals such as theseprepareus to learn that therewas a timewhenimmersionwas as universal even in theWest as in theEast. In certainsections, tobesure,as inSouthernGauland itsecclesiasticaldaughter,Ireland, affusion appears to have come into quite general use at a veryearly date. Gennadius of Marseilles (495) already speaks of the twomodesofbaptismasiftheystooduponsomethinglikethesameplane;heis comparingbaptismandmartyrdom,and remarks: "TheoneafterhisConfession is eitherwettedwith theWater, or elseplung'd into it:Andthe other is either wetted with his own Blood, or else is plung'd inFire."f360BythetimeofBonaventuraaffusionappears tohavebecomethecommonFrenchmethod;asynodatAnglersin1175mentionsthetwoasonanequalfooting,whileonein1304,atLangres,mentionspouringonly.PossiblyaffusionfirstfoundaformalplaceinabaptismalofficeinthecaseoftheearliestIrishritual,inwhichitismade,asintheofficeoftheAmericanProtestantEpiscopalChurch, alternativewith immersion.But itwas not until the thirteenth century that it began to become theruling mode of baptism on the Continent,f362 and not until after theReformation, inEngland.WalafridStrabo,writing in theninthcentury,speaks of it as exceptional only. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenthcentury still represents immersion as the most common andcommendablewayofbaptizing,becauseofitsmorevividrepresentationoftheburialofChrist;andonlyrecommendsaffusionincasethewholebodycannotbewetonaccountofpaucityofwater,orsomeothercause—inwhichcase,hesays,"theheadinwhichismanifestedtheprincipleofanimal life, ought to be wet." His contemporary, Bonaventura, whilementioning that affusionwas commonly used in France, gives his ownopinionasthat"thewayofdippingintowateristhemorecommonand

thefitterandsafer."AcouncilatRavennain1311,however,declaredthetwomodesequallyvalid;andtherubricofthebaptismalserviceeditedbyPaul V (1605-1621) treats the matter as entirely indifferent: "Thoughbaptismmaybeadministeredbyaffusion,orimmersion,oraspersion,yetletthefirstorsecondmodewhicharemoreinuse,beretained,agreeablyto the usage of the churches."f363 The change was much slower inestablishing itself in England. A century before Paul V, Erasmuswitnesses:"Withus infantsarepouredupon;with theEnglish, theyareimmersed." The first Prayer Book of Edward VI (1549) directs a trineimmersion:"first,dyppingtherightside;secondly,theleftside;thethirdtime, dypping the face towards the fronte." Permission is first given tosubstitute pouring, if the sponsors certify that the child isweak, in thesecond Prayer Book (1552), and in the same book trine immersion ischangedtosingleimmersion.TheformatpresentinusedoesnotappearuntilthePrayerBookofCharlesII(1662).

There is a sense, then, in which we may say broadly that the presentdiversity in baptismal usage is a growth of time; and that, should wemovebackwithinthefirstmillenniumoftheChurch'slife,weshouldfindthewholeChristianworldunitedintheordinaryuseoftrineimmersion.Themeaningofthisfacttouswillbeconditioned,however,bytheresultsof two further lines of inquiry. We should inquire whether thisuniversality of trine immersion was itself the result of ecclesiasticaldevelopment, or whether it represents primitive, that is, apostolicpractice. And we should inquire whether conformity to this mode ofbaptism was held to be essential to the validity of baptism, or onlynecessarytothegoodorderoftheChurch.

Thesecondofthesequeriesisveryreadilyanswered.ThereneverwasatimewhentheChurchinsisteduponimmersionastheonlyvalidmodeofbaptism.f365The very earliest extant account of baptism, that given inthe"TeachingoftheTwelveApostles"(chap.7),whichcomestousfromthe first half of the second century, while evidently contemplatingordinary baptismas by immersion, yet freely allows affusion in case ofscarcity of water: "But if thou hast neither [living water nor standingwaterinsufficientquantity],pourwaterontheheadthreetimes,intothenameoftheFatherandSonandHolySpirit.""Wehavehere,"comments

Harnack, "for the first time obtained evidence that even the earliestChristians had, under certain conditions, recourse to baptisms bysprinkling — a very important point, since it shows that the scruplesabout baptisms in thismanner were only of late origin in the CatholicChurch."f366"Youhavehere,"commentsFunk,f367"theoldestwitnessfor the formof affusionoraspersion inadministeringbaptism…Noticealsothattheauthorholdsthatformvalidwithcertitude…"Fromthatdayto this, the Church as a whole has allowed the validity of baptism byaffusion,incaseofnecessity,whetherthenecessityarisefromscarcityofwaterorfromweaknessoftherecipient,renderingimmersionacruelty.Even theOrthodoxGreekChurchwhich, in itspolemic attitudeagainstLatin affusion, is apt to lay great stress on immersion, is yet forced toadmit the validity of affusion in cases of necessity.f368 And Dr.WashburntellsusoftheotherOrientalchurches:"Whiletrineimmersionisthegeneralrule,noneofthechurchesintheEastinsistuponthisasinall cases essential. All admit that in exceptional cases other forms arevalid.TheJacobitesdonotpracticeimmersionatall,andtheArmeniansrecognizethefullvalidityofaffusionorsprinklinginanycase."

Thewholecaseof thevalidityofclinicbaptism—or thebaptismof thesick on their bed, ejn th~| kli>nh|, whence they were called klinikoi,clinici, and more rarely grabatarii, lectularii, or even superfusi — wascanvassedbyCyprian in the third century in amannerwhich seems toshownotonlythatithadbeencommonlypractised,butalsothatithadnotbeenformallychallengedbefore.f370Hedeclaresthatclinicbaptismbyaspersionhasall thenecessaryelementsofbaptism, so thatall suchbaptisms are perfect, provided faith is not wanting in ministrant andrecipient-themodeoftheapplicationofthewaternotbeingofessentialimportance.Heargues that,as thecontagionofsin isnotwashedawaylikethefilthofthebodybythewateritself,thereisnoneedofalakeforitscleansing: it istheabundancenotofthewaterbutof faiththatgivesefficacy to the sacrament, and God will grant His indulgence for the"abridgment"f371ofasacramentwhennecessityrequiresit.TheessentialportionofCyprian'srepresentationrunsasfollows:

Youhaveaskedalso,dearestson,whatIthoughtofthosewhoobtainGod's grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be

accounted legitimateChristians, for that theyarenot tobewashed(loti),butsprinkled(perfusi),withthesavingwater.Inthispoint,mydiffidence andmodesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any fromfeelingwhathethinksright,andfromdoingwhathefeelstoberight.Asfarasmypoorunderstandingconceivesit,Ithinkthatthedivinebenefits can in no respect be mutilated and weakened; nor cananything less occur in that case (æstimamus in hullo mutilari etdebilitari posse beneficia divina nec minus aliquid illic possecontingere),where,with full and entire faith both of the giver andreceiver,what isdrawnfromthedivinegifts isaccepted.For inthesacrament of salvation the contagion of sins is not in such wisewashedaway,asthefilthoftheskinandofthebodyiswashedawayin carnal and ordinary washing, as that there should be need ofsaltpeter and other appliances also, and a bath and a basinwherewiththisvilebodymustbewashedandpurified.Otherwiseisthe breast of the believer washed; otherwise is the mind of manpurifiedby themeritof faith. In thesacramentsof salvation,whennecessitycompels,andGodbestowsHismercy, thedivinemethodsconfer the whole benefit on believers (in sacramentis salutaribusnecessitate cogente et Deo indulgentiam suam largiente totumcredentibus conferunt divina compendia ); nor ought it to troubleanyonethatsickpeopleseemtobesprinkledoraffused,whentheyobtaintheLord'sgrace,whenHolyScripturespeaksbythemouthoftheprophetEzekiel,andsays,"ThenwillIsprinklecleanwateruponyou, and ye shall be clean:…" [quoting further,<041908>Numbers19:8-9,12-13;8:5-7]…Orhavetheyobtainedindeedthedivinefavor,but inashorterandmore limitedmeasureof thedivinegiftandofthe Holy Spirit… ? Nay, verily, the Holy Spirit is not given bymeasure,butispouredoutaltogetheronthebeliever.

Those whowere thus baptized were often looked uponwith suspicion,seeingthattheywerefrequentlysuchashadneglectedbaptismuntiltheybelieved theyweredying (theso-calledprocrastinantes,bradu>nontev),and in any casehadnot fulfilled the full periodof their catechumenateandwere therefore supposed tobe insufficiently instructed inChristianknowledge,andseeingthattheyhadbeenbroughttoChristbynecessity,asitwere,andnotbychoiceandlackedthegraceofconfirmationandall

thatitwassupposedto imply.f373TheywerethereforedeniedtherighttoreceiveordersintheChurch,exceptwhenascarcityofmenfittedfororders, or other necessity, forbade the strictness of this rule. Thisjudgment concerning them is already brought to light in the letter ofCornelius on the Novatian heresy, quoted by Eusebius;f374 and thereasononwhichitrestedisclearlyexpressedinthecanonoftheCouncilofNeo-Cæsarea (314; c. 12): "He that isbaptizedwhenhe is sickoughtnottobemadeapriest(forhiscomingtothefaith isnotvoluntarybutfrom necessity) unless his diligence and faith do afterwards provecommendable,orthescarcityofmenfitfortheofficedorequireit."Therewerereasonsenoughtolookonthosewhohadsoreceivedbaptismwithsuspicion; but the validity of thebaptism so conferredwasnot itself indoubt.As little didmendoubt the propriety and validity of baptismbyaffusionwhenscarcityofwater rendered immersion impossible.This istheprecisecasewhichoccursintheprescriptionsofthe"TeachingoftheTwelve Apostles"; and that the practice of the churches continued inaccordance with these prescriptions may be illustrated by a variety ofreferences which have come down to us. For example, in the seventhcentury canonsofJamesofEdessa, thepriest is instructed tobaptizeadyingchildwithwhateveramountofwaterhehappenstohavenearhim.

When an unbaptized infant is in danger of death, and its mothercarriesitinhasteeventothefield,toapriestwhoisatworkthere,wherethereisnostream,andnobasin,andnowater-vessel,ifthereisonlywaterthereforthepriest'suse,andnecessityrequireshaste,whatisproperforhimtodo?Jacob—Innecessitylikethisitisrightforthepriest,ifwaterhappenstobewithhim,totakethepitcherofwaterandpouritupontheinfant'shead,eventhoughitsmotherisholding it in her hands, and say, "Such an one is baptized in thenameoftheFatherandtheSonandtheHolySpirit."

Indeed, so little was immersion of the essence of baptism to SyrianChristians, that we read of their mistaking for baptism in the twelfthcenturytheblessedwaterofthefeastoftheEpiphanywithwhich"everybelieverwhoenteredtheHolyChurchwassignedafterthemannerofthecross,""orsprinkled,"andonlythus"approachedthemysteries";sothatthe authorities needed to guard them from this error.f377 A body of

legends from every part of the Church illustrates the same conception.Thereare,forexample,thewell-knownstoriesofSt.LawrencebaptizingRomanuswith a pitcher ofwater, and of Lucillus baptizing by pouringwateronthehead.f378ThereisthecuriousstoryofthebishopobservingtheboyAthanasius "playingatchurch"withhisyoungcompanionsandbaptizing them,and thedecisionof thecouncil that "aswaterhadbeenpouredupon thesepersons" after the interrogations and responses, thebaptism was complete.f379 There is the similar story of travelersbaptizingaJewinthedesertbysprinklingsandthreetimesonhisbody,andthedecisionthattruebaptismhadtakenplaceinallbutthematerial,withtheorderthattheJewwasnowtobeperfususwithit.f380TheCoptshave a story of awoman,who, in a storm at sea, drew blood fromherbreast andmade the sign of the cross on the foreheads of her childrenwith it, repeating the formula of baptism.On arrival at Alexandria shetookthemtothebishopforbaptism,butthewaterinthefontpetrifiedtopreventthesacrilegeofarepetitionofabaptismthusdeclaredvalid.f381Itisnotneedfultomultiplyexamplesofsuchlegends:theybearwitnesstomuch popular superstition; but they bear witness along with it to auniversalallowanceofthevalidityofbaptismbyaffusion.

Perhaps in noway is the universality of this sentimentmore pointedlybroughtout,thaninitseasyassumptioninthediscussionbytheFathersofthesalvationoftheapostlesorofotherancientworthieswhohaddiedunbaptized.Wemeetalready inTertullianwith thepointofviewwhichpervadesalltheattemptstoexplaintheirsalvation:"Andnow,"hesays,"asfarasIshallbeable,Iwillreplytothemwhoaffirm'thattheapostleswere unbaptized.'" He quotes some suggestions to the contrary, andcontinues:

Others make the suggestion, - forced enough, clearly - "that theapostles then served the turn of baptismwhen, in their little ship,theyweresprinkledandcoveredwiththewaves: thatPeterhimselfalso was immersed enough when he walked on the sea." It is,however,asI think,onethingtobesprinkledor interceptedbytheviolenceofthesea;anotherthingtobebaptizedinobediencetothedisciplineofreligion.

Herefuses,inotherwords,tolookuponachancewettingasbaptism,but

themodeinwhichthewettingissupposedtocomeraisesnodoubtinhismind: nor indeed is he too seriously concerned "whether they werebaptized in anymannerwhatever, orwhether they continuedunbathed(illoti) to the end." The Syriac "Book of the Bee," on the other hand,deemsitimportanttoinsistonthebaptismoftheapostles,andfindsitinthefollowingway:

And Mar Basilius says that on the eve of the passion, after thediscipleshadreceivedthebodyandbloodofourLord,ourLordputwaterinabasin,andbegantowashhisdisciples'feet;andthiswasthebaptismoftheApostles.Buttheywerenotallmadeperfect, fortheywerenotallpure.ForJudas,thesonofperdition,wasnotmadeholy;andbecause thisbasinofwashingwas invery truthbaptism;justasourLordsaidtoSimonPeter,"ExceptIwashthee,thouhastnopartwithme,"thatis,exceptIbaptizetheethoucannotenterthekingdomofheaven.\

Wemaytake,however,Augustine'sdiscussionoftheeaseofthethiefonthe cross as our typical example of theway inwhich the Fathers dealtwith these, to them, puzzling facts. Accordingly, the thief, who was nofollower of the Lord previous to the cross, butHis confessor upon thecross,fromwhoseeaseapresumptionissometimestaken,orattempted,againstthesacramentofbaptism,isreckonedbySt.Cyprianamongthemartyrs who are baptized in their own blood, as happens to manyunbaptized persons in times of hot persecution. For to the fact that heconfessed the crucifiedLord somuchweight is attributedand somuchavailingvalueassignedbyHimwhoknowshowtoweighandvaluesuchevidence,asifhehadbeencrucifiedfortheLord…Therewasdiscoveredin him the fullmeasure of amartyr,who then believed in Christwhenthey fell away who were destined to be martyrs. All this, indeed, wasmanifesttotheeyesoftheLord,whoatoncebestowedsogreatfelicityononewho, thoughnotbaptized,was yetwashed clean in theblood, as itwere,ofmartyrdom…Besidesallthis,thereisthecircumstance,whichisnot incredibly reported, that the thiefwho thenbelievedashehungbythesideofthecrucifiedLordwassprinkled,asinamostsacredbaptism,withthewaterwhichissuedfromthewoundoftheSaviour'sside.Isaynothingofthefactthatnobodycanprove,sincenoneofusknowsthathe

hadnotbeenbaptizedprevioustohiscondemnation.

Suchunhesitatingappealsasthisto"sprinkling,"asconfessedlytrueandvalidbaptism,ifonlyitcanbebelievedtohavetakenplace,revealtousina most convincing way the patristic attitude towards this mode ofbaptism.Withwhateverstringencytrineimmersionmayhavebeenheldthe right and only regularmode of baptism, it is perfectly obvious thatother modes were not considered invalid and no baptism. We read ofthosewhobaptizedwithasingleimmersionbeingcondemnedasactingcontrarytothecommandofChrist,f385orasmakinganewlaw,notonlyagainst the common practice, but also against the general rule andtraditionoftheChurch;f386andwefindthedepositionorderedofeverybishop or presbyter who transgressed good order by administeringbaptismbyasingleimmersion:f387buttheformormodeisevertreatedas having the necessity of order and never as having the necessity ofmeans.Accordinglywefindthattheverymodeofbaptismagainstwhichthesechargesandcanonsweredirected—thatbyasingleimmersion¾was easily allowed, when sufficient occasion for its introduction arose.Trine immersion was insisted upon on two symbolical grounds: itrepresentedChrist'sthreedays'burialandHisresurrectiononthethirdday;butmore fundamentally it representedbaptismas into faith in thethreepersonsoftheTrinity."Rightlyyeareimmersedathirdtime,"saysAugustine,"yewhoacceptbaptisminthenameoftheTrinity.Rightlyyeareimmersedthethirdtime,yewhoacceptbaptisminthenameofJesusChrist,whoon the thirdday rose from thedead."TheArians inSpain,however,inthesixthcentury,whilefollowingthegeneralcustomoftrineimmersion, explained it asdenotinga first, second, and thirddegreeofdivinity in the three persons named in the formula. This led someSpanishCatholicstobaptizewithonlyoneimmersion,intestimonytotheequality of the Divine Persons in the unity of the Godhead; and whendisputes arose as to this divergence from ordinary custom, Leander,BishopofSeville,appealedforadviceinhisownnameandinthatoftheotherSpanishbishops toGregory theGreat.Gregoryrepliedas follows:Nothing truer can be said concerning the three immersions of baptismthan theopinionyouhave yourself given, thatdiversityof customdoesnotprejudicetheholyChurchifthefaithbeone(quodinunafidenihilafficitsanctaeecclesiaeconsuetudodiversa).Weusetrineimmersionthat

wemaysignifythemysteryofthethreedays'burial,sothatastheinfantis raised three times from the water, the resurrection on the third daymay be expressed. But if any one thinks this is done rather out ofvenerationfortheHolyTrinity,neitherdoesasingleimmersioninwaterdoanyprejudicetothis; for,asthereisonesubstanceinthreePersons,therecanbenothingreprehensible inaninfant'sbeingimmersedeitherthriceoronce,—becauseinthethreeimmersionstheTrinityofPersonsmaybeaswelldesignatedasinoneimmersiontheunityoftheGodhead.But seeing that now the infant is three times immersed in baptism byheretics, I think that this ought not to be done by you: lest while theymultiply the immersions they divide the Godhead; and while theycontinue as before they glory in the victory of their custom.f388 Theapplicationoftheprinciplehereis,ofcourse,nottoaffusionoraspersionbuttosingle immersion;butthebroadprinciplethat"divergentcustominunityof faithisnodetrimenttotheholyChurch"isquiteclearly laiddown,andismadethebasisofadvicewhichrunscountertoallpreviouscustom.Thisdidnotmeanthatallcanonicalauthorityshouldbebrokendown,orthateachchurchshouldnotorderitsaffairsbyitsowncanons.TheyofRomecontinuedtouseandtoinsistupontrineimmersion;theyof Spain, after a few years' struggle, decreed at the Council of Toledo(633) that only a single immersion should be used thereafter in theirchurches: and though later offense was taken here and there with theSpanishcustom,yetitreceivedthesupportofbothGermanandFrenchsynods, and the Council of Worms (868) finally recognized bothpractices.Butthewholeincidentshowsperfectlyclearlythatadistinctionrequirestobedrawnbetweenregularorcanonicalandvalidbaptism;andthe passages which have been quoted from Cyprian, Augustine, andGregory,whentakentogether,seemtoshowthattheChurchofthatagedid not contemplate the possibility that difference inmode of baptismcould operate to the absolute invalidation of the rite.Wemeetwith noevidence from thewritings of theFathers that baptismby affusionwasheldanythingother than irregularandextraordinary;butwemeetwithnoevidencethatitwasaccountedvoid:itwasevenheld,onthecontrary,imperative duty in case of necessity, whether on account of paucity ofwateroronaccountoftheweaknessoftherecipient.

The evidence of the practice of affusion as something more than an

unusualandextraordinarymodeofbaptismwhichfailsusinthewritingsof the Fathers, seems to be provided, however, in the monumentalrepresentations of the rite. The apparent evidence of the monumentsruns, indeed, oddly athwart the consentient witness of the literaryremains.ItmaybebroadlysaidthattheFathers,fromthesecondcenturydown through thepatristicage, representordinaryandregularbaptismto be a rite performed on perfectly nude recipients by a form of trineimmersion.Inseeminglydirectcontradictiontothisliteraryevidence,weread in one of the latest and most judicious handbooks of Christianarchæology: "It is most noteworthy that from the second to the ninthcenturythereisfoundscarcelyonepictorialrepresentationofbaptismbyimmersion;butthesuggestionisalmostuniformlyeitherofsprinklingorpouring."f389Representationswhichclearlyindicateimmersionneitherwere impossible nor are altogether lacking;f390 but they bear noproportion innumber to thosewhichseemto imply theactofpouring,and when clear are usually of late date. On the other hand,representationsinwhichaffusionseemstobeimpliedareofallagesandcomparativelynumerous.Thefactissoobvious,indeed,thatwithabaldstatement of it wemight be tempted to conclude that the literary andmonumentalevidencesstandinhopelesscontradiction.

Anysurveyofthemonumentalevidencewhichwouldhopetobefruitfulmustbeginwithasharpdistinctionbetweentwoseriesofrepresentations- those which depict the historical scene of the baptism of Christ, andthosewhichdepict ordinarybaptism.The treatment of neither of thesesubjects has escaped influence from the other. Artists seeking torepresent the rite of baptismhavenot always given a perfectly realisticrendering of the service as seen by them day after day in their ownbaptistery,buthaveallowedreminiscencesoffamiliarrepresentationsofourLord'sbaptismtoaffecttheirtreatment.Andontheotherhandtheyhave not been able to exclude the influence of the rite of baptism ascustomarily administered before their eyes, from affecting theirrepresentationofChrist's baptism.Even themost incongruous featuresfromordinarybaptismhavesometimeswithgreatnaïvetébeenpermittedtoenterintotheirpicturedconceptionofChrist'sbaptism;thusveryearlyour Lord is represented as of immature age, and later He is evensometimes placed in a sculptured marble font.f391 But despite the

influenceexertedupononeanotherbythetwoseriesofrepresentations,theystandinverydifferentrelationstoourpresentinquiry;andmustbeused not only separately but in different ways. Representations of thebaptismofChristhaveadefinitehistoricalscenetodepict,andcantelluswhatcontemporarybaptismwas likeonlyaccidentallyandso faras theartisthasforgottenhimself.RepresentationsoftheriteofbaptismontheotherhandareavailableasdirectwitnessesofChristianusage,exceptinso far as theymay be judged to depict what was conceived to be idealbaptismratherthanwhatwasactualatthedateoftheirproduction,ortohave been affected by traditional modes of representation or byinfluencesfromparallelscenes,as,forexample,fromtherepresentationsof the baptism of Christ. Each seriesmay, however, have something toteachusinitsownway,astohowChristiansbaptizedintheearlieragesoftheChurch.

The sequence of representations of the baptism of Christ may be veryconveniently examined in the plates of Dr. Josef Strzygowski's"Iconographie der Taufe Christi," to which he has prefixed a veryilluminatingdiscussion.Dr.Strzygowskicannotbeacquitted, indeed,ofbendinghismaterialalittlehereandtheretofitwhatheisled,fromtheliterature of that age, to expect the representation of baptism to be ineach age. The purity of his induction is thus marred, and theindependence of the testimony of the art-evidence to some degreeaffected.Buthehasplacedinhisreader'shands,bothinthecourseofthediscussion itself and in the seriesof representationsgiven inhisplates,ample material to guard against the slight deflection which may arisefrom this cause. The series of representations of the baptism of Christbegins with a fresco in the crypt of Lucina in the Roman catacombs,whichseemstobelongtotheopeningofthesecondcentury.HereChristisrepresentedasbeingaidedbyJohntostepupoutoftheriverinwhichHeisstillimmersedalmostuptoHismiddle.Then,thereisasomewhatenigmaticalfrescointhecatacombofPraetextatus,assignedtotheendofthe second or beginning of the third century, which is variouslyinterpreted as a representation of our Lord's baptism (soGarrucci andRoller) or ofHis crowningwith thorns (soMartigny andDeRossi). InthispictureChriststands,clothed,ontheground,whileasecondfigurestretchesoverHisheadsomethingwhichlookslikeatwig,andthereisa

cloud of something surrounding His head. If baptism be representedhere, it is evidently conceived as a simple affusion. After the frescoes,come a series of representations on sarcophagi belonging to the earlypost-Constantinian age. As a type,f394 these represent Christ as a boy,naked, generally in full face, with the head turned slightly to the lefttowards John, and the armshangingdown. John eitherholdshis righthandoverChristorrestsitonHisforehead.Jordanpoursitswateroutofalumpofrock,hangingoverChristfrombehind;whileadovegenerallyfliesneartherock.Amongtheserepresentationstherearealsosome,as,forexample, thesarcophagusofJuniusBassus(d.359), inwhich lambssymbolically take the place of persons; and either light or water orsomething else is poured from thebeakof thedove on thehead of thelamb which represents Christ.f395 On the cover of a fourth centurysarcophagusintheLateran,f396Johnisrepresentedaspouringwateronthe head of Christ from a bowl: but Strzygowski points out that thisportionofthesculptureisalaterrestoration.TheRavennaMosaicscomenext in point of time: and in the primary one of these — that in theBaptisterium Ursianum (middle of fifth century) — John is againrepresented as pouring water on Christ's head from a bowl; but againStrzygowskiconsidersthisfeaturetobeduetolaterrestoration.f397Thetypical representationat thisdate seems tobeofChrist,waist-deep inJordan,with John's hand resting on, and the dove immediately above,His head. From the opening of the eighth centurywe have a new typewhichplacesajuginthebeakofthedovefromwhichwaterpoursuponChrist's head,f398 while from the twelfth century examples occur inwhich John pours water from an urn;f399 and something of this sortbecomeseverywheretherulingtypefromthefourteenthcenturyon.f400AswereviewthewholeseriesofrepresentationsofthebaptismofChrist,we are struck with the absence from it of decisive representations ofcompleteimmersion:itmaybeinterpretedasaseriesofimmersions,butinany case it is strangely full of hints of incomplete immersion,whichcan only be accounted for by the influence of contemporary habit inbaptizingupontheartist,asheattemptedtodepictthishistoricalscene.Itishardlypossibletounderstandthemannerinwhichtheartistshavepictured to themselves the baptism of Christ, without postulatingfamiliarity on their part with baptism as something else than a simpleimmersion.

Thisjudgmentisfullyborneoutbytheparallelseriesofrepresentationofthe rite of baptism in general. This series also begins in the Romancatacombs- in the so-called sacramental chapel of the catacombs ofCallistus, where we have two frescoes dating from the opening of thethird century.f401 In both of these the river is still presupposed —probably a trait in representing baptismal scenes borrowed from thetypical instance of the baptism of Christ. Into it the neophyte hasdescended,butthewaterscarcelyreacheshisankles.Johnstandsontheadjoininggroundwithhis righthandon theneophyte'shead. Inoneofthe pictures a cloud of water surrounds the head. In neither case is acomplete immersionpossible; and in one of themaffusion seems to beevident. For the period after Constantinef402 we have three especiallyimportant monuments: a gravestone from Aquileiaf403 on which theneophyte stands in a shallow font and water descends on him fromabove;asilverspoonfromAquileiaf404onwhichthewaterdescendsontheheadoftheneophytefromthebeakofthedove;andaglassfragmentfoundintheruinsofanoldRomanhouse,representingagirluponwhomwater descends from a vase, while she is surrounded with spray fromit.f405Therepresentationof thebaptismofSt.AmbroseonthefamousPaliottoinS.AmbrogioatMilan,comesfromalaterdate(ca.827).Heretherecipientstandsinafontuptohismiddleandthepriestpourswateronhisheadfromavase.f406Thelaterexamplesfallentirelyinlinewiththeseearlierones;saysKirsch:f407"Acompleteimmersionisnotfoundin theWesteven in the firstperiodof themiddle-ages,but the formofrepresentationwhichwehavejustnotedgoesoverintothelaterartwithcertainmodifications."Weneednotpausetonotetheexamplesthatareadduced in illustration of what seems the general course of later art-representations:ourinterestwillnaturallycenterintheearlierexamplesalreadycited.Inthemthereseemstobeborneanunbrokentestimonytobaptismbyaffusion.

It is, of course, impossible to believe that the literary andmonumentaltestimonyastothemodeofbaptismprevalentinthepatristicChurch,isreallyascontradictoryasitmightatfirstsightseem.Reconciliationofthetwo lines of evidence has naturally been sought by the students of thesubject; and equally naturally, in different directions. Sometimes themethodadopted seemsonly forcibly to subject one class of evidence to

theother.Dr.Withrow,forexample,seemsreadytoneglect the literaryevidenceinfavorofthemonumental,speakingofimmersionasifitwereonlyafourthorfifthcenturycorruptionoftheearlierriterepresentedintheartremains,andpleading,againstitsprimitiveemployment,thatitisnotrepresentedinthecatacombsandthattheearlyfontsarenotsuitablefor itwith an inclination to include among the fonts the so-calledbenitièrs or "holy-water vessels" of the catacombs.f408 On the otherhand,itisnotuncommontoseethemonumentalevidencesetpracticallyaside in favor of the literary. This is done in some degree, as we haveseen,evenbyStrzygowski.Atendencytowardsitisfoundalsoeveninsojudicious a writer as the late Dr. Schaff,f409 who pleads that, as it isimpossible to depict the whole process of baptism, we must read themonumentalrepresentationsasgivingonlyonemomentinthecompletetrine immersion witnessed to in the contemporary literature, and nottreat themas representing thewhole rite— thoughhedoesnot stop totelluswhatpartaffusionplaysinanordinaryimmersion.ThefullestandmostplausiblestatementofthispointofviewismadebyVictorSchultzein his "Archäologische Studien fiber altchristliche Monumente."f410QuotingDeRossi's opinion that thebaptismof theboydepicted in thecatacombsofSt.Callistuswithacloudofwaterabouthishead,isamixedform of immersion and affusion, he comments thus: "Such a rite,however,never in realityexisted, f411and is seen tobean illusion fromthe consideration that aspersion is nothing else than a substitute forimmersionandwasbutgraduallydevelopedoutof it.Thefirsttracesofaspersionare foundamongtheGnostics,and thiscircumstance,aswellas theblamewhich Irenæushad for the rite, areproof that theChurchhadnotadoptedaspersioninthethirdcentury."Heproceedstoremarkthat if the fresco is of Tertullian's time, it must certainly representimmersion, as that Father knows no other baptism;f412 and thenexplainsthesceneasrepresentingthemomentwhenthecandidateisjustrising from the water after immersion, and the water brought up withhim is streaming from his head and person; whereas, if aspersion hadbeentheideaoftheartist,hewoulddoubtlesshaveplacedavesselinthehandoftheadministrator,as isdone in laterpictures.Theseveryacuteremarksoverlook,however,twodecisivefacts—thefactsnamelythatthewater inwhich theyouthstands is too shallow for immersion,and thatthis fresco does not stand by itself but is one of a series of

representations,nooneofwhichspeaksclearlyofimmersion,andmanyofwhichmakeaspersionperfectlyclear.Suchanexplanationof theonepictureasSchultzeofferswouldonlyrendertheexplanationoftheseriesasawholeimpossible.

Ratherthanadopteitherof theseextremeviewswhichwould implytheuntrustworthinessofoneortheotherlinesofevidence,itwouldbeeasiertobelievethatthemonumentalevidencerepresentedtheactualpracticeoftheChurchwhiletheliteraryevidencepreservedthecanonicalformoftheChurch.Itwouldbenounheard-ofthingiftheactualpracticevariedfromtheofficialform:indeed,weknowasamatteroffact,thatnotonlyhave such changes in general, but that this change in particular hasusuallytakeneffectinpracticebeforeithasbeenrecognizedinlaw.ItwasonlybecauseactualbaptismhadcometobebyaffusionthattheWesternChurchwasledinlateragestoplaceaffusiononaparinherformularieswith immersion:andthesamehistorywassubsequentlywroughtout intheEnglishChurch. Itwould not be at all inconceivable, that from thebeginningtheactualcelebrationofbaptismdifferedsomewhatfromtheformal ritual; and this difference might well underlie the differenttestimony borne by the monuments as representations of what wasactuallydone,andbytheFathersasrepresentativesoftheformalritual.Whether and how far this hypothesis will avail or is needed for theexplanationof the factsbeforeus,maybe left,however, for subsequentconsideration.

Weneedtonote,now,certainothersuggestionswhichhavebeenmadefor the harmonizing of the divergent lines of evidence, from whichweshallgainmorelightupontheproblem.MarkMarriott,f414forexample,supposes that early baptism included both immersion and affusion,somethingas themodernArmenian ritedoes; and that theartistshavechosen the moment of affusion for their representation. This acutesuggestion,however,scarcelyoffersacompleteexplanationof the facts.For unless affusion was the characteristic and determining element inbaptism,itwillbedifficulttoaccountforthealmostunvaryingchoiceofthismoment intherite forrepresentation.It isneedful tobear inmindthe unsophisticated and unconscious nature ofmonumental testimony;theartist, seeking to convey the ideaofbaptism to theobserversofhis

picture, would choose for representation, out of mere necessity, amoment in the rite which would at once suggest "baptism" to thebeholders of his work. Mark Marriott's view does not seem, then, toremove theconflictbetween the literaryandmonumental evidence; theliterary evidence represents immersion, and the monumental evidenceaffusion; as the characteristic feature of the rite. M. Roller has stillanotheruseful suggestion:hedistinguishes localities, remarking that intheOrientandAfrica,baptismmayhavebeenby"atripleimmersionanda tripleemersion, accompanied by a triple confession of faith in theFather,intheSon,andintheHolyGhost,"whileinRomeChristiansmayhave been for a time satisfied with "an immersion less complete." Ourattention is thus at least called to the important fact that our earlymonumental evidence is local — confined to Rome and Romandependencies. But again the explanation is inadequate for the wholeproblem:theconflictexistsinRomeitself.It isnotonlythesecondandthird century pictures, but also the representations from the fifth andsixth and seventh centuries and beyond, in which stress is laid on themoment of affusion.When Jerome and Leo and Pelagius and Gregorywere speakingof trine immersionasoforder inRome, theartistswerestill layingstressonaffusion.Theonlytheoryknowntouswhichseemsto do full justice to both classes of facts - those gathered from theliteratureandmonumentsalike- is thatwhichDeRossihasrevivedf415and given the support of his great name. This supposes that normalbaptism was performed in the early Church by a mode which unitedimmersionandaffusion ina single rite¾not,as in theArmenianrite,making them separate parts of a repeated ritual.f416 We shall arrive,indeed, at something like this conclusion if we will proceed simply byscrutinizingthetwolinesofevidencesomewhatsharply.Wewillobserve,forexample,thatthoughaffusionisemphasizedbythemonuments,itisnotnecessarily a simpleaffusion.The candidate stands inwater,whichreachestohisanklesoreven tohisknees in theearlierpictures,and inlateronestohiswaistorabove.HenceDr.Schaffsays,"Pouringontheheadwhilethecandidatestandsondryground,receivesnoaidfromtheCatacombs… "f417This is a rather extreme statement. The fresco in thecatacombofPraetextatus,ifitbethoughttorepresentbaptism,wouldbeaveryearlyexampletothecontrary;f418andsymbolicalrepresentationsonsomewhatlatermonuments—asforinstancethatonthesarcophagus

of Bassus — do not indicate water below. But if it be read only as ageneral remark, it isworthy of remark. Thepoints of importance to begleaned from the monuments are that the candidate was baptizedstanding, ordinarily at least standing in water, and the affusion was asupplement to the water below. And if we so read themonuments weshall find ourselves in no necessary disaccordwith the literary notices.Theideainanycasewouldbeanentirebath.Thecandidatestandinginthewater,thiscouldbeaccomplishedeitherbysinkingtheheadbeneaththewaterorbyraisingthewateroverthehead.Themonumentssimplybeartheirwitnesstotheprevalenceofthelattermodeofcompletingtheordinance. And when we once perceive this, we perceive also that thepictured monuments do not stand alone in this testimony. The extantfonts also suggest this form of the rite. And the literary noticesthemselves are filled with indications that the mode of baptism thussuggestedwasthecommonmodethroughouttheChristianworld.Thisisimplied, indeed, in the significance attached to the baptism of thehead.f419 "When we dip our heads in water as in a grave," saysChrysostom,"ouroldmanisburied;andwhenweriseupagain,thenewmanrisestherewith."f420Theritualgiveninthe"Catechesis"ofCyrilofJerusalem(347)f421containsthesameimplication;wearetoldthatthecandidates,afterhavingconfessedtheir faith,"dippedthemselvesthriceinthewater,andthriceliftedthemselvesupfromoutthereof."ThesamemaybesaidoftheWestGothicriteforblessingthefont:"GodwhodidstsanctifythefountofJordanforthesalvationofsouls,lettheangelofthyblessing descend upon these waters, that thy servants being bathed(perfusi) therewith,"f422 etc.; and in general of the occasional use ofperfususasadesignationofthecatechumen.f423Perhaps,however,theexactnatureoftheliteraryevidenceandtheprecisionwithwhichitfallsin with this conception of the mode of ancient baptism, may be bestexhibited by the adduction of a single passage, extended enough toconvey the writer's point of view. We select somewhat at random thefollowingaccountofbaptismbyGregoryofNyssa:

Butthedescentintothewater,andthetrineimmersionofthepersoninit,involvesanothermystery…Everythingthatisaffectedbydeathhasitsproper and natural place, and that is the earth in which it is laid andhidden.Nowearthandwaterhavemuchmutualaffinity…Seeing, then,

[that] the death of the Author of our life subjected Him to burial inearth… the imitation which we enact of that death is expressed in theneighboring element. And as He, that Man from above, having takendeadness on Himself, after His being deposited in the earth, returnedbacktolifethethirdday,soeveryonewhoisknittedtoHimbyvirtueofHisbodilyform,lookingforwardtothesamesuccessfulissue,Imeanthisarriving at life by having, instead of earth, water poured on him(ejpiceo>menov),andsosubmittingtothatelement,hasrepresentedforhim in the three movements the three-days-delayed grace of theresurrection… But since, as has been said, we only so far imitate thetranscendentPowerasthepovertyofournatureiscapableof,byhavingthe water thrice poured on us (to< u[dwr tri<v eJpicea>menoi) andascending again up from the water, we enact that saving burial andresurrectionwhichtookplaceonthethirdday,withthisthought inourmind,thataswehavepoweroverthewaterbothtobeinitandtoariseout of it, so He too, Who has the universe at His sovereign disposal,immersed Himself in death, as we in the water, to return to His ownblessedness.

Does it not look as if baptism was to Gregory very much what it isdepictedonthemonuments—animmersioncompletedbypouring?

Wemay,then,probably,assumethatnormalpatristicbaptismwasbyatrine immersionupon a standing catechumen, and that this immersionwascompletedeitherbyloweringthecandidate'sheadbeneaththewater,or (possibly more commonly) by raising the water over his head andpouringituponit.Additionalsupportforthisassumptionmaybedrawnfrom another characteristic of the patristic allusions to baptism. It isperfectlyclear thatbaptismwas lookeduponby theFathers—howevermuchothersymbolismsattachedthemselvestoit—primarilyasabath.It is not necessary to multiply passages in support of so obvious abroposition.Oneof thefavoritedesignationsofbaptismwas"thebath,"andtheGreeksdelightedintheparonomasiawhichbroughttogetherthetwo words loutro>n and lu>tron,. It will suffice here to cite a fewpassages from Tertullian,merely by way of examples of what could becopiously adduced from the whole series of the Fathers: "Since we aredefiledbysin,"hesays,f426"asitwerebydirt,weshouldbewashedfrom

thosestainsbywater.""Weenterthenthelaveronce,—onceoursinsarewashed away, because they ought never to be repeated.But the JewishIsrael bathes daily, because he is daily being defiled; and for fear thatdefilement should be practiced among us also, therefore was thedefinition concerning the one bathingmade. Happy water, which oncewashes away; which does not mock sinners; which does not, beinginfectedwiththerepetitionofimpurities,againdefilethemwhomithaswashed."f427 Our hands "are clean enough, which together with ourwholebodyweoncewashed inChrist.Albeit Israelwasheddailyallhislimbs over, yet he is never clean."f428 In the divers "washings" of theheathen,hetellsus,they"cheatthemselveswithwidowedwaters,"thatis,withmerewater,withouttheaccompanyingpoweroftheHolyGhostf429"Moreover," he continues, "by carryingwater around and sprinkling it,theyeverywhereexpiatecountryseats,houses,temples,andwholecities;atallevents,attheApollinarianandEleusiniangamestheyarebaptized;andtheypresumethattheeffectoftheirdoingthatistheirregeneration,and the remission of the penalties due to their perjuries. Among theancientsagain,whoeverhaddefiledhimselfwithmurder,waswonttogoin quest of purifyingwaters. Therefore, if themere nature of water, inthatitistheappropriatematerialforwashingaway,leadsmentoflatterthemselveswithabelief inomensofpurification,howmuchmoretrulywillwatersrenderthatservice,throughtheauthorityofGod,bywhomalltheirnaturehasbeenconstituted!"ForTertullian,thus,theanaloguesofbaptismweretobefoundintheJewishlustrationsandtheheathenritesof cleansing; and so fundamental is this conception of baptism to him,thatittakesprecedenceofeveryother;thoughtheseriteswereperformedbysprinklingtheyyetremainritesofthesameclasswithbaptism.

Thisprimaryconceptionofbaptismasacleansingbath,seemstofindanodd illustration in the form of the early Christian baptisteries. Whenseparate edificeswere erected for baptism theirmodels appear to havebeen drawn from the classic baths. "When the first baptisteries werebuilt,"writesMarkG.BaldwinBrown,"wehavenomeansofknowing;butboth their name and form seem borrowed from pagan sources. TheyremindusatonceofthebathingapartmentsintheThermæ,andthefactthat Pliny, in speaking of the latter, twice uses the word baptisteria,seems to point to this derivation." If this is true, the Baptistery is

emphatically the Christian "Bath-house." Lindsayf431 adds somecongruousdetailsastothefontitself."TheFont,"hewrites,"isplacedinthecentreofthebuilding,directlyunderneaththecupola;intheearliestexamples, as in the baptistery adjoining the Lateran, it consists of ashallowoctagonalbasin,descendedintobythreesteps,preciselysimilarto the pagan bath¾ in later instances it hasmore resemblance to anelevated reservoir,The figure of the octagonwas peculiarly insisted on;evenwhenthebaptisteryitselfisround,thecupolaisgenerallyoctagonal,andthefontalmostalwaysso.Thismayhavebeen,inthefirstinstance,mere imitation of the pagan baths, in which the octagon constantlyoccurs… "Having obtained their models of the baptistery from thesurroundingheathendom,itmaypossiblybethattheearlyChristiansthemorereadilyleanedtowardcompletingtheirsymbolicalbathbypouring,thatthatwasoneofthecommonmodesofbathingamongtheancients—asappearsforexample inOvid'sdescriptionofDiana'sbath,"whenherattendants 'urniscapacibusundameffundunt .'" f433Butweareboundtorememberinthisconnectionthattheearlyrepresentationsofbaptismdo not seem to borrow at all from heathen representations of theirpurificatory rites,f434 but exhibit, as Strzygowski points out, entireindependenceintreatingtheirsubject,althoughborrowing,ofcourse,theformsoftheantique.

The crowning indication,however, thatwehave found the true formofearly Christian baptism in a rite performed on an erect recipient,standing in water, and completed indifferently by sinking the headbeneaththewaterorraisingthewaterabovethehead,issuppliedbythefactthat,onassumingthisastheearlypractice,wemaynaturallyaccountforthevariousdevelopmentsoflaterpractice.Insuchariteasthis,bothlaterimmersionandaffusioncanfindanaturalstarting-point;whiletheassumptionofeitherapure immersionorapureaffusionasastarting-pointwillrenderitexceedinglydifficulttoaccountfor

the riseandwideextensionof theothermode.Topoint to thegrowinginfluenceofthesymbolismofdeathandresurrectionwith

Christattachedtobaptism,asmakingforaritebyimmersion,ortothelaxextensionofclinicaspersionasmakingforariteby

affusion,f435 will no doubt help us to understand the development ofeitherpractice;butonlyontheassumptionofastarting-

point for the assumed developments such as the mode now underconsideration supplies. Nor need we confine ourselves to the broaddevelopments of the rite. The assumption of the mode suggested willaccount also for numerous minor elements in the later rites. It willaccount, for example, for the insistence stillmade throughout the Eastupon holding even the infant erect in the act of baptism. Indeed, onassumingthistohavebeenearlyChristianbaptismoverawideextentofterritory, numerous peculiarities of Oriental services at once exhibitthemselves as survivals of earlier practice. In this category belong, forinstance, the Nestorian usage of thrice dipping the head of an alreadypartially submerged candidate; the various mixtures of the two ritesamongtheCoptsandArmenians;thepreservationofapartialimmersionandtrineaffusionamongtheSyrians,andthelike.Whenweaddtotheexplanation of the apparent conflict between the early literary andmonumental evidence which the assumption of this mode of baptismoffers,thefurtherexplanationwhichitsuppliesoflaterdevelopmentsinthe rite, it would seem that we had discovered in it the actual form inwhichearlyChristianswereaccustomedtocelebratetheinitiatoryriteoftheir religion.Whether this earlymode of baptism¾ underlying, as itwouldseem,allthenoticesandpracticeswhichhavecomedowntous—

represents truly the original mode of baptism as handed down to theChurchbytheapostles,requiresfurtherconsideration.Our

earliest literaryandmonumental evidencealike comes from the secondcentury.ThefrescoesinthecatacombsofPraetextatusandCallistusdatefromtheendofthesecondcenturyortheopeningofthethird—theageofTertullian,who isprobably theearliestLatinwriter towhomwecanappeal as a witness to the prevalentmode of baptism. In the East theevidence runs back a little further. The account of baptism given byJustinMartyr,indeed,scarcelyconveysclearinformationastothemodeofitsadministration.Thecandidates,hetellsus,"areconductedtoaplacewherethereiswater,andtheyareregeneratedajnagennw~ntai)afterthesame manner of regeneration as that in which we ourselves wereregenerated.Fortheythenmaketheir

ablution(to<loutro<npoiou~ntai)inthewater,inthenameofGodtheFatherandLordoftheuniverse,andofourSaviourJesus

Christ, and of the Holy Ghost." This defect is now supplied by "TheTeachingoftheTwelveApostles,"which,however,mayinthis

partbe little ifanyolderthanJustin.Itsdirectionsforbaptismf437runthus:"Nowconcerningbaptism,baptizethus:Having

firsttaughtallthesethings,baptizeyeintothenameoftheFather,andoftheSon,andoftheHolyGhost,inlivingwater.And

ifthouhasnotlivingwater,baptizeintootherwater;andifthouhasnotcold, then inwarm.But if thouhasneither,pourwater thriceupon theheadinthenameoftheFather,andoftheSon,andoftheHolyGhost."Itiscertain,therefore,thatbythemiddleofthesecondcenturysomesuchmodeofbaptismaswehavesuggested—aformofimmersionthoughnotwithoutallowanceofasimpleaffusionincaseofneed—waspractisedintheChurch.Wemayevenbeboldenough to say thatat thisdate somesuchmode was probably the practice of the Church. This evidence, ofcourse,hasaretrospectivevalue.WhatwasthepracticeoftheChurchadecadeor sobefore themiddle of the second centurywasprobably theusagealsoofasomewhatearlierday.Butwemustbecharyofpursuingsuch a presumption too far. Christian institutions in themiddle of thesecond century, and much more at its end, were not the unalteredinstitutionsof theapostolicage.Thebishop, forexample,wasalreadyadifferentofficerfromwhathewasinthedayswhentheNewTestamentwas writing; and the Epistle of Clement of Rome witnesses to quiteanotherchurchsystem fromthatwhichwas inoperation in thedaysofIrenæus. The "Teaching" itself, in other items of church order, bringsbefore us a later stage of Christian life and practice than the first. Thesecondcentury, inaword,marksaconsiderableadvanceonthe first inthedevelopment of churchusages; and it is necessary to exercise greatcautioninassumingwhatwefindtobethepracticeofthiscenturytobealsoapostolic,merelybecause it represents theearliestusagewhichwecantrace.

Inthesecircumstancesweshallwelcomeanyfurtherlineofinvestigationwhichpromisestothrowlightonourproblem,andturn

therefore with some interest to inquire after the relation of Christianbaptismtowhatisknownasproselyte-baptismorthe

rabbinicalcustomofinitiatingproselytesintotheJewishfaithbyaformaland complete ablution. In this, many scholars find the original ofChristian baptism, thus tracing the genealogy of the latter through thebaptism of John to a well-understood and commonly practised Jewishritual. It is argued that there is no evidence from the New TestamentnoticesthatChristwasinstitutingaritethatwasnewinthesensethatitsformormodewasanovelty;or thatwhenJohncalledonthepeople tocome to his baptism, he needed to stop and explain to themwhat this"baptism"was and how theywere to do it.On the contrary, it appearsthat Christ and John expected to be thoroughly understood from thebeginning, and only implanted a new significance in an old rite, nowadaptedtoanewuse.Butwhatcouldhavebeentheolderriteonwhichbaptismwas based, it is asked, except the proselyte-baptismwhich wefind in the next age the established practice of the Jews? If, however,JohannicandChristianbaptismwerethusadopted,sofarastheformoftheriteisconcerned,fromproselyte-baptism,ameansisopenedtousfordiscoveringhowbaptismwasadministeredinthefirstageoftheChurchwhich no one can venture to neglect. Ifwe can determine themode ofbaptisminproselyte-baptism,weraiseastrongpresumptionthatitwasinthismodealsothatourLordandHisapostlesbaptized.Thepaththuspointedoutiscertainlysufficientlyhopefultojustifyourexploringit."

It is scarcely possible to overstate the importance which the rabbisattachedtobaptism,inthereceptionofproselytes.Itwas

heldtobeabsolutelynecessarytothemakingofaproselyte;andthoughRabbiEliezermaintainedthatcircumcisionwithout

baptism sufficed, Rabbi Joshua on the other hand contended thatbaptismwithoutcircumcisionwasenough,whilethescribesdecided

thatbothriteswerenecessary.Onemightindeedbecomeinsomesorta

proselytewithoutbaptism;butthoughhewerecircumcised,

he remained ywG until he was baptized, and children begotten in theintervalwouldstillbeµyrwmm,spurii.Ifhewouldbecomea"proselyteofrighteousness,""achildofthecovenant,"a"perfectIsraelite,"hemustbeboth circumcised and baptized. The regulations required that thosepurposingthusbecomingJewsshouldfirstbefullyinstructedinwhatitwas to be a Jew andwhat the step theywere contemplatingmeant forthem.When the time came for their admission into the number of thecovenant people, three things entered into the initiatory rite:circumcision, hl;ymi; baptism, hl;ybif]; and sacrifice, ˆB;r]q;. Baptismwas delayed after circumcision until the wound was healed, andmeanwhile the instruction continued.When the day for it arrived, theproselyte, in thepresenceof the three teacherswhohadalsowitnessedhiscircumcisionandwhonowservedaswitnessesofthebaptismunderthenameof"fathersofthebaptized,"correspondingtothenatureofthebaptismas a "newbirth," cut his hair andnails, undressed completely,andenteredthewateruntilhisarmswerecovered.Thecommandmentswerenowreadtohim,and,solemnlyengagingtoobeythem,heperfectedthebaptismby completely immersinghimself.The completeness of theimmersion was of such importance that "a ring on the finger, a bandconfining the hair, or anything that in the least degree broke thecontinuityofcontactwiththewater,washeldtoinvalidatetheact."f439There remained now only the offering of the sacrifice, and when thus"bloodwasspilt" forhim, theproselytehadceased tobe inanysenseaheathen. In his baptism, he had been "born anew," and he came forthfromthewater"anewman,""alittlechildjustborn,""achildofoneday."So entirely had his old self ceased, that it was held that all his oldrelationshadpassedaway,thenaturallawsofinheritancehadfailed,andeven those of kinship, so that it was even declared that, except forbringing proselytism into contempt among the ununderstanding, aproselyte might marry without fault even his own natural mother orsister.

We cannot fail to see at a glance close similarities between this rite asdescribedintheGemaraandtheriteofChristian

baptism as contemporaneously administered. There is in both the

instructionofthecandidatebothbeforeandwhileinthefont,

thegodfathers,theimmersion,completedinsomecasesat leastbyself-baptism,f441andtheeffectofbaptismasissuinginanew

creature.It isverydifficult tobelievethatneitherriteowedanythingtotheother.Butthediscoveryofconnectionbetween

the two rites is no immediate proof that one owes its existence to theother.Itmightbeaprioripossible,indeed,thatthe

Jewish rite was borrowed from the Christian or that the ChristianwasbasedupontheJewish.Andwemayjudgethesimilaritytoo

closetoadmitthelikelihoodoftheirbeingofwhollyindependentorigin—despitetheobviousnessofacleansingwashingasa

rite of initiation and its widespread, independent use as such amongpaganreligions.Yettheintermediatealternativeremains

thatbothritesmayhavehadtheirrootsindependentlyfixedinacommonorigin,whiletheirdetailedsimilaritiesweretheresult

ofagradualandonlysemi-consciousassimilationtakingplacebetweensimilarcontemporaryritesthroughalongperiod,during

whicheachborrowedsomethingfromtheother.

We will probably agree at once that it is very unlikely that the Jewsdirectly borrowed their proselyte-baptism from the Christians, or evenfromJohntheBaptist,ashasbeenmaintained-thelatterbyBörner

and others, and the former by De Wette and others. So immediate aborrowing of so solemn a rite is incredible, whenwe bear inmind thesharp antagonism which the Jews cherished towards the Christiansduringthisperiod.f442Whether,ontheotherhand,theJewishritemaynot have lain at the basis of the Christian rite requires moreconsideration. Our decision in the matter will probably depend on ananswertothestubbornlymootedquestionwhethertheJewishceremony

ofproselyte-baptismexistedwhenChristianbaptismwasinstituted.Theevidencewhichwehavedrawnuponforthedescriptionofitcomesfromthe rabbinical literature, beginning with the Gemara. Whether thisevidence,however,isvalidforaperiodbeforethe

destruction of the Temple admits of very serious question. ProfessorSchürerhasrecentlyarguedverystrenuouslyforthe

existenceoftheJewishrite inthetimeofChrist.f443Oncomparisonoftheactualevidenceadducedbyhim,however,withthat

dealtwith,say,byWiner inhis"Realwörterbuch"—wheretheoppositeconclusionisreached—itdoesnotappearthatithasbeensubstantiallyincreasedintheinterval.ThestressofSchürer'sargumentislaidnotonthese itemsofdirect testimony—whichallcometousfromthesecondcentury and later — but on general considerations derived from thenature of the case. We require only a slight knowledge of PharisaicJudaisminthetimeofChrist,reasonsSchürer,torealizehowoftenevenanativeJewwascompelledbythelawtosubmittoceremonialwashings.Tertullianjustlysays,"AJewwashesdaily,becauseheisdailydefiled."Aheathen was, thus, self-evidently unclean and could not possibly havebeenadmittedintothecongregationwithouthavingsubjectedhimselftoa Levitical "washing of baptism."Whatever special testimonies exist tothefactofsucharequirement,theyarescarcelynecessarytosupportsoconclusiveageneralconsideration;againstwhich,moreover, thesilenceof Philo and Josephus cannot avail, nor the somewhat unintelligibledistinction which it is sought to erect between Levitical washings andproselyte-baptism technically so called. Winer on the other hand laysstressonthelatenessofthedirecttestimonytotheexistenceofproselyte-baptism and the silence of Josephus, Philo, and the oldest Targumists,whileneverthelessallowingthat theproselytewas,ofcourse,compelledtosubmithimselftoalustration.HeonlydeniesthatthislustrationhadalreadyinthetimeofChristbecomefixed,inthecaseoftheproselyte,asnolongeranordinarylustrationforthesakeofceremonialcleansing,butaspecial, initiatory rite,with its time,circumstances,andritualalreadydeveloped into what is subsequently known as proselyte-baptism. Hethus fully answers in advance Schürer's question of wherein proselyte-baptismdiffersfromordinarycleansinglustration.Inessenceandorigin,

doubtless, in nothing; but very widely when considered as a ritualceremony with its fixed laws, constituting a part, and in the minds ofmanythechiefpart,oftheinitiationintoJudaism.

In these few words we have already hinted what seems to us thereasonableviewtotakeofthematter.Thefactsseemtobethat

directtestimonytotheexistenceofproselyte-baptismfailsusinthemidstofthesecondcenturyafterChrist,butthat

nevertheless something of the nature of a cleansing bath must bepresupposedfromtheverybeginningasapartofthereceptionof

theproselyte.Delitzschcallsattentiontoapointwhichappearstobeofimportanceforunderstandingtheoriginoftherite,

whenheadvertstotheconnectionofthisbathwiththesacrifice,sothatitsprescriptionmustdatefromatimeprevioustothe

cessation of the sacrifices. "Its origin also in itself," he remarks.f444"presupposestheexistenceoftheTemple,andthecleansingsrequiredbyits sacrificial services, which were performed by plunge- baths; post-biblicallegallanguageusesthewordlbf(cf.<120514>2Kings5:14,LXXejbapti>sato) for these cleansings, while the Pentateuchal Priest-codeuses for them the older and vaguer term µymb wrçb xjr (e.g.<031505>Leviticus15:5,6,etc.).Beyonddoubtcleansingbymeansofaplunge-bathwasalreadyfromaveryearlytimedemandedoftheheathen,afterhehadbeen circumcised, as apreconditionofhisparticipation inthesacrificialservices.WeseethisfromtheJerusalemTargumonExod.12:44,according towhich thepurchasedheathenslave, inorder to takepart in the passover, must not only be circumcised but also receive aplunge-bath.ThisisalsopresupposedintheMishna(Pesachim8:8)asanexistinginstitution,anditisonlydebatedwhethertheheathenbelongstothe class of the simply unclean, who through the plunge-bath becamecleanbytheeveningofthesameday,ortotheclassoftheunclean-from-a-dead-bodywhoseuncleannesslastedsevendays(cf.<031505>Leviticus15:5, 13)." These fruitful remarks seem to us to uncover the origin ofproselyte-baptism in a twofold sense. They point us back to the time

when it originated;f445 but in doing so they point us also back to thethingoutofwhichitoriginated.Witnesstoitasanimportantelementintheriteofinitiationfails,asweascendthestreamoftime,inthemidstofthe second century: nevertheless, it presupposes the sacrifice, apreparationforwhichitessentiallyis;andthereforeitmusthaveexistedinthisformandmeaningbeforethedestructionoftheTemple.Itwasontheotherhand,however,onlyafterthecessationofthesacrificesthatitcouldbecomeanindependentelementoftheriteofinitiation:forthis,itmust have first lost its reference to sacrifice and have acquired a newmeaning as a symbolical "new birth." In other words, in the rite ofproselyte-baptism,properlysocalled,weseetheresultofadevelopment—adevelopmentwhich requires the assumptionof its existencebeforetheTemple services ceased inorder thatwemayunderstand its origin,butwhichequallyrequirestheassumptionthattheTempleserviceshadlong ceased, in order that we may understand its existing nature aswitnessedtointherabbinicalwritings.Itcouldnothavecomeintobeingexceptastheprerequisitetosacrifice;itcouldnothavegrownintoitsfullformuntilitsoriginalrelationtosacrificehadbeenpartiallyobscuredinthecourseoftime.f446AlthoughwemustdiscernitsrootssetinatimebeforethedestructionoftheTemple,therefore,wecannotcarrythefull-grown plant back into that period. It was apparently a growth of thesecondcenturyafterChrist;whatexistedinthefirstcentury,andinthetime of Christ and John, was not this elaborate and independentinitiatory rite, but a simple lustration not distinguishable and notdistinguished fromother lustrations. If, then,we are to seek a point ofdeparturefortheriteofChristianbaptisminJewishcustom,wecannotfinditinthedevelopedriteofproselyte-baptism.

Proselyte-baptism and Christian baptism appear rather as parallelgrowthsfromacommonroot.Atthebaseofbothalikeliethe

cleansinglustrationsoftheJewishlaw.Itwasthese,knowledgeofwhichtheBaptistcounteduponwhenhecameproclaiminghis

"baptism."Thisisindeedevident,independentlyofwhathasbeenurgedhere.f447"ThebaptismofJohnandproselyte-baptism,"

saysDelitzschwith great justice, "standonly in indirect relation to one

another,insofarasoneandthesameideaunderlies

both kinds of baptism aswell as the legal lustrations in general,— theideaofthepassagefromaconditionofmoraluncleannesstoaconditionof purity from sin and guilt… There is no reason to assume that thebaptismofJohnorChristianbaptismoriginatedinproselyte-baptism,oreven that it derived only its form from it. Itwas,moreover, unlike theeconomyofGod,tobuilduponaPharisaicusageandnotratheruponanancientsymbol,alreadysanctifiedbythegivingoftheLawonSinai.Johnhimself assigns the choiceof this symbolical rite todivine appointment(<430133>John1:33)…JohannicandChristianbaptismhave,however,inconformitywiththenatureoftheNewCovenantasafulfillmentoftheLaw and the Prophets (<400517>Matthew 5:17), over and above theirconnection with the Law and the Levitical lustrations in general asprescribed in it, also another point of connection in prophecy, in thepredictionof a futurepurificationand sanctification throughwater andthe Spirit (<263625>Ezekiel 36:25; 27:23f.; <234403>Isaiah 44:3;<381301>Zechariah13:1)."Thiscutstotherootof thematter.Christianbaptismwasnotsuchanewthingthatitcouldnotbeunderstoodbythedisciples

to whom it was committed. It had its very close connection withprecedentandwell-knownrites.Butitsconnectionwasnot

specifically with proselyte-baptism as subsequently developed into aformalriteofinitiationintoJudaism;butwiththe

cleansing lustrations fromwhich that incommonwith this sprung,andwiththepropheticalpredictionsofMessianiccleansing.

The bearing of this conclusion upon the hope that we might learnsomethingofvalueastothemodeofprimitiveChristianbaptism

fromthemodeinwhichproselyte-baptismwasadministered,isobvious.Ifproselyte-baptism,asknowntouswithitsestablished

ritual, isofsecondcenturygrowth,while therootsofChristianbaptismareset,notinit,butinthedivinelyprescribed

lustrationsandprophetic announcementsof theOldTestament,weareleftwithoutgroundfromthisquarterforanystringent

inferencesastothemodeofthefirstadministrationofChristianbaptism.Theideaofthelustrationswasbathingforthesake

of cleansing; and the "many baptisms" of the Jews were performed inmore modes of application of the water than one. The propheticannouncements in like manner run through all possible modes ofapplyingthewater.Inanymodeofapplication,itwascompletecleansingwhichwassymbolized.Beyondthat,itwouldseem,wecannotproceedonthispathway.

OurarchaeologicalinquiryastothemodeofChristianbaptismleavesushanging,then,inthemiddleofthesecondcentury.What

Christianbaptismwaslikeatthatpointoftimewecanformatolerablyclearnotionof.Itwasacleansingbath,usually

performedbyaformoftrineimmersion.Exceptionswerefreelyallowedwheneverdictatedbyscarcityofwaterorillnessonthe

partoftherecipient.Andtheusualmodeofadministration,certainlyatRome and probably also elsewhere, appears to have beenby pouringwater on theheadof a candidate standing in a greater or lessdepthofwater.Afairpresumptionmayholdthatthisrite,commoninthemiddleofthesecondcentury,representsmoreorlessfullytheprimitiverite.Butwedarenotpressthispresumptionveryfar.Take, forexample, thetwopoints of trine baptism and immersion. Are not both in the line of anaturaldevelopment?Wouldtherenotbereasonenoughfortheriseofathreefoldritual in theChristianChurch inthe fact that theybaptizedintheTriunenameandthattheJewsbaptizedbyasingleimmersion;justastheCatholicsinSpainfoundgroundatalaterperiodforbaptizingbyasingle immersion in the fact that the Arians baptized by a trineimmersion?

Would therenotbe reasonenough foragradualgrowthof the rite toafull immersion in the fact that that form of baptismwould seemmore

completely to symbolize total cleansing, was consonant with theconception framed of the river baptism of John, of which our LordHimself partook, and seemed vividly to represent also that death andresurrection with Christ suggested in certain passages of the NewTestament? All the materials certainly existed for the development ofsuch a form of baptism as meets us in the second century, from anybeginning which would give the slightest starting- point for such adevelopment.Suchbeingthecase,weappeartobeforbiddentoassumethat second century baptism any more certainly reproduces for usprimitive Christian baptism, than the second century eucharistreproduces for us the primitive Lord's Supper or the second centurychurchorganizationtheprimitivebishop-presbyter.Where,then,itmaybeasked,arewetogo forknowledgeofreallyprimitivebaptism?If thearchaeologyoftheritesuppliesgroundfornoverysafeinference,wherecan we obtain satisfactory guidance? Apparently only from the NewTestamentitself.Weareseeminglyshutuptothehintsandimplicationsofthesacredpagesfortrustworthyinformationhere.Buttheconclusionto which these hints and implications would conduct us, it is not thepurposeofthisarticleeventosuggest.

ThePolemicsofInfantBaptism1


ThequestionoftheSubjectsofBaptismisoneofthatclassofproblemsthesolutionofwhichhangsuponapreviousquestion.AccordingasisourdoctrineoftheChurch,sowillbeourdoctrineoftheSubjectsofBaptism.Ifwebelieve,withtheChurchofRome,thattheChurchisinsuchasensetheinstituteofsalvationthatnoneareunitedtoChristsavethroughtheinstrumentalityofherordinances,thenweshallinevitablydeterminethepropersubjectsofherordinances inoneway. If,on theotherhand,webelieve, with the Protestant bodies, that only those already united toChrist have right within His house and to its privileges, we shallinevitablydeterminethem inanotherway.AllProtestants shouldeasilyagreethatonlyChrist'schildrenhavearighttotheordinanceofbaptism.The cleavage in their ranks enters in only when we inquire how theexternal Church is to hold itself relatively to the recognition of thechildren of Christ. If we say that its attitude should be as exclusive aspossible, and that it must receive as the children of Christ only thosewhom it is forced to recognize as such, thenwe shall inevitablynarrowthecircleofthesubjectsofbaptismtothelowestlimits.If,ontheotherhand,wesaythatitsattitudeshouldbeasinclusiveaspossible,andthatit shouldreceiveas thechildrenofChristallwhom, in the judgmentofcharity,itmayfairlyrecognizeassuch,thenweshallnaturallywidenthecircle of the subjects of baptism to far more ample limits. The formerrepresents, broadly speaking, thePuritan idea of the Church, the latterthe general Protestant doctrine. It is on the basis of the PuritanconceptionoftheChurchthattheBaptistsareledtoexcludeinfantsfrombaptism.For, ifwearetodemandanything likedemonstrativeevidenceof actual participation in Christ before we baptize, no infant, who byreasonof years is incapableof affording signs of his unionwithChrist,canbethoughtapropersubjectoftherite.

Theviceof this system,however, is that it attemptsthe impossible.Nomancanreadtheheart.Asaconsequence,itfollowsthatnoone,howeverrich his manifestation of Christian graces, is baptized on the basis of

infallible knowledge of his relation to Christ. All baptism is inevitablyadministeredon thebasisnotofknowledgebutofpresumption.And ifwemust baptize onpresumption,thewhole principle is yielded; and itwouldseemthatwemustbaptizeallwhomwemayfairlypresumetobemembers of Christ's body. In this state of the case, it is surelyimpracticabletoassertthattherecanbebutonegroundonwhichafairpresumption of inclusion in Christ's body can be erected, namely,personal profession of faith. Assuredly a human profession is nomoresolidbasistobuilduponthanadivinepromise.Sosoon,therefore,asitisfairly apprehended that we baptize on presumption and not onknowledge, it is inevitable thatwe shall baptize all those for whomwemay,onanygrounds,fairlycherishagoodpresumptionthattheybelongtoGod'speople-andthissurelyincludestheinfantchildrenofbelievers,concerningthefavorofGodtowhomthereexistmanypreciouspromisesonwhichpiousparents,Baptistsasfullyasothers,restindevoutfaith.

To this solid proof of the rightful inclusion of the infant children ofbelievers among the subjects of baptism, is added the unavoidableimplicationofthecontinuityoftheChurchofGod,as it is taught intheScriptures, from its beginning to its consummation; and of theundeniable inclusion within the bounds of this Church, in its pre-Christian form, asparticipants of its privileges, inclusiveof the parallelrite of circumcision, of the infant children of the flock, with nosubsequenthintoftheirexclusion.Tothisisaddedfurtherthehistoricalevidence of the prevalence in the Christian Church of the custom ofbaptizingtheinfantchildrenofbelievers,fromtheearliestChristianagesdown to to-day.Themanner inwhich it isdealtwithbyAugustineandthePelagians in their controversy, by Cyprian in his letter to Fidus, byTertullianinhistreatiseonbaptism,leavesnoroomfordoubtthatitwas,at the time when each of these writers wrote, as universal andunquestionedapracticeamongChristiansatlargeasitisto-day-while,whereveritwasobjectedto,theobjectionseemstohaverestedononeortheotheroftwocontraryerrors,eitheronanoverestimateoftheeffectsofbaptismoronanunderestimateoftheneedofsalvationforinfants.

Onsuchlinesastheseaconvincingpositiveargumentiscapableofbeingset forth for infant baptism, to the support of which whatever obscure

allusions to itmay be found in the NewTestament itself may then besummoned. And on these lines the argument has ordinarily been verysuccessfullyconducted,asmaybeseenbyconsultingthetreatmentofthesubject in any of our standard works on systematic theology, as forexample Dr. Charles Hodge's.2 It has occurred to me that additionalsupportmightbebrought to theconclusions thuspositivelyattainedbyobserving the insufficiencyof the caseagainst infantbaptismasarguedby thebest furnishedopponents of that practice.Therewould seemnobetterwaytoexhibitthisinsufficiencythantosubjectthepresentationoftheargumentsagainst infant baptism, as set forth by some confessedlyimportantrepresentativeof itsopponents, toa runninganalysis. Ihaveselected for the purpose the statement given in Dr. A. H. Strong's"Systematic Theology."3 What that eminently well-informed andjudicious writer does not urge against infant baptism may well bebelieved tobe confessedly of small comparativeweight as an argumentagainstthedoctrineandpractice.Sothatifwedonotfindtheargumentsheurgesconclusive,wemaywellbecontentwiththepositionwealreadyoccupy.

Dr. Strong opens the topic, "The Subjects of Baptism,"4 with thestatement that "theproper subjects of baptismare those onlywho givecredibleevidencethattheyhavebeenregeneratedbytheHolySpirit,-or,in other words, have entered by faith into the communion of Christ'sdeathandresurrection"-astatementwhichif,liketheordinarylanguageof the Scriptures, it is intended to have reference only to the adults towhom it is addressed,wouldbe sufficientlyunexceptionable; butwhichthe "only" advertises us to suspect to bemore inclusive in its purpose.This statement is followed at once by the organized "proof that onlypersons giving evidence of being regenerated are proper subjects ofbaptism."Thisproofisderived:

(a) From the command and example of Christ and his apostles, whichshow:First,thatthoseonlyaretobebaptizedwhohavepreviouslybeenmadedisciples....Secondly,thatthoseonlyaretobebaptizedwhohavepreviouslyrepentedandbelieved....

(b)Fromthenatureofthechurch-asacompanyofregeneratepersons....

(c) From the symbolism of the ordinance - as declaring a previousspiritualchangeinhimwhosubmitstoit.

EachoftheseitemsissupportedbyScripturetexts,thoughsomeofthemarenodoubtsufficientlyinapposite.As,forexample,whenonlyJohniii.5andRom.vi.13-neitherofwhichhasanything todowith thevisibleChurch-arequotedtoprovethatthevisibleChurch(ofwhichbaptismisan ordinance) is "a company of regenerate persons"; or as whenMatt.xxviii.19isquotedtoprovethatbaptismtookplaceafterthediscipling,as if the words ran maqhteu,santej bapti,zete, whereas the passage,actually standing maqhteu/sate bapti,zontej, merely demands that thediscipling shall be consummated in, shall be performed by means ofbaptism; or as when Acts x. 47, where the fact that the extraordinarypowerof theHolySpirithadcomeuponCornelius ispleadedas reasonwhybaptismshouldnotbewithheldfromhim,5andRom,vi.2-5,whichonlydevelops thespiritual implicationofbaptism,aremade toserveasproofs that the symbolism of the ordinance declares always andconstantly a "previous" spiritual change. Apart from the Scripturalevidence actually brought forward, moreover, the propositions, in theextremeforminwhichtheyarestated,cannotbesupportedbyScripture.The Scriptures do not teach that the external Church is a company ofregenerate persons - the parable of the tares for example declares theopposite:thoughtheyrepresentthatChurchasthecompanyofthosewhoare presumably regenerate. They do not declare that baptismdemonstratesa "previous"change - the caseofSimonMagus,Acts viii.13, is enough to exhibit the contrary: though they represent the rite assymbolical of the inner cleansing presumed to be already present, andconsequentlyasadministeredonlyonprofessionoffaith.

The main difficulty with Dr. Strong's argument, however, is theillegitimate use it makes of the occasional character of the NewTestament declarations. He is writing a "Systematic Theology" and isthereforestrivingtoembracethewhole truth inhisstatements:he saysthereforewith conscious reference to infants, whose case he is soon totreat, "Thoseonlyare tobebaptizedwhohavepreviously repentedandbelieved," and the like. But the passages he quotes in support of thisposition are not drawn from a "Systematic Theology" but from direct

practicalappealstoquitedefiniteaudiences,consistingonlyofadults;orfromnarrativesofwhattookplaceastheresultofsuchappeals.BecausePetertoldthementhatstoodabouthimatPentecost,"Repentyeandbebaptized," it does not follow that baptism might not have beenadministeredbythesamePetertotheinfantsofthoserepentantsinnersprevious to the infants' own repentance. Because Philip baptized theconvertsofSamariaonlyaftertheyhadbelieved, itdoesnot followthathewould not baptize their infants until they had grown old enough torepeattheirparents'faith,thattheymight,likethem,receiveitssign.

The assertion contained in the first proof is, therefore, a non sequiturfrom the texts offered in support of it. There is a suppressed premisenecessary to be supplied before the assumed conclusion follows fromthem, and that premise is that the visible Church consists of believersonly without inclusion of their children - that Peter meant nothing onthat day of Pentecost when he added to the words which Dr. Strongquotes:"RepentyeandbebaptizedeveryoneofyouinthenameofJesusChrist unto the remission of your sins" - those other words which Dr.Strongdoesnotquote:"Fortoyouis thepromiseandtoyourchildren"(Acts ii. 38, 39). This suppressed premise Dr. Strong adjoins in theseconditemofproofwhichheadduces;butwemustobservethatitisnotaseconditem;butanecessaryelementinthefirstitemwhichwithoutitis invalid.Inaword,whenwecorrect theScriptureheadducesandtheillegitimate use he makes of Scripture, Dr. Strong's whole argumentreduces to the one item of the "nature of the Church, as a company ofregeneratepersons."Itisonlyonthegroundthatthisisthetrueideaofthe Church that the passages quoted to prove that baptism is to beadministered "only" to such as have previously repented and believed,andthosequotedtoprovethatthesymbolismoftheordinancedeclaresa"previous" spiritual change in him who submits to it, will justify the"only"and"previous" inwhich liestheirpoint.Thevalidityof theproofhe offers thus depends on the truth of the assertion that the Churchconsistsofregeneratepersons;andwhetherthisbetrueornotweneednotherestaytoexamine:certainlythetextsheadducesinproofofit,asalreadyintimated,makenoapproachtoestablishingit.WerestsecurelyintheresultthataccordingtoDr.Strong'sargumentaswellasourownconviction, the subjects of baptism are the members of the visible

Church:andwhothoseare,willcertainlybedeterminedbyourtheoryofthenatureoftheChurch.

Apageortwofurtheron6hetakesupthequestionof"InfantBaptism"exprofesso. This "we reject and reprehend," he tells us, and that for thefollowingreasons,viz.:

(a) Infant baptism iswithoutwarrant, either express or implied, in theScripture....

(b)Infantbaptismisexpresslycontradicted[byScripturalteaching]....

(c) The rise of infant baptism in the history of the church is due tosacramentalconceptionsofChristianity,sothatallargumentsinitsfavorfrom thewritings of the first three centuries are equally arguments forbaptismalregeneration....

(d)Thereasoningbywhichitissupportedisunscriptural,unsound,anddangerousinitstendency....

(e)Thelackofagreementamongpedobaptistsastothewarrantforinfantbaptismandastotherelationofbaptizedinfantstothechurch,togetherwiththemanifestdeclineofthepracticeitself,areargumentsagainstit....

(f)Theevileffectsofinfantbaptismareastrongargumentagainstit.

Hereisquitealistofarguments.Wemustlookattheitemsonebyone.

(a)WhenweaskafteradirectScripturalwarrant for infantbaptism, inthesensewhichDr.Stronghas inmind in the firstof thesearguments,we,ofcourse,have theNewTestament inview,seeing that it isonly inthenewdispensationthatthisritehasbeenordained.Inthissenseofthewords, we may admit his first declaration - that there is no expresscommand that infants shouldbebaptized;andwith italsohis second-thatthereisinScripturenoclearexampleofthebaptismofinfants,thatis,ifweunderstandbythisthatthereisnoexpressrecord,recitinginsomanywords,thatinfantswerebaptized.Whenheaddstothese,however,a third contention, that "the passages held to imply infant baptism

contain, when fairly interpreted, no reference to such a practice," webegintorecalcitrate.If itwereonlyassertedthatthesepassagescontainnosuchstringentproofthatinfantswerebaptizedaswouldsatisfyusonthepointintheabsenceofotherevidence,wemightyieldthispointalso.Butitistoomuchtoaskustobelievethattheycontain"noreferencetothepractice" if "fairly interpreted."What is a "fair" interpretation? Is itnot an interpretation which takes the passages as they stand, withoutdesiretomakeunduecapitalofthemonewayortheother?Well,a fairinterpretation of these passages, in this sense, might preventpaedobaptists from claiming them as a demonstrative proof of infantbaptism, and it would also certainly prevent anti-paedobaptists fromassertingthattheyhave"noreferencetosuchapractice."Itshould leadbothpartiestoagreethatthepassageshaveapossiblebutnotanecessaryreference to infantbaptism - that theyare neutral passages, in aword,which apparently imply infant baptism, but which may be explainedwithout involving that implication if we otherwise know that infantbaptismdidnotexistinthatday.Fairlyviewed,inotherwords,theyarepassages which will support any other indications of infant baptismwhichmaybebroughtforward,butwhichwillscarcelysufficetoproveitagainstevidencetothecontrary,ortodomorethanraiseapresumptionin its favor in the absence of other evidence for it. For what are thesepassages?TheimportantonesareActsxvi.15,whichdeclaresthatLydiawas"baptizedandherhousehold,"andActsxvi.33,whichdeclaresthatthe jailer was "baptized and all his," together with I Cor. i. 16, "And Ibaptized also the household of Stephanas." Certainly at first blush wewould think that the repeated baptism of households without furtherdescription,wouldimplythebaptismoftheinfantsconnectedwiththem.Itmaybea "fair" response to this thatwedonotknowthat therewereanyinfantsinthesehouseholds-whichistrueenough,butnotsufficientto remove the suspicion that there may have been. It may be a still"fairer" reply to say thatwhether the infants of these families (if therewereinfantsinthem)werebaptizedornot,woulddependonthepracticeof the apostles; and whatever that practice was would be readilyunderstoodbythefirstreadersoftheActs.Butthiswouldonlyamounttoasking that infant baptism should not be founded solely on thesepassagesalone;andthiswehavealreadygranted.

NeitheroftheselinesofargumentisadducedbyDr.Strong.Theywouldnotjustifyhisposition-whichisnotthatthebaptismof infantscannotbe proved by these passages, but much more than this - that a fairinterpretationofthemdefinitelyexcludesallreferencetoitbythem.Letus seewhatDr. Strongmeansby a "fair" interpretation.To the case ofLydiaheappends"cf.40,"whichtellsuswhenPaulandSilaswereloosedfrom prison "they entered into the house of Lydia, andwhen they hadseen the brethren they comforted them and departed" - from which,apparently, he would have us make two inferences, (1) that these"brethren"constitutedthehouseholdofLydiathatwasbaptized,and(2)that these "brethren"were all adults. In likemanner to the case of thejailerheappendsthemystic"cf.34,"whichtellsusthatthesavedjailerbroughthisformerprisonersupintohishouseandsetmeatbeforethemand"rejoicedgreatly,havingbelieved,withallhishouse,onGod"-fromwhichhewouldapparentlyhaveusinferthattherewasnomemberofthehousehold, baptized by Paul, who was too young to exercise personalfaith.SohesayswithreferencetoICor. i.16, that"ICor.xvi.15showsthat the whole family of Stephanas, baptized by Paul, were adults."Nevertheless, when we look at I Cor. xvi. 15, we read merely that thehouseofStephanaswere the first fruitsofAchaiaand that theyhadsetthemselves to minister unto the saints - which leaves the questionwhether they are all adults or not just where it was before, that is,absolutelyundetermined.

Nor is this all. To these passages Dr. Strong appends two others, oneproperlyenough,ICor.vii.14,wherePauladmonishestheChristiannottodeserttheunbelievinghusbandorwife,"fortheunbelievinghusbandissanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in thebrother;elsewereyourchildrenunclean;butnowaretheyholy."Thisisdoubtlessapassagesimilartotheothers;apassagecertainlywhichdoesnot explicitly teach infant baptism, but equally certainly which is notinconsistentwithit-whichwould,indeed,findareadyexplanationfromsuchacustomifsuchacustomexisted,andthereforestandsasoneofthepassageswhichraiseatleastasuspicionthatinfantbaptismunderliestheformofexpression-sincetheholinessofthechildrenistakenforgrantedin it and the sanctificationof theunbelievingpartner inferred from it -butisyetnodoubtcapableofanexplanationonthesuppositionthatthat

practice did not exist and is therefore scarcely a sure foundation for adoctrine asserting it.Dr.Strong is,however,not satisfiedwith showingthat no stringent inference can be drawn from it in favor of infantbaptism.Heclaimsitasa"suretestimony,"a"plainproof"againstinfantbaptism,onthegroundsthattheinfantsandtheunbelievingparentareputbyitinthesamecategory,and(quotingJacobi)thatifchildrenhadbeenbaptized,Paulwould certainlyhave referred to their baptismas aproofof theirholiness.And this in the faceof theobvious fact that theholinessofthechildrenisassumedasbeyonddisputeandinnoneedofproof,doubtas towhichwouldbe toohorrible tocontemplate,and thesanctificationofthehusbandorwifeinferredfromit.Ofcourse,itisthesanctityorholinessofexternalconnectionandprivilege that is referredto,bothwithreferencetothechildrenandtheparent;butthatoftheoneistakenforgranted,thatoftheotherisargued;henceitliesclosetoinferthat the one may have had churchly recognition and the other not.Whether that was true or not, however, the passage cannot positivelydecide for us; it only raises a suspicion. But this suspicion ought to befranklyrecognized.

Theotherpassagewhich isadjoinedto these isstrangely found in theircompany,althoughit,too,isoneofthe"neutraltexts."ItisMatt.xix.14:"Suffer the little children and forbid themnot to come untome; for tosuch belongeth the kingdom of heaven." What has this to do withbaptism?Certainlynothingdirectly;only if itbeheld indirectlytoshowthat infants were received by Christ as members of His Kingdom onearth,thatis,ofHisChurch,canitbearonthecontroversy.ButnoticeDr.Strong's comment: "None would have 'forbidden,' if Jesus and hisdiscipleshadbeeninthehabitofbaptizinginfants."Doeshereallythinkthistouchesthematterthatisraisedbythisquotation?Nobodysupposesthat "Jesus and his disciples" were in the habit of baptizing infants;nobody supposes that at the time these words were spoken, Christianbaptismhad been somuch as yet instituted. Dr. Strongwould have toshow, not that infant baptism was not practised before baptism wasinstituted, but that the children were not designated by Christ asmembersofHis "Kingdom,"before thepresumption for infantbaptismwouldbeextruded fromthis text. It ishisunmeasuredzeal tomakealltextswhichhavebeenappealed tobypaedobaptists -notmerely fail to

teachpaedobaptism-butteachthatchildrenwerenotbaptized,thathasledhimsofarastrayhere.

We cannotprofess to admire, then, the "fair" interpretationswhichDr.Strong makes of these texts. No one starting out without a foregoneconclusion could venture to say that, when "fairly interpreted," theycertainlymakenoreference tobaptismof infants.Nevertheless,I freelyallowthattheydonotsuffice,takenbythemselves,toprovethatinfantswere baptized by the apostles - they only suggest this supposition andraise a presumption for it. And, therefore, I am prepared to allow ingeneralthevalidityofDr.Strong'sfirstargument-whenthussoftenedtoreasonable proportions. It is true that there is no express command tobaptizeinfantsintheNewTestament,noexpressrecordofthebaptismofinfants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must inferfrom them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this werenecessary to justify the usage we should have to leave it incompletelyjustified. But the lack of this expresswarrant is something far short offorbidding the rite;and if thecontinuityof theChurch throughallagescanbemadegood,thewarrantforinfantbaptismisnottobesought inthe New Testament but in the Old Testament, when the Church wasinstituted, and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the NewTestamentwouldwarrantouromittingitnow.AsLightfootexpresseditlongago,"Itisnotforbidden"intheNewTestamentto"baptizeinfants,-therefore, theyaretobebaptized."7Dr.Strongcommitshis first logicalerrorindemandingexpresswarrantforthecontinuanceofalongsettledinstitution,insteadofaskingforwarrantforsettingitaside.

(b)Ifthusthefirstargumentisirrelevantasawholeaswellasnotveryjudiciouslyputinitsdetails,isnotitsfailurewellatonedforinthesecondone?His second argument undertakes to show that "infant baptism isexpresslycontradicted"byScriptural teaching.Here, at length,wehavethepromiseofwhatwasneeded.But ifweexpectstringentreasonherefor the alteration of the children-including covenant, we shall be sadlydisappointed. Dr. Strong offers four items. First, infant baptism iscontradicted"bytheScripturalprerequisitesof faithandrepentance,assignsofregeneration,"whichisvalidonlyonthesuppressedassumptionthatbaptismispermissibleonlyinthecaseofthosewhoproveaprevious

regeneration - which is the very point in dispute. Secondly, "by theScripturalsymbolismoftheordinance.""Asweshouldnotburyapersonbeforehisdeath,soweshouldnotsymbolicallyburyapersonbybaptismuntil he has in spirit died to sin."Herenot only that the symbolism ofbaptismisburialisgratuitouslyassumed,butalsothatthisact,whateverbe its symbolism, could be the symbol only of an already completedprocess in the heart of the recipient - which again is the very point indispute. Thirdly, "by the Scriptural constitution of the church" - whereagainthewholevalidityoftheargumentdependsontheassumptionthatinfantsarenotmembersoftheChurch-theverypointindispute.Thesethree argumentsmust therefore be thrown at once out of court. If theScriptures teach thatpersonal faithand repentance areprerequisites tobaptism,iftheyteachthatonemusthavepreviouslydiedtosinbeforeheis baptized, if they teach that the visible Church consists of regenerateadults only -why, on any of these three identical propositions, each ofwhichimpliesalltheothers,ofcourse infantsmaynotbebaptized- forthisagain isbutan identicalpropositionwithanyof the three.But it ishardly sound argumentation simply to repeat the matter in dispute inotherwordsandpleaditasproof.

Thefourthitemismorereasonable-"BytheScripturalprerequisitesforparticipation in theLord'sSupper.Participation in theLord'sSupper istherightonlyofthosewhocan'discerntheLord'sbody'(ICor.xi.29).Noreason can be assigned for restricting to intelligent communicants theordinanceof theSupper,whichwouldnot equally restrict to intelligentbelieverstheordinanceofBaptism."HenceDr.Strongthinks theGreekChurchmoreconsistentinadministeringtheLord'sSuppertoinfants.Itseems, however, a sufficient answer to this to point to the passagequoted:theexpressdeclarationofScripture,thatthosewhoareadmittedto the Lord's Supper - a declaration made to those who were already,baptizedChristians-shouldberestrictedtothosewhodiscerntheLord'sbody, isasufficientScripturalreasonforrestrictingparticipation in theLord's Supper to intelligent communicants; while the absence of thatScripture restriction in its case is a sufficient Scriptural reason forrefusingtoapplyittobaptism.IfwemustsupportthisScripturalreasonwith a purely rational one, it may be enough to add that the fact thatbaptismistheinitiatoryriteoftheChurchsuppliesuswithsuchareason.

TheordinancesoftheChurchbelongtothemembersofit;buteachinitsownappointedtime.Theinitiatoryordinancebelongstothemembersonbecoming members, other ordinances become their right as theappointedseasonsforenjoyingthemrollaround.Wemightaswellarguethat a citizen of theUnited States has no right to the protection of thepoliceuntilhecanexercisethefranchise.Therightsallbelongtohim:buttheexerciseofeachcomesinitsownseason.ItiseasilyseenbythehelpofsuchexamplesthatthepossessionofarighttotheinitiatoryordinanceoftheChurchneednotcarrywithittherighttotheimmediateenjoymentofallchurchprivileges:andthusthechallengeisansweredtoshowcausewhytherighttobaptismdoesnotcarrywithittherighttocommunioninthe Lord's Supper.8 With this challenge the second argument of Dr.Strongisanswered,too.

(c)Thethirdargument isreallyanattempttogetridof thepressureofthehistoricalargumentforinfantbaptism.IsitarguedthattheChristianChurch from the earliest traceable date baptized infants? - that this ispossibly hinted in JustinMartyr, assumed apparently in Irenaeus, andopenly proclaimed as apostolical by Origen and Cyprian while it wasvainlyopposedbyTertullian?Inansweritisrepliedthatallthesewriterstaughtbaptismalregenerationandthatinfantbaptismwasaninventioncoming in on the heels of baptismal regeneration and continued inexistence by State Churches. There is much that is plausible in thiscontention. The early Church did come to believe that baptism wasnecessary to salvation; this doctrine forms a natural reason for theextensionofbaptismtoinfants,lestdyingunbaptizedtheyshouldfailofsalvation. Nevertheless, the contention does not seem to be the trueexplanation of the line of development. First, it confuses a question oftestimony to fact with a question of doctrine. The two - baptismalregeneration and infant baptism - do not stand or fall together, in thetestimony of the Fathers. Their unconscious testimony to a currentpracticeproves itscurrency in theirday;but theirwitness toadoctrinedoes not prove its truth.Wemay ormay not agreewith them in theirdoctrine of baptismal regeneration. But we cannot doubt the truth oftheirtestimonytotheprevalenceofinfantbaptismintheirday.Weadmitthat their day is not the apostles' day.We couldwellwish thatwehadearlierwitness.WemaybesurefromthewitnessofOrigenandCyprian

thattheywerebaptizedintheirinfancy-thatis,thatinfantbaptismwastheusualpractice intheageofIrenaeus-aconclusionwhichisatoncestrengthenedbyandstrengthensthewitnessofIrenaeus.Butthepracticeofthelatterhalfofthesecondcenturyneednothavebeenthepracticeoftheapostles.Apresumptionisraised,however-even thoughsoweakaone that itwould not stand against adverse evidence. But where is theadverse evidence? Secondly, Dr. Strong's view reverses the historicaltestimony. As a matter of history it was not the inauguration of thepracticeof infantbaptismwhich thedoctrineof baptismal regenerationsecured,buttheendangeringofit.Itwasbecausebaptismwashedawayallsinandafterthatthereremainednomorelaverforregeneration,thatbaptismwaspostponed.It is forthisreasonthatTertullianproposes itspostponement. Lastly, though the historical evidence may not beconclusivefortheapostolicityofinfantbaptism,itisinthatdirectionandis all thatwe have. There is no evidence fromprimitive church historyagainst infantbaptism, except theambiguousevidenceofTertullian; sothatourchoice is to followhistoryandbaptize infantsor toreconstructbyapriorimethodsahistoryforwhichwehavenoevidence.

(d)Dr.Strong's fourth item is intendedasarefutalof the reasoningbywhichtheadvocatesofpaedobaptismsupporttheircontention.Assuchitnaturallytakesupthereasoningfromeverykindofsourcesanditisnotstrangethatsomeofthereasoningadducedinitisasdistastefultousasit is tohim.We shouldheartilyunitewithhim in refusing to allow theexistenceofanypowerintheChurchtomodifyorabrogateanycommandofChrist.Norcouldwefindanygreateracceptabilitythanhedoesinthenotionofan"organicconnection"betweentheparentandthechild,suchashequotesDr.Bushnellasadvocating.Neverthelesswecanbelieveinaparentactingasrepresentativeofthechildofhisloins,whosenurtureiscommitted to him; and we can believe that the status of the parentdetermines the status of the child - in the Church of the God whosepromise is "to you and your children," as well as, for example, in theState.AndwecanbelievethattheChurchincludestheminorchildrenofitsmembersforwhomtheymustasparentsact,withoutbelievingthatitistherebymadeahereditarybody.Idonotpurposeheretogooveragainthe proofs, which Dr. Hodge so cogently urges, that go to prove thecontinuity of the Church through the Old and New dispensations -

remainingunderwhateverchangeofdispensationthesameChurch,withthe same laws of entrance and the same constituents. The antithesiswhichDr.Strongadduces-that"theChristianChurchiseitheranatural,hereditary body, or it wasmerely typified by the Jewish people" - is afalse antithesis. TheChristianChurch is not a natural, hereditary bodyand yet it is notmerely the antitype of Israel. It is, the apostles beingwitnesses,theveritableIsraelitself.ItcarriedoverintoitselfallthatwasessentiallyIsraelitish-allthatwenttomakeupthebodyofGod'speople.Paul'sfiguresoftheolivetreeinRomansandofthebreakingdownofthemiddle wall of partition in Ephesians, suffice to demonstrate this; andbesidesthesefiguresherepeatedlyassertsitintheplainestlanguage.

SofullydidthefirstChristians-theapostles-realizethecontinuityoftheChurch, that they were more inclined to retain parts of the outwardgarments of the Church than to discard toomuch. Hence circumcisionitself was retained; and for a considerable period all initiates into theChurchwerecircumcisedJewsandreceivedbaptismadditionally.Wedonotdoubt thatchildrenborn into theChurchduring thisagewerebothcircumcisedandbaptized.Thechangefrombaptismsuperinduceduponcircumcisiontobaptismsubstitutedforcircumcisionwasslow,andnevercame until it was forced by the actual pressure of circumstances. Theinstrumentformakingthischangeandso-whocandoubtit?-forgivingtheriteofbaptismitsrightplaceasthesubstituteforcircumcision,wastheApostlePaul.Weseethechangeformallyconstitutedattheso-calledCouncilofJerusalem,inActsxv.PaulhadpreachedthegospeltoGentilesand had received them into the Church by baptism alone, thusrecognizing it alone as the initiatory rite, in the place of circumcision,insteadof treating asheretofore the two together as the initiatory ritesintotheChristianChurch.Butcertain teachers fromJerusalem,comingdowntoAntioch,taughtthebrethren"exceptyebecircumcisedafterthecustomofMoses ye cannot be saved." Paul took thematter before theChurch of Jerusalem from which these new teachers professed toemanate;anditsformaldecisionwasthattothosewhobelievedandwerebaptizedcircumcisionwasnotnecessary.

How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but twosymbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the

other, may be gathered from Col. ii. 11, when, speaking to a Christianaudience of the Church, he declares that "in Christ ye were alsocircumcised"-buthow?-"withacircumcisionnotmadewithhands, inputtingoffthebodyoftheflesh,"-thatis,inthecircumcisionofChrist.ButwhatwasthisChrist-ordainedcircumcision?TheApostlecontinues:"HavingbeenburiedwithHim inbaptism,whereinalso yewere raisedwithHimthroughfaithintheworkingofGod,whoraisedHimfromthedead."Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burialwithChristwasthecircumcisionwhichChristordained,inthepartakingofwhichtheybecamethetruecircumcision.Thisfallslittle,ifany,shortofadirectassertionthattheChristianChurch is Israel,andhas Israel'scircumcision,thoughnowintheformofbaptism.DoestheviewofPaul,now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only theBaptistideaoftheChurch?NodoubtalargenumberofthemembersoftheprimitiveChurchdid insist,asDr.Strongtrulysays, thatthosewhowerebaptizedshouldalsobecircumcised:andnodoubt,thisprovesthatintheirviewbaptismdidnottaketheplaceofcircumcision.Butthiswasan erroneous view: is represented in theNewTestament as erroneous;and it is this exact view againstwhich Paul protested to theChurch ofJerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv.Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcisionleads theminto theerrorof this fanatical,pharisaicalchurch-party! Letustakeourplacesinopposition,alongwithPaulandalltheapostles.

Whether,then,thatthefamilyistheunitofsocietyisarelicofbarbarismor not, it is the New Testament basis of the Church of God. God doesmake man the head of the woman - does enjoin the wife to be insubjectiontoherhusband-anddoesmaketheparentsactonbehalfoftheir minor children. He does, indeed, require individual faith forsalvation; but He organizes His people in families first; and then intochurches,recognizingintheirverywarpandwoofthefamilyconstitution.His promises are all the more precious that they are to us and ourchildren.Andthoughthismaynotfit inwiththegrowingindividualismoftheday,itisGod'sordinance.

(e) Dr. Strong's fifth argument is drawn from the divergent modes inwhich paedobaptists defend their position and from the decline among

themof thepracticeof the rite.Letus confess thatwedonotall arguealikeoraright.Butisnotthisaproofratherofthefirmestablishmentinourheartsofthepractice?Weallpractisealike;anditistheproprietyofthe practice, not the propriety of our defense of it, that is, after all, atstake. But the practice is declining, it is said. Perhaps this is true. Dr.Vedder'sstatisticsseem to show it.But if so,does thedecline show thepractice to be wrong, or Christians to be unfaithful? It is amongpaedobaptiststhatthedeclineistakingplace-thosewhostilldefendthepractice.PerhapsitisthesilentinfluenceofBaptistneighbors;perhapsitisunfaithfulnessinparents;perhapsthespreadofaQuakerishsentimentof undervaluation of ordinances. Many reasons may enter into theaccountofit.Buthowdoesitshowthepracticetobewrong?AccordingtotheBaptistreconstructionofhistory,theChurchbeganbynotbaptizinginfants.Butthisprimitiveandgodlypracticedeclined-rapidlydeclined-untilinthesecondcenturyallinfantswerebaptizedandTertullianraisedasolitaryandineffectualvoicecryingareturntotheolderpurity inthethird.Didthatdeclineofaprevalentusageproveittobeawrongusage?Bywhatlogiccanthedeclineinthesecondcenturybemadeanevidencein favor of the earlier usage, and that of the nineteenth an evidenceagainstit?

(f)Wemust pass on, however, to the final string of arguments, whichwouldfainpointouttheevileffectsof infantbaptism.First, it forestallsthe act of the child and so prevents him from ever obeying Christ'scommandtobebaptized-whichissimplybeggingthequestion.WesayitobeysChrist'scommandbygivingthechildearlybaptismandsomarkinghimastheLord's.Secondly,itissaidtoinducesuperstitiousconfidencein an outward rite, as if it possessed regenerating efficacy; and we arepointed to frantic mothers seeking baptism for their dying children.Undoubtedlytheevildoesoccurandneedscarefulguardingagainst.Butit isanevilnotconfinedtothisrite,butapt toattach itself toallrites-whichneednot, therefore,beallabolished.Wemayremark, inpassing,on the unfairness of bringing together here illustrative instances fromFrench Catholic peasants and High Church Episcopalians, as if thesewere of the same order with Protestants. Thirdly, it is said to tend tocorruptChristiantruthastothesufficiencyofScripture,theconnectionoftheordinances,andtheinconsistencyofanimpenitentlifewithchurch

membership,asifinfantbaptismnecessarilyarguedsacramentarianism,oras if thechurchesofotherProtestantbodieswereasamatterof factmore fullof "impenitentmembers" than thoseof theBaptists.This lastremark is inplacealso, in reply to the fourthpointmade,wherein it ischarged that the practice of infant baptism destroys the Church as aspiritualbodybymergingitinthenationandintheworld.Itisyettobeshown that the Baptist churches are purer than the paedobaptist. Dr.StrongseemstothinkthatinfantbaptismisresponsiblefortheUnitariandefectioninNewEngland.Iamafraidthecauselaymuchdeeper.Norisit a valid argument against infant baptism, that the churches do notalways fulfill their duty to their baptized members. This, and not thepracticeof infantbaptism, is the fertile causeof incongruities andevilsinnumerable.

Lastly, it is urged that infant baptism puts "into the place of Christ'scommand a commandment of men, and so admit[s] . . . the essentialprincipleofallheresy,schism,andfalsereligion"-agood,round,railingchargetobringagainstone'sbrethren:butasanargumentagainstinfantbaptism,drawnfromitseffects,somewhatofapetitioprincipii.Iftrue,itis serious enough. But Dr. Strong has omitted to give the chapter andversewhereChrist'scommandnottobaptizeinfantsistobefound.Oneortheotherofusiswrong,nodoubt;butdowenotbreakanundoubtedcommand of Christ when we speak thus harshly of our brethren, Hischildren, whom we should love?Were it not better to judge, each theothermistaken, and recognize, each the other's desire to please Christand follow His commandments? Certainly I believe that our BaptistbrethrenomittofulfillanordinanceofChrist'shouse,sufficientlyplainlyrevealed asHiswill,when they exclude the infant children of believersfrombaptism.But I know they do this unwittingly in ignorance; and Icannotrefusethemtherighthandoffellowshiponthataccount.Butnow,having run through these variousarguments, towhat conclusiondowecome?Are they sufficient to set aside our reasoned conviction, derivedfromsomesuchargumentasDr.Hodge's,thatinfantsaretobebaptized?Athousandtimesno.SolongasitremainstruethatPaulrepresentstheChurchoftheLivingGodtobeone,foundedononecovenant(whichthelawcouldnotsetaside)fromAbrahamtoto-day,solongitremainstruethat thepromise is tousandourchildrenandthat themembersof the

visibleChurchconsistofbelieversandtheirchildren-allofwhomhavearight to all the ordinances of the visible Church, each in its appointedseason. The argument in a nutshell is simply this:God establishedHisChurch in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They mustremainthereuntilHeputsthemout.Hehasnowhereputthemout.Theyare still then members of His Church and as such entitled to itsordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing insimilarplaceintheNewDispensationtocircumcisionintheOld,islikeittobegiventochildren.

Endnotes:

1. ReprintedfromThePresbyterianQuarterly,xiii.1899,pp.313-334.2. "SystematicTheology,"iii.1874,pp.548ff.3. 1886,pp.534ff.4. P.530.5. This interpretation of Acts x. 47must certaintly greatly embarrass

Dr.StrongwhenhecomestointerpretthecaseoftheSamaritansinActsviii.For the same fallingof theHolyGhostwhichwaspouredout on Cornelius and his friends and exhibited itself in "speakingwith tongues andmagnifyingGod" (Acts x. 46); andwasmade byPeterthepleawhywatershouldnotbeforbiddenforbaptizingthem;notonlydidnotprecedebaptisminthecaseoftheSamaritans,butactually did not take place until a considerably later date. TheSamaritans are baptized, Acts viii. 12; but theHoly Ghost had notbeenreceivedbythem,Actsviii.16,andwasnotreceiveduntilPeterandJohnvisitedthemandlaidtheirhandsonthem(Actsviii.17).IfthecaseofCorneliusproves thatbaptism isnotadministered untilaftertheHolyGhostisreceived,thatoftheSamaritansprovesthatitprecedesthegiftoftheHolyGhost.Intruthneitherpassageprovestheoneortheother,thisoutpouringof theHolyGhostreferringtothecharismata.

6. P.534.7. "HoræHebraicæetTalmudicæ,"onMatt.iii.6(Pitmaneditionofhis

"Works,"xi.1823,p.58).8. Cf.CottonMather,asquotedinHodge,op.cit.,iii.1874,p.572.

TheDevelopmentoftheDoctrineofInfantSalvation1


Thetaskwhichwesetbeforeusinthisbriefpaper isnottounravel thehistoryofopinionastothesalvationofinfantsdyingininfancy,butthemuchmorecircumscribedoneoftracingthedevelopmentofdoctrineonthis subject.We hope to show that there has been a doctrine as to thesalvationofinfantscommontoallagesoftheChurch;butthattherehasalso been in this, as in other doctrines, a progressive correction ofcruditiesinitsconception,bywhichthetruemeaningandrelationsofthecommon teaching have been freed from deforming accretions and itspermanentcorebroughttopurerexpression.

I.THEPATRISTICDOCTRINE

It is fundamental to the very conception of Christianity that it is aremedialscheme.ChristJesuscametosavesinners.ThefirstChristianshadnodifficulty inunderstandingandconfessingthatChristhadcomeinto a world lost in sin to establish a kingdom of righteousness,citizenship in which is the condition of salvation. That infants wereadmitted into this citizenship they did not question; Irenaeus, forexample,findsitappropriatethatChristwasbornaninfantandgrewbynaturalstagesintomanhood,since"HecametosaveallbyHimself-all,Isay,whobyHimarebornagainuntoGod,infantsandchildren,andboysandyoungmen,andoldmen,"andaccordinglypassedthrougheveryagethat He might sanctify all. Nor did they question that not the naturalbirthoftheflesh,butthenewbirthoftheSpiritwasthesolegatewayforinfantstoo,intothekingdom;communionwithGodwaslostforallalike,and to infants too it was restored only in Christ.2 Less pure elements,however, entered almost inevitably into their thought. The ingrainedexternalism of both Jewish and heathen modes of conception, whenbrought into the Churchwrought naturally toward the identification ofthekingdomofChristwiththeexternalChurch,andofregenerationwith

baptism.AlreadyinJustinandIrenaeus,theword"regeneration"means"baptism";theFathersuniformlyunderstandJohniii.5ofbaptism.Themaxim of the Patristic age thus became extra ecclesiam nulla salus;baptism was held to be necessary to salvation with the necessity ofmeans; and as a corollary, no unbaptized infant could be saved. Howearly this doctrine of the necessity of baptism became settled in theChurch is difficult to trace in the paucity of very early witnesses.Tertullianalreadydefends it fromobjection.3The replyofCyprianandhisfellowbishopstoFidusonthedutyofearlybaptism,presupposesit.4After that, it was plainly the Church-doctrine; and although it wasmitigatedinthecaseofadultsbytheadmissionnotonlyofthebaptismofblood,butalsothatofintention,5thelattermitigationwasnotallowedinthe case of infants. The whole Patristic Church agreed that, martyrsexcepted,noinfantdyingunbaptizedcouldenterthekingdomofheaven.

The fairest exponent of the thought of the age on this subject isAugustine,whowas calledupon to defend it against thePelagian errorthatinfantsdyingunbaptized,whilefailingofentranceintothekingdom,yetobtaineternallife.Hisconstancyinthiscontroversyhaswonforhimthe unenviable title of durus infantum pater - a designation doublyunjust,inthatnotonlydidheneitheroriginatetheobnoxiousdogmanorteachitinitsharshestform,buthewasevenpreparingitsdestructionbythedoctrinesofgrace,ofwhichhewasmoretrulythefather.6Augustineexpressed the Church-doctrine moderately, teaching, of course, thatinfants dying unbaptized would be found on Christ's left hand and becondemned to eternal punishment, but also not forgetting to add thattheirpunishmentwouldbethemildestofall,andindeedthattheyweretobebeatenwithsofewstripesthathecouldnotsayitwouldhavebeenbetterforthemnottobeborn.7Nodoubt,othersoftheFatherssoftenedthe doctrine even below this; some of the Greeks, for instance, likeGregoryNazianzen,thoughtthatunbaptizedinfantsare"neitherglorifiednorpunished"- that is,ofcourse,go intoamiddle state similar to thattaught by Pelagius.8 But it is not to Augustine, but to Fulgentius (d.533),9ortoAlcimusAvitus(d.525),10ortoGregorytheGreat(d.604)11to whom we must go for the strongest expression of the woe ofunbaptized infants. Probably only such anonymous objectors as thosewhomTertullian confutes,12 or such obscure and erratic individuals as

VincentiusVictorwhomAugustine convicts, in the whole Patristic age,doubted that thekingdomofheavenwasclosed toall infantsdepartingthislifewithoutthesacramentofbaptism.

II.THEMEDIEVALMITIGATION

If the general consent of a whole age as expressed by its chief writers,including the leading bishops ofRome, and by its synodical decrees, isabletodetermineadoctrine,certainlythePatristicChurchtransmittedtothe Middle Ages as de fide that infants dying unbaptized (with theexception only of those who suffer martyrdom) are not only excludedfromheaven, but doomed to hell. Accordingly the medieval synods sodefine;thesecondCouncilofLyonsandtheCouncilofFlorencedeclarethat "the souls of thosewho pass away inmortal sin or in original sinalone descend immediately to hell, to be punished, however, withunequalpenalties."On themaxim that gradus nonmutant speciemwemustadjudgePetavius'argument13unanswerable, that this deliverancedeterminesthepunishmentofunbaptizedinfantstobethesameinkind(in the same hell) with that of adults in mortal sin: "So infants aretormentedwithunequaltorturesoffire,butaretormentednevertheless."Nevertheless scholastic thought on the subject was characterized by asuccessfuleffort tomollify theharshnessof theChurch-doctrine,undertheimpulseoftheprevalentsemi-Pelagianconceptionoforiginalsin.Thewholetroupeofschoolmenuniteindistinguishingbetweenpœnadamniandpœnasensus,andinassigningto infantsdyingunbaptizedonlytheformer - that is, the loss of heaven and the beatific vision, andnot thelatter-thatis,positivetorment.Theydifferamongthemselvesonlyastowhether this pœna damni, which alone is the lot of infants, isaccompaniedby apainful sense of the loss (as Lombardheld), or is sonegative as to involve no pain at all, either external or internal (asAquinasargued).Socompleteavictorywaswonbythismollificationthatperhaps only a single theologian of eminence can be pointed to whoventuredstill to teach thedoctrineofAugustineandGregory -GregoryAriminensisthence called tortor infantum; andHurter reminds us thateven he did not dare to teach it definitely, but submitted it to thejudgmentofhisreaders.14Dante,whomAndrewSethnotunjustlycalls"by far thegreatestdiscipleofAquinas,"has enshrined inhis immortal

poem the leading conception of his day, when he pictures the "youngchildreninnocent,whomDeath'ssharpteethhavesnatchedereyettheywere freed from the sin with which our birth is blent," as imprisonedwithinthebrinkofhell,"wherethefirstcirclegirdstheabyssofdread,"ina placewhere "there is no sharp agony" but "dark shadows only," andwhence"nootherplaintrisesthanthatofsighs"which"fromthesorrowwithoutpain arise."15 The novel doctrine attained papal authority by adecreeofInnocentIII(ca.1200),whodetermined"thepenaltyoforiginalsintobethelackofthevisionofGod,butthepenaltyofactualsintobethetormentsofeternalhell."

Amoretimideffortwasalsomadeinthisperiodtomodifytheinheriteddoctrine by the application to it of a development of the baptism ofintention. This tendency first appears in Hincmar of Rheims (d. 882),who,inaparticularlyhardcaseofinterdictonawholediocese,expressesthehopethat"thefaithandgodlydesireoftheparentsandgodfathers"ofthe infants who had thus died unbaptized, "who in sincerity desiredbaptismforthembutobtaineditnot,mayprofitthembythegiftofHimwhosespirit (whichgives regeneration)breatheswhere it pleases." It isdoubtful,however,whetherhewouldhaveextendedthisloftydoctrinetoanylessstringentcase.16CertainlynosimilarteachingismetwithintheChurch, except with reference to the peculiarly hard case of still-borninfants of Christian parents. The schoolmen (e.g. Alexander Hales andThomasAquinas)admittedadoubtwhetherGodmaynothavewaysofsavingsuchunknowntous.JohnGerson,inasermonbeforetheCouncilofConstance,pressestheinferencemoreboldly.17God,hedeclared,hasnotsotiedthemercyofHissalvationtocommonlawsand sacraments,but that without prejudice toHis lawHe can sanctify children not yetborn,bythebaptismofHisgraceorthepoweroftheHolyGhost.Hence,he exhorts expectant parents to pray that if the infant is to die beforeattainingbaptism,theLordmaysanctifyit;andwhoknowsbutthattheLordmayhearthem?Headds,however,thatheonlyintendstosuggestthat all hope is not taken away; for there is no certainty without arevelation. Gabriel Biel (d. 1495) followed in Gerson's footsteps,18holdingittobeaccordantwithGod'smercytoseekoutsomeremedyforsuch infants. This teaching remained, however, without effect on theChurch-dogma, although something similar to it was, amongmenwho

servedGodinthewaythencalledheresy, foreshadowinganevenbettertocome.JohnWycliffe(d.1384)hadalreadywithlikecautionexpressedhisunwillingnesstopronouncedamnedsuchinfantsaswereintendedforbaptism by their parents, if they failed to receive it in fact; though hecouldnot,ontheotherhand,assertthattheyweresaved.19Hisfollowerswere less cautious, whether in England or Bohemia, and in this, too,approvedthemselvesheraldsofabrighterday.

III.THETEACHINGOFTHECHURCHOFROME

Intheupheavalof thesixteenthcentury theChurchofRome foundhertask in harmonizing under the influence of the scholastic teaching, theinheritancewhich the somewhat inconsistent past had bequeathed her.Four varieties of opinion sought a place in her teaching. At the oneextremetheearlierdoctrineofAugustineandGregory,thatinfantsdyingunbaptizedsuffereternallythepainsofsense,foundagainadvocates,andthatespeciallyamongthegreatestofherscholars,suchasNoris,Petau,Driedo,Conry,Berti.Attheotherextreme,aPelagianizingdoctrinethatexcluded unbaptized infants from the kingdom of heaven and the lifepromisedtotheblessed,andyetaccordedtothemeternallifeandnaturalhappiness in a place between heaven and hell, was advocated by suchgreat leaders as Ambrosius Catharinus, Albertus Pighius, Molina,Sfondrati.Themass,however,followedtheschoolmeninthemiddlepathofpœnadamni,and,liketheschoolmen,onlydifferedastowhetherthepunishmentof loss involved sorrow (as Bellarmine held) orwas purelynegative.20TheCouncilofTrent(1545)anathematizedthosewhoaffirmthatthe"sacramentsof thenew lawarenotnecessary to salvation, andthatwithout themoran intentionof themmenobtain . . . the graceofjustification";or,again,that"baptismisfree-thatis,isnotnecessarytosalvation." This is explained by the Tridentine Catechism tomean that"unlessmenberegeneratedtoGodthroughthegraceofbaptism,theyareborn to everlasting misery and destruction, whether their parents bebelievers or unbelievers"; while, on the other hand, we are crediblyinformed21 that the Council was near anathematizing as a Lutheranheresythepropositionthatthepenaltyfororiginalsinisthefireofhell.TheCouncilofTrentat leastmaderenewedlyde fide that infantsdyingunbaptized incurred damnation, though it left the way open for

discussionastothekindandamountoftheirpunishment.22

The Tridentine deliverance, of course, does not exclude the baptism ofblood as a substitute for baptism of water. Neither does it seemnecessarilytoexcludetheapplicationofatheoryofbaptismofintentiontoinfants.Evenafterit,therefore,atwofolddevelopmentseemstohavebeenpossible.ThepathalreadyopenedbyGersonandBielmight havebeen followed out, and a baptism of intention developed for infants aswellasforadults.Thismightevenhavebeenpushedonlogically,soastocoverthecaseofallinfantsdyingininfancy.OntheprinciplearguedbyRichardHooker,23forexample, thattheunavoidable failureofbaptismin the caseofChristianchildrencannot lose themsalvation,becauseofthepresumeddesireandpurposeofbaptismforthemintheirChristianparentsandintheChurchofGod,reasonersmighthaveproceededonlyasinglestepfurtherandhavesaidthat thedesireandpurposeofMotherChurch to baptize all is intention of baptism enough for all dying inhelpless infancy. Thus onRoman principles a salvation for all dying ininfancymightbelogicallydeduced,andinfants,asmorehelplessandlessguilty,begiventhepreferenceoveradults.Ontheotherhand,itmightbearguedthatasbaptismeitherinreorinvotomustmediatesalvation,andas infants by reason of their age are incapable of the intention, theycannot be saved unless they receive it in fact,24 and thus infants bediscriminated against in favor of adults. This second path is the onewhich has been actually followed by the theologians of the Church ofRome, with the ultimate result that not only are infants discriminatedagainst in favorofadults,but themorerecent theologiansseemalmostready to discriminate against the infants of Christians as over againstthoseoftheheathen.25

Theapplicationofthebaptismofintentiontoinfantswasnotabandoned,however,without someprotest from themore tender-hearted. CardinalCajetandefendedintheCouncilofTrentitselfGerson'spropositionthatthedesireofgodlyparentsmightbetakeninlieuoftheactualbaptismofchildrendying in thewomb.26Cassander(1570) encouragedparents tohope and pray for children so dying.27 Bianchi (1768) holds that suchchildrenmaybesavedperoblationempueriquamDeomaterextrinsecusfaciat.28 Eusebius Amort (1758) teaches that God may be moved by

prayer to grant justification to such extra-sacramentally.29 Evensomewhat bizarre efforts have beenmade to escape the sad conclusionproclaimed by the Church. Thus Klee holds that a lucid interval isaccordedtoinfantsinthearticleofdeath,sothattheymayconceivethewish forbaptism.30AnobscureFrenchwriter supposes that theymay,"shut up in their mother's womb, know God, love Him, and have thebaptism of desire."31 A more obscure German conceives that infantsremaineternallyinthesamestateofrationaldevelopmentinwhichtheydie,andhenceenjoyalltheyarecapableof;iftheydieinthewombtheyeitherfallbackintotheoriginalforcefromwhichtheywereproduced,orenjoyahappinessnogreater than thatof trees.32Theseprotestsof thehearthaveawakened,however,noresponseintheChurch,33whichhaspreferredtoholdfasttothedogmathatthefailureofbaptismininfants,dyingsuch,excludes ipso facto fromheaven, and to seek its comfort inmitigatingstillfurtherthanthescholasticsthemselvesthenatureofthatpœnadamniwhichaloneitallowsaspunishmentoforiginalsin.

AndifwemayassumethatsuchwritersasPerrone,Hurter,Gousset,andKendrick are typical ofmodernRoman theology throughout the world,certainly that theology may be said to have come, in this pathway ofmitigation,asneartopositingsalvationforall infantsdyingunbaptizedas the rather intractable deliverances of early popes and later councilspermittothem.Theyall teach,ofcourse (as thedefinitionsofFlorenceandTrentrequireofthem)-inthewordsofPerrone34-"thatchildrenofthiskinddescendintohell,orincurdamnation";but(asHurtersays35),"although all Catholics agree that infants dying without baptism areexcluded from the beatific vision and so suffer loss, are lost (patidamnum, damnari); they yet differ among themselves in theirdetermination of thenature and condition of the state intowhich suchinfantspass."Astheideaof"damnation"maythusbesoftenedtoamerefailuretoattain,sotheideaof"hell"maybeelevatedtothatofanaturalparadise.Hurterhimselfisinclinedtoasomewhatsevererdoctrine;butPerrone (supported by such great lights as Balmes, Berlage, Oswald,Lessius,andfollowednotafaroffbyGoussetandKendrick)revertstothePelagianizingviewofCatharinusandMolinaandSfondrati-whichPetaucalled a "fabrication" championed indeed by Catharinus but originated"by Pelagius the heretic," and which Bellarmine contended was contra

fidem-andteachesthatunbaptizedinfantsenterintoastatedeprivedofallsupernaturalbenefits, indeed,butendowedwithall thehappinessofwhich pure nature is capable. Their state is described as having thenatureofpenaltyandofdamnationwhen conceivedof relatively to thesupernaturalhappinessfromwhichtheyareexcludedbyoriginalsin;butwhenconceivedofinitselfandabsolutely,itisastateofpurenature,andaccordingly the words of Thomas Aquinas are applied to it: "They arejoinedtoGodbyparticipationinnaturalgoods,andsoalsocanrejoiceinnatural knowledge and love."36Thus, after somany ages, the Pelagianconceptionofthemiddlestateforinfantshasobtaineditsrevengeonthecondemnationof theChurch.Nodoubt it is not admitted that this is areturn to Pelagianism; Perrone, for example, argues that Pelagius heldthe doctrine of a natural beatitude for infants as one unrelated to sin,while "Catholic theologians hold it with the death of sin; so that theexclusion from the beatific vision has the nature of penalty and ofdamnationproceedingfromsin."37Istheremorethanaverbaldifferencehere?At all events,whateverdifference exists is a differencenot in thedoctrineofthestateofunbaptizedinfantsafterdeath,butinthedoctrineofthefall.Indeferencetothelanguageoffathersandcouncilsandpopes,this natural paradise is formally assigned to that portion of the otherworlddesignated"hell,"butinitsownnatureitispreciselythePelagiandoctrineofthestateofunbaptizedinfantsafterdeath.BywhatexpedientsuchteachingistobereconciledwiththeotherdoctrinesoftheChurchofRome,orwithitsformerteachingonthissamesubject,orwithitsboastof semper eadem, is more interesting to its advocates within thatcommunion than to us.38 Our interest as historians of opinion isexhaustedinsimplynotingthefactthatthePelagianizingprocess,begunin the Middle Ages by assigning to infants guilty only of original sinliabilitytopœnadamnialone,culminatesinourdayintheirassignmentby the most representative theologians of modern Rome to a naturalparadise.

IV.THELUTHERANDOCTRINE

It is, no doubt, as a protest against the harshness of the Romanistsyllogism,"NomancanattainsalvationwhoisnotamemberofChrist;but no one becomes a member of Christ except by baptism, received

either inreor invoto,"39thatthisPelagianizingdrift is toberegarded.Itsfaultisthatitimpingesbywayofmitigationandmodificationonthemajor premise, which, however, is the fundamental proposition ofChristianity.Itsrootsareplanted,inthelastanalysis,inaconceptionofmen,notasfallencreatures,childrenofwrath,anddeservingofadoomwhich can only be escaped by becoming members of Christ, but ascreatures of God with claims on Him for natural happiness, but, ofcourse,withnoclaimsonHimforsuchadditionalsupernaturalbenefitsasHemay yet lovingly confer onHis creatures in Christ.On the otherhand,thatgreatreligiousmovementwhichwecalltheReformation,theconstitutive principle of which was its revised doctrine of the Church,ranged itself properly against the fallacious minor premise, and easilybroke its bonds with the sword of the word. Men are not constitutedmembers of Christ through the Church, but members of the Churchthrough Christ; they are not made the members of Christ by baptismwhichtheChurchgives,butbyfaith,thegiftofGod;andbaptismistheChurch's recognition of this inner fact. The full benefit of this betterapprehensionofthenatureofthatChurchofGodmembership inwhichistheconditionofsalvation,wasnotreaped,however,byallProtestantsinequalmeasure. Itwas thestrengthof theLutheranmovement that itworkedoutitspositionsnottheoreticallyorallatonce,butstepbystep,as itwas forcedonby the logicof eventsandexperience.But itwasanincidental evil that, being compelled to express its faith early, its firstconfessionwasframedbeforethefulldevelopmentofProtestantthought,and subsequently contracted the faith of Lutheranism into too narrowchannels. The Augsburg Confession contains the true doctrine of theChurchas thecongregatiosanctorum;but itcommittedLutheranismtothe doctrine that baptism is necessary to salvation (art. ix.) in such asensethatchildrenarenotsavedwithoutbaptism(art.ix.),40inasmuchasthecondemnationandeternaldeathbroughtbyoriginalsinupon allarenot removedexcept fromthosewhoarebornagainbybaptismandthe Holy Ghost (art. ii.) - that is, to the doctrine that the necessity ofbaptism is the necessity of means. In the direction of mollifyinginterpretation of this deliverance, the theologians urge: 1. That thenecessityaffirmed isnotabsolutebutordinary,andbindsmanand notGod.2.ThatastheassertionisdirectedagainsttheAnabaptists,itisnotthe privation, but the contempt of baptism that is affirmed to be

damning.3.ThatthenecessityofbaptismisnotintendedtobeequalizedwiththatoftheHolyGhost.4.Thattheaffirmationisnotthatfororiginalsin alone anyone is actually damned, but only that all are therefordamnable. There is force in these considerations.But they donot availwholly torelieve theAugsburgConfessionof limiting salvation to thosewho enjoy the means of grace, and as concerns infants, to those whoreceivethesacramentofbaptism.

Itisnottobeheld,ofcourse,thatitassertssuchanabsolutenecessityofbaptism for infants dying such, as admits no exceptions. From LutherandMelanchthondown,Lutheran theologianshavealways taughtwhatHunniusexpressedintheSaxonVisitationArticles:"UnlessapersonbebornagainofwaterandtheSpirit,hecannotenter intothekingdomofheaven.Casesofnecessityarenotintended,however,bythis."Lutherantheology, in other words, takes its stand positively on the ground ofbaptismofintentionasappliedtoinfants,asoveragainstitsdenialbytheChurchofRome."Luther,"saysDorner,41"holdsfast,ingeneral,tothenecessityofbaptisminordertosalvation,butinreferencetothechildrenofChristianswhohavediedunbaptized,hesays: 'TheholyandmercifulGodwill think kindly upon them.WhatHewill do with them,He hasrevealedtonoone,thatbaptismmaynotbedespised,buthasreservedtoHis own mercy; God does wrong to no man.'"42 From the fact thatJewish childrendyingbefore circumcisionwere not lost, Luther arguesthat neither are Christian children dying before baptism;43 and hecomforts Christian mothers of still-born babes by declaring that theyshouldunderstandthatsuchinfantsaresaved.44SoBugenhagen,underLuther'sdirection,teachesthatChristians'childrenintendedforbaptismarenotlefttothehiddenjudgmentofGodiftheyfailofbaptism,buthavethe promise of being received by Christ into His kingdom.45 It is notnecessarytoquotelaterauthorsonapointonwhichallareunanimous;letitsufficetoaddonlytheclearstatementofthedevelopedLutheranismof JohnGerhard (1610-1622):46 "Wewalk in themiddleway, teachingthatbaptismis,indeed,theordinarysacramentofinitiationandmeansofregeneration necessary to all, even to the children of believers, forregeneration and salvation; but yet that in the event of privation orimpossibilitythechildrenofChristiansaresavedbyanextraordinaryandpeculiardivinedispensation.Forthenecessityofbaptismisnotabsolute,

butordinary;weonourpartareobligedtothenecessityofbaptism,butthere must be no denial of the extraordinary action of God in infantsofferedtoChristbypiousparentsandtheChurchinprayers,anddyingbeforetheopportunityofbaptismcanbegiventhem,sinceGoddoesnotsobindHisgraceandsavingefficacytobaptismasthat, intheeventofprivation,Hemaynotbothwishandbeable toact extraordinarily.Wedistinguish, then, between necessity on God's part and on our part;between the case of privation and the ordinary way; and also betweeninfants born in theChurch and out of the Church. Concerning infantsborn out of the Church,we saywith the apostle (I Cor. v. 12, 13), 'ForwhathaveItodowithjudgingthemthatarewithout?Donotyoujudgethemthatarewithin?ForthemthatarewithoutGodjudgeth.'Wherefore,since there is no promise concerning them, we commit them to God'sjudgment;andyetweholdtonoplaceintermediatebetweenheavenandhell,concerningwhichthereisuttersilenceinScripture.Butconcerninginfantsborn in theChurchwehavebetterhope.Piousparentsproperlybringtheirchildrenassoonaspossibletobaptismastheordinarymeansofregeneration,andoffertheminbaptismtoChrist;andthosewhoarenegligent in this, soas through lackof careorwickedcontempt for thesacramenttodeprive their childrenofbaptism, shallhereafter renderaveryheavyaccounttoGod,sincetheyhave'despisedthecounselofGod'(Luke vii. 30). Yet neither can nor ought we rashly to condemn thoseinfantswhichdie in theirmothers'wombsorby some suddenaccidentbeforetheyreceivebaptism,butmayratherholdthattheprayersofpiousparents,or,iftheparentsarenegligentofthis,theprayersoftheChurch,pouredoutfortheseinfants,areclementlyheardandtheyarereceivedbyGodintograceandlife."

From this passage, too, we may learn the historical attitude ofLutheranismtowardtheentirelydifferentquestionof thefateof infantsdyingoutside thepale of theChurch and the reach of its ordinances, amultitudesovastthatitiswhollyunreasonabletosupposethemsimply(likeChristians'childrendeprivedofbaptism)exceptionstotherulelaiddownintheAugsburgConfession.ItisperfectlyclearthattheLutheranConfessionsextendnohopeforthem.It isdoubtfulwhether itcanevenbe said that they leave room for hope for them. Melanchthon in the"Apology" is no doubt arguing against the Anabaptists, and intends to

proveonlythatchildrenshouldbebaptized;buthiswordsinexplanationofart.ix.deserveconsiderationinthisconnectionalso-wherehearguesthat"thepromiseofsalvation""doesnotpertaintothosewhoarewithoutthe Church of Christ, where there is neither the Word nor theSacraments,becausethekingdomofChristexistsonlywiththeWordandthe Sacraments."47 Luther's personal opinion as to the fate of heathenchildrendyingininfancyisindoubt;nowheexpressesthehopethatthegood and graciousGodmay have something good in view for them;48and again, though leaving it to the future to decide, he only expectssomethingmilderforthemthanfortheadultsoutsidetheChurch;49andBugenhagen,underhiseye,contraststhechildrenofTurksandJewswiththoseofChristians,asnot sharers insalvationbecausenot in Christ.50From the very first the opinion of the theologians was divided on thesubject. 1. Some held that all infants except those baptized in fact orintention are lost, and ascribed to them, of course - for this was theProtestantviewofthedesertoforiginalsin-bothprivativeandpositivepunishment. This party included such theologians as Quistorpius,Calovius, Fechtius, Zeibichius, Buddeus. 2. Others judged that wemaycherish the best of hope for their salvation. Here belong Dannhauer,Hulsemann, Scherzer, J. A. Osiander, Wagner, Musæus, Cotta, andSpener. But the great body of Lutherans, including such names asGerhard, Calixtus, Meisner, Baldwin, Bechmann, Hoffmann, Hunnius,held that nothing is clearly revealed as to the fate of such infants, andtheymustbelefttothejudgmentofGod.3.Someofthese,likeHunnius,wereinclinedtobelievethattheywillbesaved.4.Others,withmore(likeHoffmann) or less (like Gerhard) clearness, were rather inclined tobelieve theywill be lost; but all alike held that themeans for a certaindecisionarenotinourhands.51ThusHunniussays:52"Thattheinfantsof Gentiles, outside the Church, are saved, we cannot pronounce ascertain, since there exists nothing definite in the Scriptures concerningthematter;soneitherdoIdaresimply toassert thatthesechildrenareindiscriminately damned. . . . Let us commit them, therefore, to thejudgmentofGod."AndHoffmannsays:53"Onthequestionwhethertheinfantsoftheheathennationsarelost,mostofourtheologiansprefertosuspend their judgment.To affirmas acertain thing that they are lost,couldnotbedonewithoutrashness."

This cautious agnostic attitude has the best right to be called thehistorical Lutheran attitude. It is even the highest position thoroughlyconsistentwiththegeniusoftheLutheransystemandthestresswhichitlaysonthemeansofgrace.Thedriftinmoremoderntimeshas,however,beendecidedlyinthedirectionofaffirmingthesalvationofallthatdieininfancy,ongrounds identicalwith thosepleadedby thisparty from thebeginning-theinfinitemercyofGod,theuniversalityoftheatonement,theinabilityofinfantstoresistgrace,theirguiltlessnessofdespisingtheordinance,and the like.54Evenso,however, carefulmodernLutheransmoderatetheirassertions.Theyaffirmthat"it isnotthedoctrineofourConfession thatanyhumancreaturehaseverbeen,oreverwillbe, lostpurely on account of original sin";55 but they speak of thematter as a"dark" or a "difficult question,"56 and suspend the salvation of suchinfants on an "extraordinary" and "uncovenanted" exercise of God'smercy.57Wecannot rise to a conviction or a "faith" in thematter, butmay attain to a "well-grounded hope," based on our apprehension ofGod'sallembracingmercy.58Inshort,theLutherandoctrineseemstolaynofirmfoundationforaconvictionofthesalvationofallinfantsdyingininfancy;at thebest it isheldto leaveopenanuncontradictedhope.Weareafraidwemustsaymore;itseemstocontradictthishope.Forshouldthishopeprovetrue,itwouldnolongerbetruethat"baptismisnecessarytosalvation,"evenordinarily;theexceptionwouldbetherule.Norwouldthe fundamental conception of the Lutheran theory of salvation - thatgrace is in the means of grace - be longer tenable. The logic of theLutheransystemleaveslittleroomforthesalvationofallinfantsdyingininfancy,and if their salvationshouldprove tobea fact, the integrity ofthesystemisendangered.

V.ANGLICANVIEWS

A similar difficulty is experienced by all types of Protestant thought inwhich the older idea of the Church, as primarily an external body, hasbeen incompletely reformed.Thismaybe illustrated, forexample, fromthehistoryofthoughtintheChurchofEngland.TheThirty-nineArticles,intheirfinalform,arethoroughlyProtestantandReformed.Andmanyofthe greatest English theologians, even among those not most closelyaffiliatedwith Geneva, from the very earliest days of the Reformation,

have repudiated the "cruel judgment" of the Church ofRome as to thefate of infants dying unbaptized. But this repudiation was neitherimmediate,norhasiteverbeenuniversal.ThesecondoftheTenArticlesof Henry VIII (1536) not only declares that the promise of grace andeternal life is adjoined to baptism, but adds that infants "by thesacramentofbaptismdoalsoobtainremissionoftheirsins,thegraceandfavor ofGod, and bemade thereby the very sons and children ofGod;insomuchasinfantsandchildrendyingintheirinfancyshallundoubtedlybe saved thereby, and else not." The first liturgy embodied the sameimplication. The growing Protestant sentiment soon revised it out ofthese standards.59 But there have never lacked those in the Church ofEnglandwho still taught thenecessity of baptism to salvation. If it canboast of a John Hooper, who speaks of the "ungodly opinion, thatattributeth the salvation of men unto the receiving of an externalsacrament,""asthoughtheholySpiritcouldnotbecarriedbyfaith intothepenitentand sorrowful conscience, except it rid always in a chariotand external sacrament," andwho (probably first after Zwingli) taughtthat all infants dying in infancy, whether children of Christians orinfidels,aresaved;60 it alsohas countedamong its teachersmanywhoheld with Matthew Scrivener that Christ's "death and passion are notcommunicateduntoanybutbyoutward signsand sacraments," so that"eitherallchildrenmustbedamned,dyingunbaptized,ortheymusthavebaptism."61 The general position of the Church up to his day is thusconceivedbyWall:62"TheChurchofEnglandhavedeclaredtheirSenseof the [that is, baptism's] Necessity, by reciting that Saying of ourSaviour,Johniii.5,bothintheOfficeofBaptismofInfants,andalsointhat forthoseof riperYears. . . .Concerning theeverlastingStateofanInfant that byMisfortune dies unbaptized, the Church of England hasdetermined nothing, (it were fit that all Churches would leave suchThingstoGod)savethattheyforbidtheordinaryOfficeforBurialtobeused for such an one: for that were to determin the Point, andacknowledgehimforaChristianBrother.Andtho'themostnotedMeninthe saidChurch fromTime to Time since theReformation of it to thisTime,haveexpressedtheirHopesthatGodwillacceptthePurposeoftheParentfortheDeed;yettheyhavedoneitmodestly,andmuchasWickliffdid,rathernotdeterminingtheNegative,thanabsolutelydeterminingthePositive, that such a Child shall enter into theKingdom ofHeaven." If

thisisallthatcanbesaidofthechildrenofthefaithful,lackingbaptism,where will those of the infidel appear? Many other opinions - moreProtestant or more Pelagian - have, of course, found a home forthemselvesinthebosomofthismostinclusivecommunion,buttheyarenomorecharacteristicofitsteachingthanthatofWall.ItisonlyneedfultorememberthattherearestillmanyamongtheclergyoftheChurchofEngland who, retaining the old, unreformed view of the Church, stillbelieve "that the relationship of sonship to God is imparted throughbaptism and is not imparted without it";63 though, of course, manyothers,andwehopestilla largemajority,wouldrepudiate thispositionasincredible.

VI.THEREFORMEDDOCTRINE

It was among the Reformed alone that the newly recovered Scripturalapprehension of the Church to which the promises were given, asessentially not an externally organized body but the people of God,membershipinwhichismediatednotbytheexternalactofbaptismbutby the internal regeneration of the Holy Spirit, bore its full fruit inrectifyingthedoctrineoftheapplicationofredemption.ThisgreattruthwastaughtalikebybothbranchesofProtestantism,butitwaslimitedinitsapplication in theone lineof teachingbyaveryhighdoctrineof themeans of grace, while in the other it became itself constitutive of thedoctrine of themeans of grace. Not a few Reformed theologians, evenoutsidetheChurchofEngland,nodoubtalsoheldahighdoctrineofthemeans;ofwhomPeterJurieumaybetakenasatype.64Butthiswasnotcharacteristic of the Reformed churches, the distinguishing doctrine ofwhich rather by suspending salvation on membership in the invisibleinstead of in the visible Church, transformed baptism from a necessityinto a duty, and left men dependent for salvation on nothing but theinfinite love and freegraceofGod. In this view the absolutely free andlovingelectionofGodalone is determinative of the saved; so that howmanyandwhotheyareisknownabsolutelytoGodalone,andtousonlyso far forth as itmay be inferred from themarks and signs of electionrevealedtousintheWord.Faithanditsfruitsarethechiefsignsinthecaseofadults,andhethatbelievesmayknowthatheisoftheelect.Inthecaseofinfantsdyingininfancy,birthwithintheboundsofthecovenant

isasuresign,sincethepromiseis"untousandourchildren."Butpresentunbelief isnot a sure signof reprobation in the case of adults, forwhoknows but that unbeliefmay yet give place to faith?Nor in the case ofinfants, dying such, is birth outside the covenant a trustworthy sign ofreprobation,fortheelectionofGodisfree.Accordinglytherearemany-adultsandinfants-ofwhosesalvationwemaybesure,butofreprobationwecannotbesure;suchajudgmentisnecessarilyunsafeevenastoadultsapparentlylivinginsin,whileastoinfantswho"dieandgivenosign,"itispresumptuousandrashintheextreme.

TheaboveispracticallyanoutlineoftheteachingofZwingli.Hehimselfworkeditoutinitslogicalcompleteness,andtaught:1.Thatallbelieversareelectandhencearesaved,thoughwecannotknowinfalliblywhoaretruebelieversexceptinourowncase.2.Allchildrenofbelieversdyingininfancyareelectandhencearesaved,forthisrestsonGod'simmutablepromise.3. It isprobable, fromthesuperabundanceof thegiftof graceovertheoffense, thatall infantsdyingsuchareelectandsaved; so thatdeathininfancyisasignofelection;andalthoughthismustbeleftwithGod, it iscertainlyrashandeven impious toaffirmtheirdamnation.4.All who are saved, whether adult or infant, are saved only by the freegraceofGod'selectionandthroughtheredemptionofChrist.65

The central principle of Zwingli's teaching is not only the commonpossession of all Calvinists, but the essential postulate of their system.Theycandifferamongthemselvesonlyintheirdeterminationofwhatthesignsofelectionandreprobationare,andintheirinterpretationofthesesigns.OnthesegroundsCalvinistsearlydividedintofiveclasses:1.Fromthebeginninga fewheldwithZwingli thatdeath in infancy is a signofelection,andhencethatallwhodieininfancyarethechildrenofGodandenteratonce intoglory.AfterZwingli,BishopHooperwasprobablythefirst66toembracethisview.67Ithasmorelatelybecometherulingview,and we may select Augustus Toplady68 and Robert S. Candlish as itstypes.The latter, forexample,writes:69"Inmanyways, Iapprehend, itmaybeinferredfromScripturethatalldyingininfancyareelect,andarethereforesaved....Thewholeanalogyoftheplanofsavingmercyseemsto favour the same view. And now it may be seen, if I am not greatlymistaken,tobeputbeyondquestionby thebare fact that littlechildren

die....Thedeathoflittlechildrenmustbeheldtobeoneofthefruitsofredemption...."2.Attheoppositeextremeaveryfewheldthattheonlysuresignofelectionisfaithwithitsfruits,and,therefore,wecanhavenorealgroundofknowledgeconcerningthefateofanyinfant;as,however,GodcertainlyhasHis elect among them too, eachman can cherish thehopethathischildrenareoftheelect.PeterMartyrapproachesthissadlyagnostic position (which was afterward condemned by the Synod ofDort),writing:"NeitheramItobethoughttopromisesalvationtoallthechildren of the faithful which depart without the sacrament, for if IshoulddosoImightbecountedrash;I leave themtobe judgedby themercyofGod, seeing Ihaveno certainty concerning the secret electionandpredestination;butIonlyassertthatthosearetrulysavedtowhomthedivineelectionextends,althoughbaptismdoesnotintervene....Justso,Ihopewellconcerninginfantsof thiskind,becauseIseethembornfrom faithfulparents; and this thinghaspromises that areuncommon;andalthoughtheymaynotbegeneral,quoadomnes,...yetwhenIseenothingtothecontraryitisrighttohopewellconcerningthesalvationofsuch infants."70The great body of Calvinists, however, previous to thepresent century, took their position between these extremes. 3. Manyheldthatfaithandthepromisearesuresignsofelection,andaccordinglyall believers and their children are certainly saved; but that the lack offaithandthepromiseisanequallysuresignofreprobation,sothatallthechildren of unbelievers, dying such, are equally certainly lost. TheyoungerSpanheim,forexample,writes:"Confessedly,therefore,originalsinisamostjustcauseofpositivereprobation.Hencenoonefailstoseewhatwe should think concerning the children of pagans dying in theirchildhood;forunlessweacknowledgesalvationoutsideofGod'scovenantand Church (like the Pelagians of old, and with them Tertullian,Epiphanius,ClementofAlexandria,oftheancients,andofthemoderns,Andradius,LudovicusVives,Erasmus,andnota fewothers,againstthewholeBible),andsuppose thatall thechildrenof theheathen,dying ininfancy,aresaved,andthat itwouldbeagreatblessing to them if theyshould be smothered by the midwives or strangled in the cradle, weshouldhumblybelievethattheyarejustlyreprobatedbyGodonaccountof the corruption (labes) and guilt (reatus) derived to them by naturalpropagation.Hence,too,Paultestifies(Rom.v.14)thatdeathhaspassedupon them which have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's

transgression,anddistinguishesandseparates(ICor.vii.14)thechildrenofthecovenantedasholyfromtheimpurechildrenofunbelievers."714.Moreheldthatfaithandthepromisearecertainsignsofelection,sothatthesalvationofbelievers'childreniscertain,whilethelackofthepromiseonly leavesus in ignoranceofGod'spurpose;nevertheless that there isgoodgroundforassertingthatbothelectionandreprobationhaveplacein this unknown sphere. Accordingly they held that all the infants ofbelievers, dying such, are saved, but that some of the infants ofunbelievers, dying such, are lost. Probably no higher expression of thisgeneral view canbe found thanJohnOwen's.He argues that there aretwo ways in which God saves infants: "(1) by interesting them in thecovenant,iftheirimmediateorremoteparentshavebeenbelievers.HeisaGod of themand of their seed, extendinghismercy unto a thousandgenerationsofthemthatfearhim;72(2)byhisgraceofelection,whichismostfree,andnottiedtoanyconditions;bywhichImakenodoubtbutGodtakethmanyuntohiminChristwhoseparentsneverknew,orhadbeendespisersof,thegospel."735.MostCalvinistsofthepast,however,havesimplyheldthatfaithandthepromisearemarksbywhichwemayknowassuredlythatallthosewhobelieveandtheirchildren,dyingsuch,areelectandsaved,whiletheabsenceofsuremarksofeitherelectionorreprobationininfants,dyingsuchoutsidethecovenant,leavesuswithoutground for inference concerning them, and they must be left to thejudgmentofGod,which,howeverhidden fromus, isassuredly justandholyandgood.Thisagnosticviewofthefateofuncovenantedinfantshasbeenheld,ofcourse,inconjunctionwitheverydegreeofhopeorthelackofhopeconcerningthem,andthusinthehandsoftheseveraltheologiansitapproacheseachoftheotherviews,except,ofcourse,thesecond,whichseparates itself from thegeneralCalvinisticattitudeby allowing a placefor reprobation even among believers' infants, dying such. Petrus deWitte may stand for one example. He says: "We must adore God'sjudgments and not curiously inquire into them. Of the children ofbelieversitisnottobedoubtedbutthattheyshallbesaved,inasmuchastheybelongunto the covenant.But becausewehavenopromise of thechildren of unbelievers we leave them to the judgment of God."74MatthewHenry75andourownJonathanDickinson76mayalsostandastypes.Itisthiscautious,agnosticviewwhichhasthebesthistoricalrighttobecalledthegeneralCalvinisticone.VanMastrichtcorrectlysaysthat

while the Reformed hold that infants are liable to reprobation, yet"concerning believers' infants . . . they judge better things. Butunbelievers'infants,becausetheScripturesdeterminenothingclearlyonthesubject,theyjudgeshouldbelefttothedivinediscretion."77

The Reformed Confessions with characteristic caution refrain from alldefinitionofthenegativesideofthesalvationofinfants,dyingsuch,andthusconfinethemselvestoemphasizingthegraciousdoctrinecommontothe whole body of Reformed thought. The fundamental Reformeddoctrine of the Church is nowheremore beautifully stated than in thesixteenth article of the Old Scotch Confession, while the polemicalappendix of 1580, in its protest against the errors of "antichrist,"specifically mentions "his cruell judgement againis infants departingwithout the sacrament: his absolute necessitie of baptisme." No synodprobablyevermetwhichlaboredundergreatertemptationtodeclarethatsome infants, dying in infancy, are reprobate, than the Synod of Dort.Possiblynearlyeverymemberofitheldashisprivateopinionthatthereare such infants; and the certainly very shrewd but scarcely sinceremethodsoftheRemonstrantsinshiftingtheforminwhichthisquestioncamebeforethesynodwereveryirritating.ButthefathersofDort,withtrulyReformedloyaltytothepositivedeclarationsofScripture,confinedthemselvestoacleartestimonytothepositivedoctrineofinfantsalvationandarepudiationofthecalumniesoftheRemonstrants,withoutawordofnegativeinference."SincewearetojudgeofthewillofGodfromHisWord," they say, "which testifies that the childrenofbelieversareholy,not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which theytogether with their parents are comprehended, godly parents have noreason to doubt of the election and salvation of their childrenwhom itpleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy" (art. xvii.).AccordinglytheyrepelintheConclusionthecalumnythattheReformedteach "that many children of the faithful are torn guiltless from theirmothers'breastsand tyrannicallyplunged intohell."78 It is easy to saythatnothingisheresaidofthechildrenofanybutthe"godlyandofthe"faithful"; this is true; and therefore it is not implied (as is so oftenthoughtlesslyasserted)thatthecontraryofwhat ishereassertedis trueofthechildrenof theungodly;butnothingis taughtof thematall. It ismore to the purpose to observe that it is asserted that the children of

believers,dyingsuch,aresaved;andthatthisassertionisaninestimableadvance on that of the Council of Trent and that of the AugsburgConfession that baptism isnecessary to salvation. It is the confessionaldoctrineoftheReformedchurchesandoftheReformedchurchesalone,thatallbelievers'infants,dyingininfancy,aresaved.

What has been said of the Synod of Dort may be repeated of theWestminsterAssembly.TheWestminsterdivinesweregenerallyatoneinthematter of infant salvationwith the doctors of Dort, but, like them,theyrefrainedfromanydeliveranceastoitsnegativeside.ThatdeathininfancydoesnotprejudicethesalvationofGod'selecttheyassertedinthechapter of their Confession which treats of the application of Christ'sredemption toHispeople: "All thosewhomGodhathpredestineduntolife, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time,effectuallytocall,byhisWordandSpirit,...soastheycomemostfreely,beingmadewilling by his grace. . . . Elect infants dying in infancy areregeneratedandsavedbyChrist, throughtheSpiritwhoworkethwhen,andwhere,andhowhepleaseth."79With thisdeclarationof their faiththatsuchofGod'selectasdieininfancyaresavedbyHisownmysteriousworkingintheirhearts,althoughincapableoftheresponseoffaith,theywerecontent.Whethertheseelectcomprehendallinfants,dyingsuch,orsomeonly -whether there is sucha class asnon-elect infants,dying ininfancy, their words neither say nor suggest. No Reformed confessionentersintothisquestion;nowordissaidbyanyoneofthemwhicheitherassertsorimplieseitherthatsomeinfantsarereprobatedorthatallaresaved.Whathasbeenheld in commonby thewholebodyofReformedtheologianson thissubject isasserted in theseconfessions;ofwhathasbeendisputedamong them the confessions are silent.And silence is asfavorabletoonetypeastoanother.

Although the cautious agnostic position as to the fate of uncovenantedinfantsdying in infancymay fairly claim tobe thehistoricalCalvinisticview,itisperfectlyobviousthatitisnotperseanymoreCalvinisticthananyoftheothers.Theadherentsofalltypesenumeratedaboveareclearlywithin the limitsof thesystem,andholdwith the same firmness to thefundamentalpositionthatsalvationissuspendedonnoearthlycause,butultimately rests on God's electing grace alone, while our knowledge of

whoaresaveddependsonourviewofwhatarethesignsofelectionandof the clearness with which they may be interpreted. As these severaltypes differ only in the replies they offer to the subordinate question,thereisno"revolution"involvedinpassingfromonetotheother;andasinthelapseoftimethebalancebetweenthemswingsthiswayorthat,itcan only be truly said that there is advance or retrogression, not infundamentalconception,butintheclearnesswithwhichdetailsarereadandwithwhich theoutlineof thedoctrine is filledup. In the courseoftimethe agnostic view of the fate of uncovenanted infants, dying such,hasgivenplace to an ever growinguniversality of conviction that theseinfants too are included in the election of grace; so that to-day fewCalvinists canbe foundwhodonotholdwithToplady, andDoddridge,andThomasScott,andJohnNewton,andJamesP.Wilson,andNathanL.Rice,andRobertJ.Breckinridge,andRobertS.Candlish,andCharlesHodge,andthewholebodyofthoseofrecentyearswhomtheCalvinisticchurchesdelighttohonor,thatallwhodieininfancyarethechildrenofGodandenteratonce intoHisglory -notbecauseoriginal sinalone isnotdeservingofeternalpunishment(forallarebornchildrenofwrath),norbecausetheyarelessguiltythanothers(forrelativeinnocencewouldmerit only relatively light punishment, not freedom from allpunishment),norbecausetheydieininfancy(forthattheydieininfancyisnotthecausebut theeffectofGod'smercy toward them),but simplybecauseGod inHis infinite love has chosen them in Christ, before thefoundationoftheworld,byalovingforeordinationofthemuntoadoptionas sons in JesusChrist. Thus, as they hold, theReformed theology hasfollowedthelightoftheWorduntil itsbrightnesshasilluminatedallitscorners,andthedarknesshasfledaway.

VII."ETHICAL"TENDENCIES

Themost serious peril which the orderly development of the Christiandoctrineofthesalvationofinfantshashadtoencounter,asmenstrove,age after age, more purely and thoroughly to apprehend it, has arisenfromtheintrusionintoChristianthoughtofwhatwemay,withoutlackofcharity, call theunchristian conceptionofman'snatural innocence.Forthe task which was set to Christian thinking was to obtain a clearunderstanding of God's revealed purpose of mercy to the infants of a

guiltyandwrath-deservingrace.AndthePelagianizingconceptionoftheinnocenceofhumaninfancy,inhoweversubtleaformpresented,putthesolution of the problem in jeopardy by suggesting that it needed nosolution.We have seen how someGreek Fathers cut the knotwith thefacile formula that infantile innocence, while not deserving ofsupernatural reward, was yet in no danger of being adjudged topunishment.WehaveseenhowinthemoreactivehandsofPelagiusandhis companions, as part of a great unchristian scheme, it menacedChristianityitself,andwasrepelledonlybythevigorandgreatnessofanAugustine.We have seen how the same conception, creeping graduallyintotheLatinChurchinthemilderformofsemi-Pelagianism,lulledherhearttosleepwithsuggestionsoflessandlessill-desertfororiginalsin,until she neglected the problem of infant salvation altogether andcomforted herself with a constantly attenuating doctrine of infantpunishment. If infants are so well off without Christ, there is littleimpulsetoconsiderwhethertheymaynotbeinChrist.

The Reformed churches could not hope to work out the problem freefrommenace fromtheperennialenemy.Thecrisis came in the formoftheRemonstrantcontroversy.TheanthropologyoftheRemonstrantswasdistinctlysemi-Pelagian,andonthatbasisnosolidadvancewaspossible.Norwasthematterhelpedbytheirpostulationofauniversalatonementwhich lost in intention asmuch as it gained in extension. Infantsmayhaveverylittletobesavedfrom,buttheirsalvationfromevenitcannotbe wrought by an atonement which only purchases for them theopportunity for salvation - an opportunity of which they cannot availthemselves,howevermuchthenaturalpoweroffreechoiceisuninjuredbythefall,forthesimplereasonthattheydieinfants;whileGodcannotbe held to make them, without their free choice, partakers of thisatonementwithoutanadmissionofthatsovereigndiscriminationamongmen which it was the very object of the wholeRemonstrant theory toexclude.It isnotstrangethattheRemonstrants lookedwithsomefavoron the Romish theory of pœna damni. Though the doctrine of thesalvationofallinfantsdyingininfancybecameoneoftheircharacteristictenets, it had no logical basis in their scheme of faith, and theirproclamationofitcouldhavenodirecteffectinworkingouttheproblem.Indirectly ithada twofoldeffect.On the onehand, it retarded the true

courseofthedevelopmentofdoctrine,byleadingthosewhoheldfasttoBiblical teaching on original sin and particular election, to oppose thedoctrineof thesalvationofalldying in infancy,as if itwerenecessarilyinconsistent with these teachings. Probably Calvinists were never sounited inaffirming that some infants,dying such, are reprobated, as intheheightoftheRemonstrantcontroversy.Ontheotherhand,sofarasthedoctrineof the salvationof all infants, dying such,was accepted bythe anti-Remonstrants, it tended to bring in with it, in more or lessmeasure,theothertenetswithwhichitwasassociatedintheirteaching,and thus to leadmen away from thedirect path alongwhichalone thesolution was to be found. Wesleyan Arminianism brought only anamelioration, not a thoroughgoing correction of the faults ofRemonstrantism.The theoreticalpostulationoforiginal sinandnaturalinability,correctedbythegifttoallmenofagraciousabilityonthebasisof universal atonement in Christ, was a great advance. But it left thesalvation of infants dying in infancy logically as unaccounted for asoriginal Remonstrantism. Ex hypothesi, the universal atonement couldbring to these infants only what it brought to all others, and this wassomethingshortofsalvation-viz.,anabilitytoimprovethegracegivenaliketoall.Butinfants,dyingsuch,cannotimprovegrace;andtherefore,itwouldseem,cannotbesaved,unlesswesupposeaspecialgifttothemoverandabovewhatisgiventoothermen-asuppositionsubversiveatonceofthewholeArminiancontention.Theassertionofthesalvationofall infantsdying in infancy,althoughaspeciallydear tenetofWesleyanArminianism, remains therefore, as with the earlier Remonstrants,unconformable to the system. The Arminian difficulty, indeed, lies onestepfurtherback;itdoesnotmakeclearhowanyinfantdyingininfancyistobesaved.80

Thetruthseemstobethatthereisbutonelogicaloutletforanysystemofdoctrinewhichsuspendsthedeterminationofwhoaretobesaveduponanyactionofman'sownwill,whether in theuseof graciousornaturalability(thatis,ofcourse,ifitisunwillingtodeclareinfants,dyingsuch,incapableofsalvation);andthatliesintheextensionof"thedayofgrace"forsuchintotheotherworld.Otherwise,therewillinevitablybebroughtin covertly, in the salvation of infants, that very sovereignty of God,"irresistible" grace and passive receptivity, to deny which is the whole

raison d'être of these schemes. There are indications that this is beingincreasinglyfeltamongthosewhoaremostconcerned;wehavenoteditmost recently among the Cumberland Presbyterians,81 who, perhapsalone of Christian denominations, have embodied in their confessiontheir conviction that all infants, dying such, are saved. The theory of aprobation in the other world for such as have had in this no suchprobationastosecurefromthemadecisivechoicehascometousfromGermany,andbearsaccordinglyalaterLutherancoloring.Itsrootsare,however, planted in the earliest Lutheran thinking,82 and are equallyvisibleinthewritingsoftheearlyRemonstrants;itsseedsarepresent,infact, wherever man's salvation is causally suspended on any act of hisown.But theoutcomeofferedby itcertainlyaffordsno good reason foraffirming that all infants, dying such, are saved. It is not uncommon,indeed,fortheadvocatesofthistheorytosupposethepresentlifetobeamorefavorableopportunityformoralrenewalinChristthanthenext.83Some,nodoubt,thinkotherwise.Butineithereventwhatcanassureusthatallwillbesorenewed?WearereadytoacceptthesubtleargumentinDr.Kedney'svaluablework,"ChristianDoctrineHarmonized,"84as thebestthatcanbesaidonthepremises;foralthoughDr.Kedneydeniesthetheory of "future probation" in general, he shares the general "ethical"viewonwhichitisfounded,andprojectsthesalvationofinfantsdyingininfancyintothenextworldontheexpressgroundthattheyareincapableofchoicehere.HeassuresusthattheywillsurelywelcometheknowledgeofGod's love inChrist there.Butwemiss thegroundsofassurance,onthefundamentalpostulatesofthescheme.Ifthechoiceof these infants,whileitremainsfree,canbemadethuscertainthere,whynotthesameforallmenhere?Andiftheirchoiceisthusmadecertain,istheirdestinydetermined by their choice, or by Godwhomakes that choice certain?Assuredly no thoroughfare is open along this path for a consistentdoctrineof the salvationof all those thatdie in infancy.But this seemsthe only pathway that is consistently open to those, ofwhatever name,who make man's own undetermined act the determining factor in hissalvation.85

VIII.THEDOCTRINALDEVELOPMENT

Thedriftsofdoctrinewhichhavecomebeforeusinthisrapidsketchmay

be reduced to three generic views. 1. There is what may be called theecclesiasticaldoctrine,accordingtowhichtheChurch,inthesenseofanoutwardlyorganizedbody, is setas thesole fountainofsalvation in themidst of a lostworld; the Spirit ofGod and eternal life are its peculiarendowments,ofwhichnonecanpartakesavethroughcommunionwithit. Accordingly, to all those departing this life in infancy, baptism, thegatewaytotheChurch,istheconditionofsalvation.2.Thereiswhatmaybecalledthegraciousdoctrine,accordingtowhichthevisibleChurchisnotsetintheworldtodeterminebythegiftofitsordinanceswhoaretobe saved, but as the harbor of refuge for the saints, to gather into itsbosomthosewhomGodHimselfinHisinfinitelovehasselectedinChristJesusbeforethefoundationoftheworldinwhomtoshowthewondersofHisgrace.Menaccordinglyarenotsavedbecausetheyarebaptized,buttheyarebaptizedbecausetheyaresaved,andthefailureoftheordinancedoesnotarguethefailureofthegrace.Accordingly,toallthosedepartingthis life in infancy, inclusion in God's saving purpose alone is theconditionofsalvation;wemaybeabletoinferthispurposefrommanifestsigns,orwemaynotbeabletoinferit,butinanycase itcannotfail.3.There is what may be called the humanitarian doctrine, according towhich the determining cause ofman's salvation is his own free choice,under whatever variety of theories as to the source of his power toexercisethischoice,orthemannerinwhichit isexercised.Accordingly,whetheroneissavedornotisdependentnotonbaptismoroninclusioninGod'shiddenpurpose,butonthedecisiveactivityofthesoulitself.

Thefirstofthesedoctrinesischaracteristicoftheearly,themedieval,andthe Roman churches, not without echoes in those sections ofProtestantismwhich love to thinkof themselvesas "morehistorical"orless radically reformed than the rest. The second is the doctrine of theReformed churches.These twoarenot opposed toone another in theirmost fundamental conception, but are related rather as an earliermisapprehensionanda later correctionof the samebasaldoctrine.Thephraseextraecclesiamnullasalusisthecommonpropertyofboth;theydifferonlyintheirunderstandingofthe"ecclesia,"whetherofthevisibleor invisibleChurch.The thirddoctrine,on theotherhand,hascroppedout ever and again in every age of the Church, has dominated wholesections of it and whole ages, but has never, in its purity, found

expression in any great historic confession or exclusively characterizedany age. It is, in fact, not a section of Church doctrine at all, but anintrusionintoChristianthoughtfromwithout.Initspurityithasalwaysand inall communionsbeenaccountedheresy; andonly as it has beenmore or less modified and concealed among distinctively Christianadjuncts has it ever made a position for itself in the Church. Itsfundamentalconceptionistheantipodesofthatoftheotherdoctrines.

ThefirststepinthedevelopmentofthedoctrineofinfantsalvationwastakenwhentheChurchlaidthefoundationwhichfromthebeginninghasstood firm, Infants too are lostmembers of a lost race, and only thosesavinglyunited toChrist are saved. In itsdefinitionofwhat infants arethussavinglyunitedtoChristtheearlyChurchmissedthepath.All thatarebroughttoHiminbaptism,wasitsanswer.Longagespassedbeforethe second step was taken in the correct definition. The way wasprepared, indeed, by Augustine's doctrine of grace, by which salvationwasmade dependent on the dealings ofGodwith the individual heart.But his eyes were holden that he should not see it. It was reserved toZwingli to proclaim it clearly, All the elect children of God, who areregenerated by the Spirit who worketh when, and where, and howHepleaseth. The sole question that remains is, Who of those that die ininfancyaretheelectchildrenofGod?Tentativeanswersweregiven.ThechildrenofGod'speople, said some.The childrenofGod'speople,withsuchothersasHislovehassetupontocall,saidothers.Allthosethatdieininfancy,saidothersstill;andtothisreplyReformedthinkingandnotReformedthinkingonly,butinonewayoranother,logicallyorillogically,the thinking of the Christian world has been converging. Is it theScripturalanswer?Itisaslegitimateandaslogicalananswerasany,onReformedpostulates.Itislegitimateonnootherpostulates.Ifitbereallyconformable to theWordofGod itwill stand;and the third step in thedevelopmentofthedoctrineofinfantsalvationisalreadytaken.Butifitstand,itcanstandonnoothertheologicalbasisthantheReformed.Ifallinfantsdyingininfancyaresaved,itiscertainthattheyarenotsavedbyor through the ordinances of the visible Church (for they have notreceivedthem),northroughtheirownimprovementofagracecommontoallmen(fortheyareincapableofactivity); itcanonlybethroughthealmightyoperationoftheHolySpiritwhoworkethwhenandwhereand

howHepleaseth,throughwhoseineffablegracetheFathergatherstheselittleonestothehomeHehaspreparedforthem.

Endnotes:

1. ReprintedfromthepamphletofthistitlepublishedbytheChristianLiterature Company of New York in 1891 (copyright now held byCharlesScribner'sSons).

2. Irenæus,"Haer.,"II.xxii.4,andIII.xviii.7.3. "Debapt.,"c.xii.4. Ep,lviii.(lxiv.).5. WithwhatlimitationsmaybeconvenientlyreadinWall,"Historyof

InfantBaptism,"ed.2,1707,pp.359ff.6. Cf. "TheNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," edited byDr. Schaff, v.

1887("Augustin'sAnti-PelagianWritings"),pp.lxx.f.7. Augustine's doctrine is most strongly expressed in "De verbis

apostolisermoxiv."(Sermoccxciv.,in"Opera,"Paris,tom.v.parsii.1838,coll.1738ff.).In"DePeccat.Merit.,"c.21(xvi.),and"ContraJulianum," v. 11, he speaks of the comparative mildness of thepunishment.

8. Cf.Wall,op.cit.,pp.64and365.9. "DefideadPetrum,"c.27.10. "AdFuscinamsororem."11. "Expos.inJob,"i.16.12. "Debapt.,"c.xii.13. Petavius,"Dogmatatheologica,"ed.Paris,ii.1865,pp.59ff.14. Hurter,"Theologiaedogmaticaecompendium,"iii.1878,pp.516ff.:

tract.x.cap.iii.§729.Wycliffemustbeadded.15. "Hell," iv. 23ff.; "Purgatory," vii. 25ff.; "Heaven," xxxii. 76ff.

(Plumptre'stranslation).16. Cf.Wall,op.cit.,p.371.17. "Sermodenativitatevirg.Mariae," consid, ii. ("Opera," iii. 1728,p.

1350).18. InIV.dist.iv.q.2:seePetavius,op.cit.,p.60.19. Cf.Wall,p.372.20. For this classification see Bellarmine, "De amissione gratise," lib.

vi. c. 1 ("Opera," v. 1873, pp. 454f.); and cf. Gerhard, "Locitheologici," ed. Cotta, ix. 1769, p. 281; Chamier, "Panstratiaecatholicae," iii. 1626,p. 159,orSpanheim, "Chamierus contractus,"1643,p.797.

21. SoFatherPaul,"HistoryoftheCouncilofTrent,"lib.ii.22. Perrone, "Prælectiones theologicæ ... in compendium redactæ," i.

1861,pp.494ff.23. "EcclesiasticalPolity,"V.lx.6,in"Works,"ed.Keble,i.1844,p.413.24. Thus e.g.DominicusdeSoto expresses it ("Denatura et gratia," ii.

10):"ItismostfirmlyestablishedintheChurchthatnoinfantapartfrom baptism in re - since he cannot have it in voto - enters thekingdomofheaven."

25. Thisgrowsoutofthedevelopmentofthedoctrinesofignoranceand"invincible ignorance," the latter of which was authoritativelydefinedbyPopePiusIXinhisEncyclicaladdressedtotheBishopsofItaly,August10,1863.SeeaninterestingstatementconcerningitinNewman's "ALetter to theDukeofNorfolk," on the Infallibility ofthe Pope. Thus while an absolute necessity for baptism in re isposited for the infants of evenChristianparents, even though theydieinthewomb,ontheotherhand,asthelawofbaptismisinforceonlywhereitisknown,andevenanignorancemorallyinvincible(asamongsectaries)iscountedtrueignorance,notevenanintentionofbaptismisdemandedoftheheathenorofcertainsectaries.Gousset,"ThéologieDogmatique,"ed.10,Paris,1866,i.pp.548,549,551,ii.pp.382f.,maybeprofitablyconsultedinthisconnection.Amongtheheathen thus the old remedies for sin are still probably valid; St.Bernardsays(quotedapprovinglybyGousset),"AmongtheGentilesasmanyasarefoundfaithful,webelievethattheadultsareexpiatedby faith and the sacrifices; but the faith of the parents profits thechildren,nay,evensuffices for them." If the fathersaresaved,whynotthechildren?MightnotaChristian'sinfantdyinginthewombbesaidtobe"invinciblyignorant"?Whyneedthe"lawofbaptism"besoinflexiblyextendedtoit?

26. In3part.Thomae,q.68,art.2et11.27. "Debaptismoinfantium."28. "Deremedio...proparvulis...sinebaptismomorientibus."29. "Theolog.moralis,"II.xi.3.

30. "Katholische Dogmatik," iii. 1845, pp. 151 f. (cap. ii. zweiterAbschnitt,§1).

31. DelaMarne,"TraitémétaphysiquedesdogmesdelaTrinité,"Paris,1826.

32. Hermesius,ZeitschriftfürPhil.undkath.Theologie,Bonn,1832.33. Cf.Vasquez,in3P.s.Th.disp.cli.cap.1;Hurter,op.cit., iii.1878,

pp.516ff.;Perrone,"Prælectionestheologicæ,"vi.1839,p.55.34. "Prælectionestheologicæ...incompendiumredactæ,"i.1861,p.494,

No.585.35. Op.cit.,p.517,No.729.36. Perrone,i.p.495;cf.ii.1861,p.252.37. Op.cit.,i.p.495,No.590.38. SeesomeofthedifficultiesverymildlystatedinHurter,loc.cit.39. Thewords areAquinas' (p. 3, q. 68, art. 1) ; see themquoted and

appliedbyPerrone,op.cit.,ii.p.253,No.99.40. "OroutsidetheChurchofChrist,"asisaddedined.1540.41. "HistoryofProtestantTheology"(E.T.),i.1871,pp.171f.42. "Werke,"xxii.872(Dorner'squotation).43. "Com.inGen.,"c.17:"Exegeticaoperalatina,"Erlangen,iv.1829,p.

78.44. "ChristlichesBedenken."45. See for several such quotations brought together, Laurence, "Eight

Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford," BamptonLectures,1804,ed.1820,pp.271f.AlsoGerhardasinnextnote.

46. Ed.Cotta,ix.1769,pp.282ff.47. "Opera,"in"Corpusreformatorum,"xxvii.1859,p.533.48. Cf.Dorner,op.cit.,i.p.172.49. Cf.Laurence,op.cit.,pp.272f.50. 50Ibid.,p.272.42651. ThisclassificationistakenfromCotta(Gerhard's"Loci,"ix.p.282).52. "Quæst.incap.vii.Gen."53. SeeKrauth,"TheConservativeReformationanditsTheology,"1872,

p.433.54. Cf.thestatementsinCotta,loc.cit.,andKrauth,loc.cit.55. Krauth,op.cit.,p.429.56. Ibid.,pp.561-563.57. Ibid.,pp.430,438.

58. Krauth, "Infant Baptism and Infant Salvation in the CalvinisticSystem,"1874,p.22.

59. ForanoutlineofthehistoryseeSchaff,"CreedsofChristendom,"i.1877,p.642;cf.Laurence,0p.cit.,pp.176f.

60. "Answer to the Bishop ofWinchester's Book," 1547, in the ParkerSociety's"EarlyWritingsofBishopHooper,"1843,pp.129,131.

61. "CourseofDivinity,"London,1674,p.196.62. "HistoryofInfantBaptism,"ed.2,1707,p.377.63. "Tracts for theTimes,"bymembersof theUniversity ofOxford, ii.

1839,No.67.64. See his views quoted and discussed by Witsius, "De efficacia et

utilitatebaptismi,"in"Miscellaneasacra,"ii.1736,pp.513ff.65. Zwingli's teaching may be conveniently worked out by the aid of

AugustBaur'svaluable"ZwinglisTheologie,"especiallyvol.ii.(Halle,1889).Zwingli'sdoctrineoforiginalsinhadpracticallynoinfluenceonthisquestion.

66. The adverb is used advisedly.Calvin is often held to have believedthatallinfantsdyingsucharesaved.Foracarefulstatementof thisopinion seeespecially the full and learnedpaperofDr. CharlesW.Shields,inThePresbyterianandReformedReviewforOctober,1890(i.pp.634-651).Tous,however,Calvinseems,whilespeakingwithadmirablecaution,toimplythathebelievedsomeinfantsdyingsuchto be lost. See e.g. his comment on Rom. v. 17, and his treatisesagainstPighius,Servetus,andCastellio.Dr.SchaffrepeatedlyspeaksofBullingerasagreeinginthispointwithZwingli-onwhatgroundsweknownotunlessthenotein"CreedsofChristendom,"i.1877,p.642, note 3, is intended to direct us to the passages quoted byLaurence as such. But these passages do not seem to support thatopinion;andinadiligentsearchinBullinger'sworkswefindnothingtofavoritandmuchtonegativeit.

67. Seereferenceante,p.129.68. "CompleteWorks,"newedition,1857,pp.645f.69. "TheAtonement:itsEfficacyandExtent,"1867,pp.183,184.70. "Locicommunes,"i.1580,p.439a(classisIV.loc.viii.§16).71. "Opera,"iii.1703,coll.1173f.,§22.72. Itis,perhaps,worthnotingthatthisisthegeneralCalvinisticviewof

what"childrenofbelievers"means.Cf.Calvin,"Tracts," iii. 1851,p.

351.73. "Works,"ed.Goold,x.1852,p.81(ed.Russell,v.1826,p.137).74. "Catechism,"q.37.75. "MiscellaneousWorks,"1830,p.940.76. "SermonsandTracts,"1793,p.205.77. "Theoretico-practicatheologia,"1724,p.308.78. Thelanguagehereusedhasanotuninterestinghistory.ItisCalvin's

challengetoCastellio:"PutforthnowthyvirulenceagainstGod,whohurls innocent babes torn from theirmothers' breasts into eternaldeath" ("De occulta Dei providentia," in "Opera," ed. Amsterdam,viii. pp. 644-645). The underlying conception that God condemnsinfants to eternal death seems to be Calvin's; but the mode ofexpression is Calvin's reductio ad absurdum (or rather adblasphemiam) of Castellio's opinions. NeverthelesstheRemonstrantsallowedthemselvesintheirpolemiczealtoapplythewholesentiment to theorthodox,and that, even ina stillmoresharpenedform-viz.,withreferencetobelievers'children.ThisverygrosscalumnytheSynodrepels.Itsdeliveranceissubjectedtoaverysharpandnotvery candidcriticismbyEpiscopius ("Opera," I. i. p.176,andspeciallyII.p.28).

79. Westminster Confession of Faith, X. i. and iii. The opinion that abodyofnon-electinfantsdyingininfancyandnotsavedisimpliedinthis passage, although often controversially asserted, is not only awhollyunreasonableopinionexegetically,butisabsolutelynegativedby the history of the formation of this clause in the Assembly asrecorded in the "Minutes," and has never found favor among theexpositors of the Confession. David Dickeon's (1684) treatment ofthe section shows thatheunderstands it to bedirected against theAnabaptists;andallcarefulstudentsoftheConfessionunderstanditas above, including Shaw, Hodge, Macpherson, and Mitchell. Thesame is true of all schools of adherents to theConfession. See e.g.LymanBeecher, intheSpiritof thePilgrims, i.1828,pp.49,81;cf.alsoPhilipSchaff,"CreedsofChristendom,"i.1877,p.795.

80. Theprevailing view in theMethodistEpiscopalChurch is probablythat infants are all born justified. The difficulties of this view arehinted by a not unfriendly hand in the Cumberland PresbyterianReviewforJanuary, 1890,p. 113.Thebest that canbe said toward

placingthedyinginfant"inthesameessentialconditionasthatintowhich the justified and regenerate adult is brought by voluntaryfaith,"maybe read fromDr.D.D.Whedon'spen in theMethodistQuarterly Review for 1853, p. 757. It is inconsequent; and itsconsequencesareportentous toArminianism -or shallwe say thatGoddoesnotdeterminewhoaretodieininfancy?

81. CumberlandPresbyterianReview,ii.1890,p.369;cf.p.113.82. Cf. e.g. Andreæ, "Actis Colloq.Montisbelligart," pp. 447, 448; and

noteBeza'scrushingreply.83. Cf."ProgressiveOrthodoxy,"1886,p.76.84. Vol.ii.1889,pp.90ff.85. The Rev. D. Fisk Harris, himself a Congregational minister

("CalvinismContrarytoGod'sWordandMan'sMoralNature,"1890,p.107),tellsusthataviewnotessentiallydifferingfromDr.Kedney's"seems to be the prevailing view of Congregationalists." This hestates thus: "All dying infants become moral agents after death.Exercising a holy choice they 'are saved on the ground of theatonementandbyregeneration"'

Annihilationism


Reprinted from "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of ReligiousKnowledge,"editedbySamuelMacauleyJackson,D.D.,LL.D.,i.pp.183-186(copyrightbyFunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1908).

I.DEFINITIONANDCLASSIFICATIONOFTHEORIES

A term designating broadly a large body of theories which unite incontending that human beings pass, or are put, out of existencealtogether. These theories fall logically into three classes, according astheyholdthatallsouls,beingmortal,actuallyceasetoexistatdeath;orthat, souls being naturally mortal, only those persist in life to whichimmortalityisgivenbyGod;orthat,thoughsoulsarenaturallyimmortalandpersist inexistenceunlessdestroyedbya forceworkinguponthemfrom without, wicked souls are actually thus destroyed. These threeclasses of theories may be conveniently called respectively, (1) puremortalism,(2)conditionalimmortality,and(3)annihilationismproper.

II.PUREMORTALISM

The common contention of the theories which form the first of theseclasses is that human life is bound up with the organism, and thattherefore theentiremanpassesoutofbeingwith thedissolutionof theorganism. The usual basis of this contention is either materialistic orpantheisticoratleastpantheizing(e.g.realistic);thesoulbeingconceivedintheformercaseasbutafunctionoforganizedmatterandnecessarilyceasingtoexistwiththedissolutionoftheorganism,inthelattercaseasbut the individualized manifestation of a much more extensive entity,back into which it sinks with the dissolution of the organism inconnectionwithwhichtheindividualizationtakesplace.Rarely,however,thecontentioninquestionisbasedonthenotionthatthesoul,althoughaspiritual entity distinct from the material body, is incapable of

maintainingitsexistenceseparatefromthebody.Thepromiseofeternallife is too essential an element of Christianity for theories like these tothriveinaChristianatmosphere.ItisevenadmittednowbyStade,Oort,Schwally, and others that the Old Testament, even in its oldest strata,presupposes the persistence of life after death - which used to be verycommonly denied. Nevertheless, thematerialists (e.g. Feuerbach, Vogt,Moleschott,Büchner,Häckel)andpantheists(Spinoza,Fichte,Schelling,Hegel,Strauss; cf.S.Davidson, "TheDoctrineofLastThings,"London,1882, pp. 132-133) still deny the possibility of immortality; and inexceedinglywidecircles,evenamongthosewhowouldnotwhollybreakwithChristianity,menpermitthemselvestocherishnothingmorethana"hope" of it (S.Hoekstra, "DeHoop derOnsterfelijkheid," Amsterdam,1867;L.W.E.Rauwenhoff,"WijsbegeertevandenGodsdienst,"Leiden,1887,p.811;cf.the"IngersollLectures").

III.CONDITIONALIMMORTALITY

The class of theories to which the designation of "conditionalimmortality"ismostproperlyapplicable,agreewiththetheoriesofpuremortalism in teaching the naturalmortality ofman in his entirety, butseparate from them inmaintaining that thismortalmay, and inmanycasesdoes,putonimmortality.ImmortalityintheirviewisagiftofGod,conferredon thosewhohaveentered into livingcommunionwithHim.Manytheoristsofthisclassadoptfranklythematerialisticdoctrineofthesoul,anddenythatitisadistinctentity;theythereforeteachthatthesoulnecessarily dies with the body, and identify life beyond death with theresurrection, conceived as essentially a recreation of the entire man.Whetherallmenaresubjectsof thisrecreativeresurrectionisamootedquestionamongthemselves.Somedenyit,andaffirmthereforethatthewicked perish finally at death, the children of God alone attaining toresurrection.Thegreaterpart,however,teacharesurrectionforall,anda"second death,"which is annihilation, for thewicked (e.g. Jacob Blain,"DeathnotLife,"Buffalo,1857,pp.39-42;AaronEllisandThomasRead,"BibleversusTradition,"NewYork,1853,pp.13-121;GeorgeStorrs,"SixSermons," New York, 1856, pp. 29 ft.; Zenas Campbell, "The Age ofGospelLight,"Hartford,1854).Therearemany,ontheotherhand,whorecognizethatthesoulisaspiritualentity,disparateto,thoughconjoined

in personal union with, the body. In their view, however, ordinarily atleast,thesoulrequiresthebodyeitherforitsexistence,orcertainlyforitsactivity.C.F.Hudson, forexample ("DebtandGrace,"NewYork, 1861,pp.263-264),teachesthatthesoulliesunconscious,oratleastinactive,fromdeathtotheresurrection;thenthejustrisetoanecstasyofbliss;theunjust,however,startupatthevoiceofGodtobecomeextinctintheveryact.Most,perhaps,prolongthesecondlifeofthewickedforthepurposeof the infliction of their merited punishment; and some make theirextinctionaprotractedprocess (e.g.H.L.Hastings, "Retributionor theDoomoftheUngodly,"Providence,1861,pp.77,153;cf.HoraceBushnell,"Forgiveness and Law," New York, 1874, p. 147, notes 5 and 6; JamesMartineau, "A Study of Religion," Oxford, 11888, p. 114). For furtherdiscussionofthetheoryofconditionalimmortality,see"Immortality."

IV.ANNIHILATIONISMPROPER

Already, however, in speaking of extinction we are passing beyond thelimits of "conditionalism" pure and simple and entering the region ofannihilationismproper.Whetherwethinkofthisextinctionastheresultof thepunishmentor as thegradualdyingoutof thepersonalityunderthe enfeebling effects of sin, we are no longer looking at the soul asnaturallymortalandrequiringanewgiftofgracetokeepitinexistence,but as naturally immortal and suffering destruction at the hands of aninimicalpower.Andthisbecomesevenmoreapparentwhentheassumedmortalismofthesoulisgroundednotinitsnaturebut in itssinfulness;sothatthetheorydealsnotwithsoulsassuch,butwithsinfulsouls,anditisaquestionofsalvationbyagiftofgracetoeverlastinglifeorofbeingleft to thedisintegratingeffectsof sin.Thepointofdistinctionbetweentheories of this class and "conditionalism" is that these theories withmore or less consistency or heartiness recognize what is called the"naturalimmortalityofthesoul,"andarenottemptedthereforetothinkofthesoulasbynaturepassingoutofbeingatdeath(oratanytime),andyet teach that the actual punishment inflicted upon or suffered by thewickedresultsinextinctionofbeing.Theymaydifferamongthemselves,astothetimewhenthisextinctiontakesplace-whetheratdeath,oratthe general judgment - or as to the more or less extended or intensepunishmentaccorded to the varyingguilt of each soul. Theymaydiffer

also as to the means by which the annihilation of the wicked soul isaccomplished - whether by amere act of divine power, cutting off thesinfullife,orbythedestructivefuryofthepunishmentinflicted,orbythegradualenervatingandsappingworkingof sin itselfon thepersonality.Theyretaintheircommoncharacterastheoriesofannihilationpropersolongastheyconceivetheextinctionofthesoulasaneffectwroughtonittowhichitsuccumbs,ratherthanasthenaturalexitofthesoulfromalifewhichcouldbecontinuedtoitonlybysomeoperationuponitraisingittoahigherthanitsnaturalpotency.

V.MINGLINGOFTHEORIES

It must be borne in mind that the adherents of these two classes oftheories are not very careful to keep strictlywithin the logical limits ofone of the classes. Convenient as it is to approach their study with adefiniteschematizationinhand,itisnotalwayseasytoassignindividualwriterswithdefinitenesstooneortheotherofthem.Ithasbecomeusual,therefore, to speak of them all as annihilationists or of them all asconditionalists; annihilationists because they all agree that the souls ofthe wicked cease to exist; conditionalists because they all agree thattherefore persistence in life is conditioned on a right relation to God.Perhaps themajority of thosewho call themselves conditionalistsallowthat the mortality of the soul, which is the prime postulate of theconditionalist theory, is inonewayor another connectedwith sin; thatthesoulsofthewickedpersistinexistenceafterdeathandevenafterthejudgment,inordertoreceivethepunishmentduetheirsin;andthatthispunishment,whetheritbeconceivedasinflictionfromwithoutorasthesimpleconsequenceofsin,hasmuchtodowiththeirextinction.Whensoheld,conditionalismcertainlyfallslittleshortofannihilationismproper.

VI.EARLYHISTORYOFANNIHILATIONISTICTHEORIES

Some confusion has arisen, in tracing the history of the annihilationisttheories,fromconfoundingwiththemenunciationsbytheearlierChurchFathers of the essential Christian doctrine that the soul is not self-existent,butowes,asitsexistence,soitscontinuanceinbeing,tothewillofGod.Theearliestappearanceofagenuinelyannihilationist theory inextant Christian literature is to be found apparently in the African

apologist Arnobius, at the opening of the fourth century (cf. Salmond,"TheChristianDoctrineofImmortality,"Edinburgh,1901,pp.473--474;Falke,"DieLehrevonderewigenVerdammnis,"Eisenach,1892,pp.27-28). It seemed tohim impossible that beings such asmen could eitherowetheirbeingdirectlytoGodorpersistinbeingwithoutaspecialgiftofGod;theunrighteousmustthereforebegraduallyconsumedinthefiresofGehenna.AsomewhatsimilarideawasannouncedbytheSociniansinthesixteenthcentury(O.Fock,"DerSocinianismus,"Kiel,1847,pp.714ff.). On the positive side, Faustus Socinus himself thought thatman ismortalbynatureandattainsimmortalityonlybygrace.Onthenegativeside,his followers (Crell, Schwaltz, and especiallyErnst Sohner) taughtexplicitly that the second death consists in annihilation, which takesplace,however,onlyafterthegeneralresurrection,atthefinaljudgment.FromtheSociniansthisgeneralviewpassedovertoEnglandwhereitwasadopted,notmerely,asmighthavebeenanticipated,bymenlikeLocke("Reasonableness of Christianity," § 1), Hobbes ("Leviathan"), andWhiston,butalsobyChurchmenlikeHammondandWarburton,andwasatleastplayedwithbynon-conformistleaderslikeIsaacWatts.Themostremarkableexampleofitsutilizationinthisage,however,issuppliedbythenon-jurorHenryDodwell(1706).Insistingthatthe"soulisaprinciplenaturallymortal,"Dodwellrefusedtoallowthebenefitofthismortalitytoanybutthosewholivedanddiedwithoutthelimitsoftheproclamationof the gospel; no "adult person whatever," he insisted, "living whereChristianityisprofessed,andthemotivesofitscredibilityaresufficientlyproposed, can hope for the benefit of actualmortality." Those living inChristian landsare thereforeall immortalized,but in twoclasses: some"bythepleasureofGodtopunishment,"some"torewardbytheirunionwiththedivinebaptismalSpirit."Itwaspartofhiscontentionthat"nonehave the power of giving this divine immortalizing Spirit since theapostlesbutthebishopsonly,"sothathisbookwasratherablastagainsttheantiprelatiststhanapleaforannihilationism;anditwasrepliedtoassuchbySamuelClarke(1706),RichardBaxter(1707),andDanielWhitby(1707).During theeighteenthcentury the theorywasadvocatedalsoonthecontinentofEurope(e.g.E.J.K.Walter,"PrüfungwichtigerLehrentheologischen und philosophischen Inhalts," Berlin, 1782), and almostfound a martyr in the Neuchâtel pastor, Ferdinand Olivier Petitpierre,commonlyspokenofbythenicknameof"NoEternity"(cf.C.Berthoud,

"Les quatre Petitpierres," Neuchâtel, 1875). In the first half of thenineteenthcenturyalsoitfoundsporadicadherents,ase.g.C.H.WeisseinGermany (TheoloqischeStudienundKritiken, ix. 1836,pp. 271-340)and H. H. Dobney in England ("Notes of Lectures on FuturePunishment,"London,1844;newedition,"OntheScriptureDoctrineofFuturePunishment,"1846).

VII.NINETEENTHCENTURYTHEORIES

Therealextensionofthetheorybelongs,however,onlytothesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury.Duringthisperioditattained,chieflythroughtheableadvocacyof itbyC.F.HudsonandE.White, something likeapopularvogue inEnglish-speaking lands. InFrench-speaking countries,whileneverbecomingreallypopular,ithascommandedtheattentionofan influential circle of theologians and philosophers (as J. Rognon,"L'Immortaliténativeetl'enseignementbiblique,"Montauban,1894,p.7;butcf.A.Gretillat,"Exposédethéologiesystématique,"Paris,iv.1890,p.602). InGermany, on the other hand, it hasmetwith less acceptance,although it is precisely there that it has been most scientificallydeveloped, and has received the adherence of the most outstandingnames.Beforetheopeningofthishalfcentury,infact,ithadgainedthegreatsupportofRichardRothe'sadvocacy("TheologischeEthik,"3vols.,Wittenberg, 1845-1848; ed. 2, 5 vols., 1867-1871, §§ 470-472;"Dogmatik," Heidelberg, II. ii. 1870, §§ 47-48, especially p. 158), andnever since has it ceased to find adherents of mark, who base theiracceptanceof it sometimesongeneral grounds,but increasinglyon theview that theScriptures teach, not a doctrine of the immortality of thesoul,butareanimationbyresurrectionofGod'speople.ThechiefnamesinthisseriesareC.H.Weisse("PhilosophischeDogmatik,"Leipzig,1855-1862,§970);HermannSchultz("VoraussetzungenderchristlichenLehrevon der Unsterblichkeit," Göttingen, 1861, p. 155; cf. "Grundriss derevangelischen Dogmatik," 1892, p. 154: "This condemnation of thesecond death may in itself, according to the Bible, be thought of asexistence in torment, or as painful cessation of existence. Dogmaticswithout venturing to decide, will find the second conception the moreprobable, biblically and dogmatically"); H. Plitt ("EvangelischeGlaubenslehre," Gotha, 1863); F. Brandes (Theologische Studien und

Kritiken, 1872, pp. 545, 550); A. Schäffer ("Auf derNeige des Lebens,"Gotha, 1884; "Was ist Glück?" 1891, pp. 290-294); G. Runze("Unsterblichkeit und Auferstehung," Berlin, i. 1894, pp. 167, 204:"ChristianEschatologyteachesnotanaturalimmortalityforthesoul,buta reanimation by God's almighty power. . . . The Christian hope ofreanimationmakestheactualizationofafutureblessedexistencedependentirely on faith in God"); L. Lemme ("Endlosigkeit der Verdammnis,"Berlin, 1899, pp. 31-32,60-61); cf. R. Kabisch ("Die Eschatologie desPaulus,"Göttingen,1893).

ThesamegeneralstandpointhasbeenoccupiedinHolland,forexample,byJonker(TheologischeStudiën,i.).Thefirstadvocateofconditionalismin Frenchwas the Swiss pastor, E. Pétavel-Olliff,whose first book, "LaFindumal,"appeared in 1872 (Paris), followedbymanyarticles in theFrenchtheologicaljournalsandby"LeProblèmedel'immortalité"(1891;E.T.London,1892),and"TheExtinctionofEvil"(E.T.1889).In1880C.Byse issued a translation of E.White's chief book. The theory not onlyhad already been presented byA. Bost ("Le Sort desméchants," 1861),buthadbeen takenupbyphilosophersof such standing asC.Lambert("LeSystèmedumondemoral,"1862),P.Janet(Revuedesdeuxmondes,1863),andC.Renouvier ("LaCritiquephilosophique,"1878) ;andsoonafterwardCharlesSecretanandC.Ribot(Revuetheoloqique,1885,No.1)expressedtheirgeneraladherenceto it.Perhapsthemoredistinguishedadvocacy of it on French ground has come, however, from the twoprofessorsSabatier,AugusteandArmand,theonefromthepointofviewof exegetical, the other from that of natural science. Says the one("L'OriginedupéchédanslesystèmethéologiquedePaul,"Paris,1887,p.38): "The impenitent sinner never emerges from the fleshly state, andconsequently remains subject to the law of corruption and destruction,whichrulesfleshlybeings;theyperishandareasiftheyhadneverbeen."Says theother ("Essai sur l'immortalitéaupointdevuedunaturalismeévolutioniste,"ed.2,Paris,1895,pp.198,229):"Theimmortalityofmanis not universal and necessary; it is subject to certain conditions, it isconditional, to use an established expression." "Ultraterrestrialimmortality will be the exclusive lot of souls which have arrived at asufficient degree of integrity and cohesion to escape absorption ordisintegration."

VIII.ENGLISHADVOCATES

The chief English advocate of conditional immortality has undoubtedlybeen EdwardWhite whose "Life in Christ" was published first in 1846(London), rewritten in 1875 (ed. 3, 1878). His labors were seconded,however, not only by older works of similar tendency such as GeorgeStorrs's "Are theWicked Immortal?" (ed. 21, New York, 1852), but bylater teaching from men of the standing of Archbishop Whately("ScriptureRevelationsconcerningaFutureState,"ed.8,London,1859),Bishop Hampden, J. B. Heard ("The Tripartite Nature ofMan," ed. 4,Edinburgh, 1875), Prebendary Constable ("TheDuration andNature ofFuture Punishment," London, 1868), Prebendary Row ("FutureRetribution,"London,1887),J.M.Denniston("ThePerishingSoul,"ed.2,London,1874),S.Minton("TheGloryofChrist,"London,1868),J.W.Barlow("EternalPunishment,"Cambridge,1865),andT.Davis("EndlessSufferingnottheDoctrineofScripture,"London,1866).LessdecisivebutnotlessinfluentialadvocacyhasbeengiventothetheoryalsobymenlikeJosephParker,R.W.Dale, and J.A.Beet ("TheLastThings,"London,1897).Mr. Beet (who quotes Clemance, "Future Punishment," London,1880,asmuchofhiswayofthinking)occupiesessentiallythepositionofSchultz. "he sacred writers," he says, "while apparently incliningsometimestooneandsometimestotheother,donotpronouncedecisivejudgment"betweeneternalpunishmentandannihilation (p.216),whileannihilation is free from speculative objections. In America C. F.Hudson's initial efforts ("Debt and Grace," Boston, 1857, ed. 5, 1859;"Christ Our Life," 1860) were ably seconded by W. R. Huntington("Conditional Immortality,"NewYork, 1878) and J.H.Pettingell ("TheLife Everlasting," Philadelphia, 1882, combining twopreviouslypublished tractates; "TheUnspeakableGift,"Yarmouth,Me.,1884). Views ofmuch the same character have been expressed also byHoraceBushnell,L.W.Bacon,L.C.Baker,LymanAbbott,andwithoutmuch insistence on them by Henry C. Sheldon ("System of ChristianDoctrine,"Cincinnati,1903,pp.573ff.).

IX.MODIFICATIONSOFTHETHEORY

There is a particular form of conditionalism requiring specialmentionwhichseekstoavoidthedifficultiesofannihilationism,byteaching,not

the total extinction of the souls of the wicked, but rather, as it iscommonly phrased, their "transformation" into impersonal beingsincapable ofmoral action, or indeed of any feeling. This is the formofconditionalism which is suggested by James Martineau ("A Study ofReligion,"Oxford,ii.1888,p.114)andbyHoraceBushnell("Forgivenessand Law,"New York, 1874, p. 147, notes 5 and 6). It is also hinted byHenryDrummond("NaturalLawintheSpiritualWorld,"London,1884),when he supposes the lost soul to lose not salvation merely but thecapacityforitandforGod;sothatwhatisleftisnolongerfittobecalleda soul, but is a shrunken,useless organ ready to fall away like a rottentwig.TheAlsatiantheologianA.Schaffer("WasistGlück?"Gotha,1891,pp. 290-294) similarly speaks of thewicked soul losing the light fromheaven, the divine spark which gave it its value, and the humanpersonality thereby becoming obliterated. "The forces out of which itarisesbreakupandbecomeat last again impersonal.Theydonotpassaway, but they are transformed." One sees the conception here putforwardatitshighestlevelinsuchaviewasthatpresentedbyProfessorO.A.Curtis("TheChristianFaith,"NewYork,1905,p.467),whichthinksofthelostnot,tobesure,as"crushedintomerethinghood"butassunkinto a condition "below the possibility of any moral action, or moralconcern . . . like persons in this life when personality is entirelyoverwhelmedbythebasesenseofwhatwecallphysicalfear."Thereisnoannihilation in Professor Curtis' view; not even relief for the lost fromsuffering;butitmayperhapsbelookedatasmarkingthepointwherethetheoriesofannihilationismreachuptoandmeltatlastintothedoctrineofeternalpunishment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:Anexhaustivebibliographyofthesubjectupto1862isgiven inEzraAbbot'sAppendix toW.R.Alger's "CriticalHistoryof theDoctrine of a Future Life," also published separately, New York, 1871;consultalsoW.Reid,"EverlastingPunishmentandModernSpeculation,"Edinburgh,1874,pp.311-313.SpecialworksonannihilationismareJ.C.Killam,"AnnihilationismExamined,"Syracuse,1859;I.P.Warren,"TheWicked not Annihilated," New York, 1867; N. D. George,"Annihilationism not of the Bible," Boston, 1870; J. B. Brown, "TheDoctrine of Annihilation in the Light of the Gospel of Love," London,1875;S.C.Bartlett,"LifeandDeathEternal:ARefutationoftheTheory

ofAnnihilation,"Boston,1878.ThesubjectistreatedinS.D.F.Salmond,"TheChristianDoctrineof Immortality,"Edinburgh,1901,pp.473-499;R.W.Landis,"TheImmortalityoftheSoul,"NewYork,1868,pp.422ff.;A.Hovey,"TheStateoftheImpenitentDead,"Boston,1859,pp.93ff.;C.M. Mead, "The Soul Here and Hereafter," Boston, 1879; G. Godet, inChrétienévangélique,1881-1882;F.Godet, inRevue théologique, 1886;J.Fyfe,"TheHereafter,"Edinburgh,1890;R.Falke,"DieLehrevonderewigen Verdammnis," Eisenach, 1892, pp. 25-38. On conditionalimmortality,consultW.R.Huntington,"ConditionalImmortality,"NewYork, 1878; J. H. Pettingell, "The Theological Tri-lemma," New York,1878;idem,"TheLifeEverlasting:Whatisit?Whenceisit?Whoseisit?ASymposium,"Philadelphia,1882;E.White,"LifeandDeath:AReplytoJ.B.Brown'sLecturesonConditionalImmortality,"London,1877;idem,"LifeinChrist:AStudyoftheScriptureDoctrineon...theConditionsofHuman Immortality,"London, 1878.Furtherdiscussionsmaybefoundintheappropriatesectionsofmostworksonsystematictheologyandalsoinworksoneschatologyand futurepunishment.See,besides theworksmentionedinthetext,theliteratureunder"Immortality."

TheTheologyoftheReformation


ReprintedfromTheBiblicalReview, ii.1917,pp.490-512(publishedbyTheBiblicalSeminaryinNewYork;copyrighted).

CharlesBeardbeginshisHibbertLecturesonTheReformationwiththesewords: "To lookupon theReformationof the sixteenth century as onlythe substitution of one set of theological doctrines for another, or thecleansingoftheChurchfromnotoriousabusesandcorruptions,orevenareturnofChristianitytosomethinglikeprimitivepurityandsimplicity-istotakeaninadequateviewofitsnatureandimportance."Hewishesustomakenoteofthefar-reachingchangesinhumanlifewhichhavebeenwrought by what we call the Reformation, to observe the numerousdepartmentsofactivitywhichhavebeenatleastaffectedbyit,andthentoseek itscause insomethingaswide in itsextensionas its effects.Hehimself discovers this cause in the "general awakening of the humanintellect," which had begun in the fourteenth century and was being"urged on with accelerating rapidity in the fifteenth." In his view theReformationwas merely the religious side of what we speak of as theRenaissance."ItwasthelifeoftheRenaissance,"heaffirms,"infusedintoreligion under the influence of men of the grave and earnest Teutonicrace."Heevenfeelsjustifiedinsayingthat,intheviewhetakesofit,theReformation "was not, primarily, a theological, a religious, anecclesiasticalmovementatall."

That there is some exaggeration in this representation is obvious. Thatthisexaggerationisduetodefectiveanalysisisasclear.Andthesuspicionliesverynearthatthedefectinanalysishasitsrootinanimperfectsenseof values. To point us to the general awakening of the human intellectwhichwasinprogressinthefifteenthcenturyisnottouncoveracause;itis only to describe a condition. To remind us that, as a result of thisawakeningof thehuman intellect,a lively sensehad longexistedof theneedof a reformation, and repeated attempts had been vainlymade to

effect it, that men everywhere were fully alive to the corruption ofmannersandmoralsinwhichtheworldwasgroveling,andwereequallyhelpless to correct it, is not to encourage us to find the cause of theReformation in a general situation out of which no reformation hadthrough all these years come. The question which presses is: Whencecame the power which achieved the effect - an effect apparently farbeyond the power of the forces working on the surface of things toachieve?

Thereisnouseinseekingtocoverupthefactsunderdepreciatoryformsofstatement.Itiseasytotalkcontemptuouslyofthe"substitutionofoneset of theological doctrines for another," as it would be easy to talkcontemptuously of the substitution of one set of political or of sanitarydoctrinesforanother.Theforceoftheperversesuggestionliesinkeepingthematterintheabstract.Theproofofthepuddinginsuchthingsliesintheeating.Nodoubtitispossibletotalkindifferentlyofmerelyworkingthe permutations of a dial-lock, regardless of the not unimportantcircumstancethatoneofthesepermutationsdiffersfromtherestinthis-that it shoots the bolts. The substitution of one set of theologicaldoctrines for another which took place at the Reformation was thesubstitutionofasetofdoctrineswhichhad thepromiseandpotencyoflifeinthemforasetofdoctrinestheissueofwhichhadbeendeath.Whathappenedat theReformation,bymeansofwhich the forcesof lifeweresetatworkthroughtheseething,strugglingmass,wastherevivalofvitalChristianity; and this is the vera causa of all that has come out of thatgreatrevolution,inalldepartmentsoflife.Men,nodoubt,hadlongbeenlonging and seeking after "a return of Christianity to something likeprimitivepurityandsimplicity."Thiswas theway thatanErasmus, forexample, pictured to himself the needs of his time. The difficulty wasthat, rather repelled by the Christianity they knew than attracted byChristianityinitsprimitivepurity-ofthetruenatureofwhichtheyreallyhadnoidea-theyweresimplyfeelingout inthedark.WhatLutherdidwastorediscovervitalChristianityandtogiveitafreshtotheworld.Todothiswastoputthesparktothetrain.Wearefeelingtheexplosionyet.

TheReformationwasthen-weinsistuponit-preciselythesubstitutionof one set of theological doctrines for another. That is what it was to

Luther; and that is what, through Luther, it has been to the Christianworld.ExactlywhatLutherdidwas forhimself - for thequietingofhisaroused conscience and the healing of his deepened sense of sin - torediscoverthegreatfact,thegreatestofallthegreatfactsofwhichsinfulmancaneverbecomeaware, that salvation is by thepure graceofGodalone. O, but, you will say, that resulted from Luther's religiousexperience. No, we answer, it was primarily a doctrinal discovery ofLuther's-thediscoveryofadoctrineapartfromwhich,andpriortothediscovery ofwhich, Luther did not have and could never have had hisreligious experience. He had been taught another doctrine, a doctrinewhichhadbeenembodiedinapopularmaxim,currentinhisday:Dothebest you can, and God will see you through. He had tried to live thatdoctrine,andcouldnotdoit;hecouldnotbelieveit.Hehastoldusofhisdespair.Hehastoldushowthisdespairgrewdeeperanddeeper,untilhewasraisedoutofitpreciselybyhisdiscoveryofhisnewdoctrine-thatitisGodandGodalonewhoinHisinfinitegracesavesus,thatHedoes itall, and that we supply nothing but the sinners to be saved and thesubsequent praises which our grateful hearts lift to Him, our sole andonly Saviour. This is a radically different doctrine from that; and itproduced radically different effects on Luther; Luther the monk andLuthertheReformeraretwodifferentmen.Andithasproducedradicallydifferenteffectsintheworld;themedievalworldandthemodernworldaretwodifferentworlds.ThethingthatdividesthemisthenewdoctrinethatLuther found in themonasteryatWittenberg -orwas italreadyatErfurt? - poring over the great declaration in the first chapter of theEpistle to the Romans: "The righteous shall live by faith." ÉmileDoumergueputsthewholestoryintoasentence:"Tworadicallydifferentreligionsgivebirthtotworadicallydifferentcivilizations."

Lutherhimselfknewperfectlywellthatwhathehaddoneforhimself,andwhathewouldfaindofortheworld,wasjusttosubstituteanewdoctrineforthatoldone inwhichneitherhenortheworldcouldfind life.Sohecameforwardasateacher,asadogmaticteacher,asadogmaticteacherwhogloried inhisdogmatism.Hewasnotmerely seeking for truth;hehadthetruth.Hedidnotmaketentativesuggestionstotheworldforitsconsideration; what he dealt in was - so he liked to call them -"assertions."Thiswasnaturallyamodeofprocedureveryoffensivetoa

manofpoliteletters,likeErasmus,say,whoknewofnothingthatmenofculturecouldnotsitaroundawell-furnished tableanddiscuss togetherpleasurablywithopenminds."Ihavesolittlestomachfor'assertions,'"hesays,strikingdirectlyatLuther,"thatIcouldeasilygoovertotheopinionofthesceptics -wherever,"hesmuglyadds, "itwereallowedmeby theinviolable authority of the Sacred Scriptures and the decrees of theChurch,towhichIeverywheresubmit,whetherIfollowwhatispresentedor not." For this his Oliver he certainly got more than a Roland fromLuther. For Luther takes occasion from this remark to readErasmus amuch-needed lecture on theplace of dogma inChristianity.To sayyouhavenopleasure in "assertions,"he says, is allonewith sayingyouarenotaChristian.Takeaway"assertions,"andyoutakeawayChristianity.NoChristiancouldenduretohave"assertions"despised,sincethatwouldbenothingelsethantodenyatonceallreligionandpiety,ortodeclarethatreligionandpietyandeverydogmaarenothing.Christiandoctrinesarenottobeputonalevelwithhumanopinions.TheyaredivinelygiventousinHolyScripturetoformthemoldsinwhichChristianlivesaretorun.

WeareinthepresencehereofwhatisknownastheformalprincipleoftheReformation.ThefundamentalmeaningofitisthattheReformationwasprimarily,likeallgreatrevolutions,arevolutionintherealmofideas.Wasitnotawisemanwhourgeduslongagotogiveespecialdiligencetokeepingourhearts(theheartisthecognitivefacultyinScripture),ontheexpressgroundthatoutof themare the issuesof life?Thebattleof theReformationwasfoughtoutunderabanneronwhichthesoleauthorityof Scripture was inscribed. But the principle of the sole authority ofScripturewasnottotheReformationanabstractprinciple.What itwasinterested inwaswhat is taught in Scripture; and the sole authority ofScripturemeant to it the sole authority of what is taught in Scripture.This of course is dogma; and the dogma which the men of theReformation found taught in Scripture above every other dogma, somuchaboveeveryotherdogmathatinitissummedupalltheteachingofScripture, is thesoleefficiencyofGod insalvation.This iswhatwecallthematerialprincipleoftheReformation.Itwasnotatfirstknownbythenameofjustificationbyfaithalone,butitwasfromthefirstpassionatelyembraced as renunciation of all human works and dependence on the

graceofGodaloneforsalvation.In it theReformationlivedandmovedandhaditsbeing;inahighsenseofthewords,itistheReformation.

Theconfusionwouldbeludicrous,ifitwerenotratherpathetic,bywhichthecorrectionofabusesinthelifewhetheroftheChurchorofsocietyat-large, is confounded with the Reformation. Luther knew perfectly wellfromthebeginningwherethecenterofhisReformationlay,anddidnotforamomentconfounditsperipheraleffectswithit.Here,indeed,laytheprecise difference between him and the other reformers of the time -thoseotherreformerswhocouldnotreform.Erasmus,forexample,wasasclearofeyeasLuthertosee,andasoutspokenasLuthertocondemn,the crying abuses of the day. But he conceived the task of reform as apurelynegativeone.Thenoteofhisreformwassimplicity;hewishedtoreturntothe"simplicityoftheChristianlife,"and,asameanstothat,tothe"simplicityofdoctrine."Hewas contentwith a process of strippingoff, and he expected to reach the kernel of true Christianitymerely bythoroughly removing the husk which at the moment covered andconcealedit.TheassumptionbeingthattrueChristianitylaybehindandbeneath the corruptions of the day, no restoration was needed, onlyuncovering.Whenhecametodothestripping,itistrue,Erasmusfoundnostopping-place;hestrippednotonlytothebonebutthroughthebone,andnothingwasleftinhishandbuta"philosophyofChrist,"whichwasameremoralism.PeterCanisius,lookingatitformally,callsitnotinaptly,"the theology of Pyrrhus." Luther, judging it from the materialstandpoint, says Erasmus hasmade "a gospel of Pelagius." Thus at alleventsErasmusatoncedemonstratedthatbeneaththeimmensefabricofmedievalChristianity there layas itssustainingcorenothingbutabaldmoralism; and by dragging this moralism out and labeling it "simpleChristianity,"hasmadehimselfthefatherofthatgreatmultitude inourdaywho,crying:BacktoChrist!havereducedChristianitytothesimpleprecept:Begoodanditwillbewellwithyou.

In sharp contrast with these negative reformers Luther came forwardwithapositivegospelinhishands;"anewreligion"hisadversariescalleditthen,astheirdescendantscallitnow,andtheycallitsotruly.Hewasnotparticularly interestedinthecorrectionofabuses, thoughhehewedatthemmanfullywhentheystoodinhisway.Tospeakthewholetruth,

this necessarywork bored him a little.He sawno pure gospel beneaththemwhichtheirremovalwoulduncoverandrelease.Heknew thathisnewgospel,oncelaunched,hadpowerofitselftoabolishthem.Whathisheart was aflame with was the desire to launch this new gospel; tosubstituteit,thegospelofgrace,forthegospelofworks,onwhichalonemen were being fed. In that substitution consisted his wholeReformation.

InhisdetailedanswertotheBullofExcommunication,publishedagainsthim in 1520, in which forty-one propositions from his writings werecondemned, Luther shows plainly enough where the center ofcontroversylayforhim.Itwasinthearticleinwhichheassertsthesoleefficiencyofgraceinsalvation.HemakeshisrealappealtoScripture,ofcourse,buthedoesnotneglect topoint out also thathehasAugustinewithhimandalsoexperience.Hescoffsathisopponents'pretensionstoseparate themselves from the Pelagians by wire-drawn distinctionsbetweenworks of congruity andworks of condignity. Ifwemay securegracebyworks,hesays, itmeansnothing thatwe carefullyname theseworks works of congruity and refrain from calling them works ofcondignity."Forwhatisthedifference,"hecries,"ifyoudenythatgraceisfromourworksandyetteachthatitisthroughourworks?Theimpioussenseremainsthatgraceisheldtobegivennotgratisbutonaccountofourworks. For the Pelagians did not teach and do any otherworks onaccountofwhichtheyexpectedgracetobegiventhanyouteachanddo.Theyaretheworksofthesamefreewillandthesamemembers,althoughyouandtheygive themdifferentnames.Theyare the same fastingandprayers and almsgiving - but you call them works congruous to grace,theyworkscondigntograce.ThesamePelagiansremainvictorsinbothcases."

What Luther is zealous for, itwill be seen, is the absolute exclusion ofworksfromsalvation,andthecastingofthesoulwhollyuponthegraceofGod.Herisestofulleloquenceasheapproachestheendofhisargument,pushinghisadversariesfairlytotheropes."ForwhentheycouldnotdenythatwemustbesavedbythegraceofGod,"heexclaims,"andcouldnotelude this truth, then impiety sought out another way of escape -pretendingthat,althoughwecannotsaveourselves,wecannevertheless

prepareforbeingsavedbyGod'sgrace.WhatgloryremainstoGod,Iask,ifweareabletoprocurethatweshallbesavedbyHisgrace?Does thisseemasmallability - thathewhohasno grace shall neverthelesshavepower enough to obtain grace when he wishes?What is the differencebetween that, and sayingwith the Pelagians that we are savedwithoutgrace-sinceyouplacethegraceofGodwithinthepowerofman'swill?YouseemtometobeworsethanPelagius,sinceyouputinthepowerofmanthenecessarygraceofGod,thenecessityofwhichhesimplydenied.Isay, itseemsless impiouswholly todenygracethantorepresent itassecuredbyourzealandeffort,andtoputitthusinourpower."

Thistremendousonslaughtpreparesthewayforanotabledeclarationinwhich Luther makes perfectly clear how he thought of his work as areformer and the relative importance which he attached to the severalmatters incontroversy.Rometaught,withwhatever finessing, salvationbyworks;heknewandwouldknownothingbutsalvationbygrace,or,ashephrasesithere,nothingbutChristandHimcrucified.ItwasthecrossthatRomecondemnedinhim;foritwasthecrossanditaloneinwhichheputhistrust."Inalltheotherarticles,"hesays-thatistosay,alltheothers of the forty-onepropositionswhich had been condemned in theBull - "those concerning the Papacy, Councils, Indulgences, and othernonnecessary trifles (nugae!)" - this is theway inwhichhe enumeratesthem-"thelevityandfollyofthePopeandhisfollowersmaybeendured.Butinthisarticle,"-thatis,theoneonfreewillandgrace-"whichisthebestofallandthesumofourmatter,wemustgrieveandweepovertheinsanityof thesemiserablemen."It isonthisarticle, then,that forhimthewholeconflict turnsason itshinge.Hewisheshecouldwritemorelargelyuponit.Formorethanthreehundredyearsnone,ornexttonone,havewritteninfavorofgrace;andthereisnosubjectwhichisinsogreatneedoftreatmentasthis."AndIhaveoftenwished,"headds,"passingbythese frivolous Papist trifles and brawls (nugis et negotiis),which havenothingtodowiththeChurchbuttodestroyit-todealwiththis."

His opportunity to do so came when, four years afterward (1524),Erasmus,eggedonbyhispatronsandfriends,andtakinghisstartfromthis very discussion, published his charmingly written book, "On FreeWill." It is thegreathumanist'sgreatestbook,elegant instyle, suave in

tone,delicate in suggestion,winning in its appeal; and it presentswithconsummateskillthecasefortheRomishteachingagainstwhichLutherhad thrown himself. Separating himself as decisively if not asfundamentally on the one side from Pelagius and Scotus - in anotherplacehespeakswithdistasteof"Scotushisbristlingandpricklysoul"-asontheotherfromthereformers-hehasCarlstadtandLutherespeciallyinmind-Erasmusattacheshimselftowhathecalls,inaccordancewiththepointofviewofhistime,theAugustiniandoctrine; that is tosay, tothe synergism of the scholastics, perhaps most nearly in the form inwhich it had been taught by Alexander of Hales, and at all eventspracticallyasitwassoontobeauthoritativelydefinedasthedoctrineoftheChurchby theCouncil of Trent. To this subtle doctrinehe gives itsmostattractivestatementandweavesarounditthecharmofhisliterarygrace.Lutherwasnot insensible to thebeautyof thebook.He says thevoiceofErasmusinitsoundedtohimlikethesongofanightingale.Buthewasinsearchofsubstance,notform,andhefeltboundtoconfessthathisexperienceinreadingthebookwasmuchthatofthewolfinthefable,who, ravished by the song of a nightingale, could not rest till he hadcaughtandgreedilydevoured it -only toremarkdisgustedlyafterward:"Vox,etpraetereanihil."

The refinements of Erasmus' statements were lost on Luther.What hewished -andnothingelsewouldcontenthim-wasaclearanddefiniteacknowledgmentthattheworkofsalvationisofthegraceofGodalone,and man contributes nothing whatever to it. This acknowledgmentErasmuscouldnotmake.Theverypurposeforwhichhewaswritingwasto vindicate for man a part, and that the decisive part, in his ownsalvation.Hemightmagnify the grace ofGod in the highest terms.Hemight protest that he too held that without the grace of God no goodthingcouldbedonebyman,sothatgraceisthebeginningandthemiddleandtheendofsalvation.Butwhenpressedtothewallhewasforcedtoallow that, somewhere in "themiddle," an action ofman came in, andthat this action of man was the decisive thing that determined hissalvation.Hemightminimizethisactionofmantotheutmost.Hemightpointoutthatitwasavery,verylittlethingwhichheretainedtohumanpowers-only,asonemightsay,thatmanmustpushthebuttonandgracehadtodotherest.ThisdidnotsatisfyLuther.Nothingwouldsatisfyhim

butthatallofsalvation-everybitofit-shouldbeattributedtothegraceofGodalone.

LutherevenmadeErasmus'effortstoreduceman'spartinsalvationtoaslittleaspossible,whileyetretainingitatthedecisivepoint,theoccasionofscoffing.InsteadofescapingPelagianismbysuchexpedients,hesays,Erasmusandhisfellowsophistscastthemselvesmoredeeplyintothevatand comeoutdouble-dyed Pelagians. The Pelagians are at least honestwiththemselvesandus.Theydonotpalter,inadoublesense,withemptydistinctions betweenworks of condignity andworks of congruity. Theycallaspadeaspadeandsaycandidlythatmeritismerit.Andtheydonotbelittleoursalvationbybelittlingtheworksbywhichwemeritit.Wedonothearfromthemthatwemeritsavinggracebysomething"verylittle,almostnothing."Theyholdsalvationprecious;andwarnusthatifwearetogainit,itcanbeatthecostonlyofgreateffort-"tota,plena,perfecta,magnaetmultastudiaetopera."Ifwewillfallintoerrorinsuchamatter,saysLuther,at least letusnotcheapenthegraceofGod,andtreat itassomethingvileandcontemptible.Whathemeans is that the attemptedcompromise, while remaining Pelagian in principle, yet loses the highethical position of Pelagianism. Seeking some middle-place betweengraceandworks, and fondly congratulating itself that it retainsboth, itmerelyfallsbetweenthestoolsandretainsneither.ItdependsastrulyasPelagianismonworks,butreducestheseworksonwhichitneverthelessdepends to a vanishing-point. In thus suspending salvation on "somelittlething,almostnothing,"saysLuther,it"deniestheLordChristwhohas bought us, more than the Pelagians ever denied Him, or anyheretics."

To the book in which Luther replied to Erasmus' "On Free Will,"matching Erasmus' title, he gives the name of "On the EnslavedWill."Naturally, the flowing purity of the great humanist's Latinity and theflexiblegraceofhisstylearenottobefoundhere.ButthebookiswritteninsufficientlygoodLatin-plainandstrongandstraightforward.Lutherevidentlytookunusualpainswithit,anditmorethanmakesupforanylackof literarycharmitmayshowbythefertilityof its thoughtandtheamazingvigorofitslanguage.A.Freitag,itslatesteditor,characterizesitbriefly,inonegreatword,asan"exploit"(Grosstat),andSodeurdoesnot

scrupletodescribeitroundlyas"adialecticandpolemicmasterpiece";itswordshavehandsandfeet.Itsrealdistinction,however, is tobesoughtin a higher region than these things. It is the embodiment of Luther'sreformationconceptions, thenearest toa systematic statementof themhe evermade. It is the first exposition of the fundamental ideas of theReformationincomprehensivepresentation,anditisthereforeinatruesense themanifesto of the Reformation. It was so that Luther himselflooked upon it. It was not because he admired it as a piece of "mereliterature"thathealwaysthoughtofitasanachievement.Itwasbecauseitcontainedthedoctrinaeevangelicaecaput-theveryheadandprincipleof the evangelical teaching. He could well spare all that he had everwritten,hewrote toCapito in 1537, let themall go, except the "On theEnslavedWill"and the"Catechism"; theyonlyareright(justum).He isreportedinthe"TableTalk"(Lauterbach-Aurifaber)tohavereferredoncetoErasmus' rejoinder to thebook.Hedidnot admit thatErasmus hadconfutedit;hedidnotadmitthatErasmusevercouldconfuteit,no,nottoalleternity."ThatIknowfullwell,"hesaid,"andIdefythedevilandallhiswilestoconfuteit.ForIamcertainthatitistheunchangeabletruthofGod."Hewhotouchesthisdoctrine,hesaysagain, touchestheappleofhiseye.

WemaybesurethatLutherwrotethisbookconamore.Itwasnoteasyfor him to write it when he wrote it. That was the year (1525) of thePeasants'Revolt; andwhat thatwas in thewayofdistraction and care,anguishofmindandsoul,allknow.Itwasalsotheyearofhismarriage,andhashenottolduswithhisengagingfranknessthat,duringthefirstyearofhismarried life,Katiealwayssatbyhimasheworked,tryingtothinkupquestionstoaskhim?Butwhathewaswritingdowninthisbookhewasnotthinkingoutashewrote.Hewaspouringoutuponthepagetheheartof theheartofhis gospel, andhewasdoing it in theexultingconfidence that itwasnothis gospelmerely but the gospel ofGod.Hethanks Erasmus for giving him, by selecting this theme to attack himupon, a respite from the wearing, petty strifes that were being thrustcontinuallyuponhim,andthusenablinghimtospeakforoncedirectlytothepoint."Iexceedinglypraiseandlaudthisinyou,"hewritesattheendofhisbook,"thatyoualone,incontrastwithallothers,haveattackedthethingitself,thatis,thetopofthequestion(summamcaussae),andhave

not fatigued me with those irrelevant questions about the papacy,purgatory, indulgences and such like trumperies (nugae) rather thanquestions - inwhich hitherto all have vainly sought to pursueme. Youandyoualonehaveseenthehingeofthingsandhaveaimedatthethroat;andforthisIthankyouheartily."

Itwasinnolight,howeverbuoyant,spirit,however,thatLutherentereduponthediscussion.Inaverymovingcontexthewrites:"ItellyouandIbegyoutoletitsinkintothedepthsofyourmind-Iamseekinginthismatter something that is solemn, and necessary, and eternal tome, ofsuchsortandsogreatthatitmustbeassertedanddefendedatthecostofdeathitself-yea,ifthewholeworldshouldnotonlybecastintostrifeandtumult, but even should be reduced to chaos and dissolved intonothingness.ForbyGod'sgraceIamnotsofoolishandmadthatIcouldbewilling for the sake ofmoney (which I neither havenorwish), or ofglory (a thing I could not obtain if I wished it, in a world so incensedagainstme), or of the life of the body (ofwhich I cannot be sure for amoment), to carry on and sustain this matter so long, with so muchfortitudeandsomuchconstancy(youcallitobstinacy),throughsomanyperils tomy life, through somuchhatred, through somany snares - inshort through the fury ofmen and devils.Do you think that you alonehaveaheartdisturbedbythesetumults?Iamnotmadeofstoneeither,norwasIeitherbornoftheMarpesianrocks.Butsinceitcannotbedoneotherwise, I prefer to be battered in this tumult, joyful in the grace ofGod, for the sake of the word of God which must be asserted withinvincibleandincorruptiblecourage,ratherthanineternal tumulttobegroundtopowder in intolerable tormentunder thewrathofGod."ThiswasthespiritinwhichLuthersustainedhisthesisof"theenslavedwill."It is the spirit of "Woe is untome if I preach not the gospel." It is thegospelwhichhehasinhishands,thegospelfortheworld'ssalvation,andnecessityislaiduponhimtopreachit.

ThegospelwhichLutherhaditthusinhishearttopreachwas,toputitshortly,thegospelofsalvationthroughthegraceofGodalone.Therearetwofociaroundwhichthisgospelrevolves: theabsolutehelplessnessofman in his sin; the sole efficiency of grace in salvation. Thesecomplementary propositions are given expression theologically in the

doctrines of the inability of sinful man to good, and of the creativeoperation of saving grace. It is the inability of sinfulman to good thatLuthermeansbyhisphrase"theenslavedwill."NeitherhenorErasmuswas particularly interested in the psychology of thewill.Wemay learnincidentally that he held to the view which has come to be calledphilosophical determinism, or moral necessity. But we learn that onlyincidentally.NeitherhenorErasmuswasconcernedwiththemechanismofthewill'sactivity,ifwemaybeallowedthismodeofspeech.Theywereabsorbed in the great problem of the power of sinful man to good.Erasmushaditinmindtoshowthatsinfulmanhasthepowertodogoodthings,thingssogoodthattheyhavemerit inthesightofGod,andthatman'ssalvationdependsonhisdoingthem.Lutherhaditinhishearttoshowthatsinfulman,justbecauseheissinfulandsinisnolightevilbutdestroysallgoodness,hasnopowertodoanythingthatisgoodinGod'ssight, and therefore is dependent utterly on God's grace alone forsalvation.Thisistosay,Lutherwasdeterminedtodealseriouslywithsin,withoriginal sin,with the fall,with thedeep corruptionofheartwhichcomesfromthefall,withtheinabilitytogoodwhichistheresultofthiscorruptionofheart.Hebrandedtheteachingthatmancansavehimself,or do anything looking to his own salvation, as a hideous lie, and "helaunchedpoint-blankhisdartattheheadofthislie-taughtoriginalsin,thecorruptionofman'sheart."

Erasmus,ofcourse,doesnotfailtoputhisfingerontheprecisepointofLuther's contention. He complains of the new teachers that they"immenselyexaggerateoriginalsin,representingeventhenoblestpowersofhumannatureassocorruptthatofitselfitcandonothingbut ignoreandhateGod, andnot evenonewhohasbeen justifiedby the graceoffaithcaneffectanyworkwhichisnotsin;theymakethattendencytosininus,whichhasbeentransmittedtousfromourfirstparentstobeitselfsin, and that so invincibly sin that there is no commandment of Godwhichevenamanwhohasbeen justifiedby faith cankeep, but all thecommandmentsofGodservenootherendthantoenhancethegraceofGod,whichbestowssalvationwithoutregardtomerits."Itoutragedhim,as ithasoutragedallwho feelwithhimup to to-day - as, for example,Hartmann Grisar - that Luther so grossly overdraws the evil of"concupiscence,"andthusdoesdespitetothathumannaturewhichGod

created inHis own image.Lutherwas compelled topoint out over andoveragain thathewasnot talkingabouthumannatureand itspowers,butaboutsinandgrace.WehavenothadtowaitforErasmustotellus,hesays,"thatamanhaseyesandnose,andears,andbones,andhands-andamindandawillandareason,"andthatit isbecausehehasthesethingsthatheisaman;hewouldnotbeamanwithoutthem.Wecouldnottalkofsinwithreferencetohim,hadhenotthesethings;norofgraceeither-fordoesnoteventheproverbsay:"Goddidnotmakeheavenforgeese"?Letusleavehumannatureanditspowerstoonesidethen;theyareallpresupposed.Thepointofimportanceisthatmanisnowasinner.Andthepointindisputeiswhethersinfulmancanbe,atwill,notsinful;whetherhecandobynaturewhatitrequiresgracetodo.Lutherdoesnotdepreciatehumannature;hisopponentsdepreciatethebalefulpowerofsin, the necessity for a creative operation of grace; and because theydepreciatebothsinandgrace theyexpectman inhisownpowers todowhatGodalone,theAlmightyWorker,cando.

Hedrawsouthisdoctrinehereinalongparallel."Asaman,beforeheiscreated,tobeaman,doesnothingandmakesnoefforttobeacreature;andthen,afterhehasbeenmadeandcreated,doesnothingandmakesno effort to continue a creature; but both these things alike are donesolely by the will of the omnipotent power and goodness of God whowithoutouraidcreatesandpreservesus-butHedoesnotoperateinuswithoutourcooperation,seeingthatHecreatedandpreservedusforthisverypurpose, thatHemightoperate inus andwe cooperatewithHim,whether this is done outside His kingdom by general omnipotence, orwithinHiskingdombythesingularpowerofHisSpirit:SothenwesaythatamanbeforeheisrenovatedintoanewcreatureofthekingdomoftheSpirit,doesnothingandmakesnoeffort topreparehimself forthatrenovation and kingdom; and then, after he has been renovated, doesnothing,makesnoefforttocontinueinthatkingdom;buttheSpiritalonedoes both alike in us, recreating uswithout our aid, and preserving uswhenrecreated,asalsoJamessays, 'OfHisownwillbegatHeusbythewordofHispower,thatweshouldbethebeginningofHiscreation'(heisspeakingof the renewed creature), butHedoesnot operate apart fromus,seeingthatHehas recreatedandpreservedus for thisverypurposethatHemightoperateinusandwecooperatewithHim.Thusthroughus

Hepreaches,haspityonthepoor,consolestheafflicted.Butwhat,then,is attributed to free will? Or rather what is left to it except nothing?Assuredly just nothing." What this parallel teaches is that the wholesavingwork is fromGod, in the beginning andmiddle and end; it is asupernaturalworkthroughout.ButwearesavedthatwemayliveinGod;and, in the powers of our new life, do His will in the world. It is thePauline, Not out of works, but unto good works, which God has aforepreparedthatweshouldliveinthem.

It isobvious that thewholesubstanceofLuther's fundamental theologywas summed up in the antithesis of sin and grace: sin conceived asabsolutelydisabling to good; grace as absolutely recreative in effect.Ofcourse he taught also all that is necessarily bound up in one bundle ofthoughtwiththisgreatdoctrineofsinandgrace.Hetaught,forinstance,as amatter of course, thedoctrine of "irresistible grace," and alsowithgreat purity and decision the doctrine of predestination - for how cansalvation be of pure grace alone apart from all merit, save by thesovereignandeffectivegiftofGod?Agreatpartof"TheEnslavedWill"isgiven to insistence upon and elucidation of this doctrine of absolutepredestination, and Luther did not shrink from raising it into thecosmical region or from elaborating it in its every detail. What it isimportantforusatthemomenttoinsistupon,however,isthatwhatwehavesaidofLutherwemightjustaswell,mutatismutandis,havesaidofeveryotherofthegreatReformers.Luther'sdoctrineofsinandgracewasnotpeculiartohim.ItwasthecommonpropertyofthewholebodyoftheReformers. It was taught with equal clarity and force by Zwingli as byLuther,andbyMartinBucerandbyJohnCalvin.Itwastaughteven,inhis earlier and happier period, by that "Protestant Erasmus," theweakand unreliableMelanchthon, who was saved from betraying the wholeProtestantcauseatAugsburgbynostaunchness inhimself,butonlybythe fatuity of the Catholics, and who later did betray it in its heart ofheartsbygoingovertothatverysynergismwhichLutherdeclaredtobetheverymarrowof thePope's teaching. Inoneword, this doctrinewasProtestantismitself.AllelsethatProtestantismstoodfor,incomparisonwiththis,mustberelegatedtothesecondrank.

TherearesomeinterestingparagraphsintheearlierpagesofAlexander

Schweizer's "CentralDoctrinesofProtestantism," inwhichhe speaksofthewatchwordsofProtestantism,andpointsoutthedistinctionbetweenthemandtheso-called formalandmaterialprinciplesofProtestantism,which are, in point of fact, their more considered elaboration. Everyreformatory movement in history, he says, has its watchwords, whichserveasthesymbolbywhichitsadherentsencourageoneanother,andasthebanneraboutwhichtheygather.Theypenetratetotheveryessenceofthematter,andgive,ifpopular,yetcompressedandvivid,expressiontothe precise pivot on which the movement turns. In the case of theProtestantrevolutiontheantithesis,NottraditionbutScripture,emergedas one of these watchwords, but not as the ultimate one, but only assubordinatetoanotherinwhichwasexpressedthecontrastbetweenthepartiesatstrifewithrespecttothechiefmatter,howshallsinfulmanbesaved?Thisultimatewatchword,saysSchweizer,ransomewhatlikethis:Notworks, but faith; not ourmerit, butGod's grace in Christ; not ourownpenances and satisfactions, but themerit of Christ only.Whenwehearthesecrieswearehearingtheverypulse-beatsoftheReformationasa force among men. In their presence we are in the presence of theReformationinitspurity.

Itscarcelyrequiresexplicitmentionthatwhatweare, then, face to facewith in the Reformation is simply a revival of Augustinianism. Thefundamental Augustinian antithesis of sin and grace is the soul of thewholeReformationmovement.Ifwewishtocharacterizethemovementon its theological side in oneword, therefore, it is adequately done bydeclaring it a great revival of Augustinianism. Of course, if we studyexactness of statement, there are qualifications to be made. But thesequalificationsservenottomodifythecharacterizationbutonlytobringittoitsutmostprecision.WearebiddentorememberthattheReformationwas not the only movement back toward Augustinianism of the laterMiddle Ages or of its own day. The times were marked by a deepdissatisfaction with current modes of treating and speaking of divinethings; and a movement away from the dominant nominalism, so farbacktowardAugustinianismasatleasttoThomism,waswidespreadandpowerful. And we are bidden to remember that Augustinianism is toobroad a term to apply undefined to the doctrinal basis of theReformation.Initscompleteconnotationitincludednotonlytendencies

butelementsofexplicitteachingwhichwereabhorrenttotheReformers,and by virtue of which the Romanists have an equal right with theProtestants to be called the true children of Augustine. It is suggestedtherefore that all that can properly be said is that the Reformation,conceivedasamovementofitstime,representedthatpartofthegeneralrevulsion from the corruptions of the day - the whole of which lookedbacktowardAugustineforguidanceandstrength-which,becauseitwasdistinctively religious in itsmotivesandaspirations, laidhold purely oftheAugustiniandoctrinesofsinandgrace,andbuiltexclusivelyontheminitsreadjustmentstolife.

Wemaycontentourselveswithsuchastatement.ItisquitetruethattheReformation,when lookedatpurely in itself,presents itself toour viewas,inthewordsofFr.Loofs,"therediscoveryofChristianityasreligion."And it isquite true thatpurelyAugustinianas theReformation is in itsconceptionofreligion,it isnotthewholeofAugustinethatittakesoverbutonly"theAugustineofsinandgrace,"sothatwhenwespeakofitasarevivalofAugustinianismwemusthaveinmindonlytheAugustinianismofgrace.ButtheAugustinianismofgrace in the truest senserepresents"the real Augustine"; no injustice is done to historical verity in theessenceofthematterwhenwespeakofhimas"apost-PaulinePaulandapre-LutheranLuther."Wehaveonlyinsuchaphraseuncoveredthetruesuccession.Paul,Augustine,Luther;forsubstanceofdoctrinethesethreeare one, and the Reformation is perceived to be, on its doctrinal side,merePaulinismgivenbacktotheworld.

TorealizehowcompletelythisistruewehaveonlytolookintothepagesofthoselecturenotesonRomanswhichLutherwrotedownin1515-1516,and the manuscript of which was still lying in 1903 unregarded in ashowcase of the Berlin Library. Luther himself, of course, fullyunderstood it all. He is reported to have said in his table talk in 1538(Lauterbach): "There was a certain cardinal in the beginning of theGospel plottingmany things againstme inRome.A court fool, lookingon, issaidtohaveremarked: 'MyLord,takemyadviceandfirstdeposePaul fromthecompanyof theApostles; it ishewhoisgivingusall thistrouble.'" It was Paul whom Luther was consciously resurrecting, Paulwith the constant cryonhis lips - soLutherputs it - of "Grace!Grace!

Grace!"Luthercharacteristicallyadds:"Inspiteofthedevil"-"grace,inspiteof thedevil";andperhaps itwillnotbewithout itsvalue forus toobservethatLutherdidhiswholeworkofreestablishingthedoctrineofsalvationbypuregraceintheworld, intheclearconvictionthathewasdoingitintheteethofthedevil.Itwasagainstprincipalitiesandpowersand spiritual wickednesses in high places that he felt himself to befighting; and he depended for victory on no human arm. Has he notexpressed it all in his great hymn - the Reformation hymn by way ofeminence?-

AtrustystrongholdisourGod...Yea,weretheworldwithdevilsfilled.

TheNinety-FiveThesesinTheirTheologicalSignificance1


"A poor peasant's son, then a diligent student, a humble monk, and,finally, a modest, industrious scholar, Martin Luther had alreadyexceeded thehalf of the life-timeallotted tohim,when - certainlywiththedecisioncharacteristicofhim,butwithallthereserveimposedbyhispositioninlifeandtheimmediatepurposeofhisaction-hedeterminedto subject the religious conceptions which lay at the basis of theindulgence-usagesof the time to anexamination inacademic debate."2ThissingularlycomprehensiveandequallysingularlyaccuratestatementofPaulKalkoff'sisworthquotingbecauseitplacesusatonceattherightpoint of view for forming an estimate of the Ninety-five Theses whichLuther,inprosecutionofthepurposethusintimated,postedonthedooroftheCastle-ChurchatWittenbergonthefatefulOctober31,1517.Itsetsclearly before us the Luther who posted the Theses. It was - as hedescribeshimself, indeed, in theirheading3 -Martin Luther,Master ofArtsandofTheology,OrdinaryProfessorofTheologyintheUniversityofWittenberg.Anditindicatestouswithequalclearnessthenatureofthedocumentwhichheposted.Itconsistsofheadsforadiscussiondesignedtoelucidatethetruthwithrespecttothesubjectwithwhichitdeals-asagainLutherhimselftellsusinitsheading.Wehavetodohereinawordwithanacademicdocument,preparedbyanacademicteacher,primarilyforanacademicpurpose.AllthattheThesesweretobecomegrowsoutofthisfundamentalfact.Wehavetoreckon,ofcourse,withthemannerofmanthisProfessorofTheologywas;with theconceptionheheldof thefunction of the University in the social organism; with the zeal for thetruthwhichconsumedhim.Butindoingsowemustnotpermittofalloutof sight that it is with a hard-working Professor of Theology, in theprosecutionofhisproperacademicalwork, thatwehave todo in theseTheses. And above everything we must not forget the precise matterwhich the Theses bring into discussion; this was, as Kalkoff accurately

describes it, the religious conceptions which lay at the basis of theindulgencetraffic.

Failuretobearthesethingsfullyinmindhasresultedinmuchconfusion.ItisprobablyresponsiblefortheabsurdstatementofA.Plummertotheeffect that "Luther began with a mere protest against the sale ofindulgencesbydisreputablepersons."4Onewouldhavethoughtamereglance at the document would have rendered such an assertionimpossible; although it is scarcely more absurd than Philip Schaff'sremark that the Theses do not protest "against indulgences, but onlyagainsttheirabuse"5 -whichPlummerelaborates into: "Lutherdidnotdenounce thewhole system of indulgences.He never disputed that theChurchhaspowertoremitthepenaltieswhichithasimposedintheformofpenancestobeperformedinthisworld."6Totreatthewholesystemofindulgences,asproclaimedatthetime,asanabuseoftheancientcustomof relaxing, on due cause, imposed penances, is to attack the wholesystemwithavengeance.

ThegenerallackofdiscernmentwithwhichtheTheseshavebeenreadisnothinglessthanastonishing.It isnoteasytounderstand, for instance,howT.M.Lindsay7couldhavebeenledtosaythattheyare"singularlyunlike what might have been expected from a Professor of Theology.""They lack," he tells us, "theological definition, and contain manyrepetitionswhichmighthavebeeneasilyavoided."Hespeaksofthemassimplyunorderedsledge-hammerblowsdirectedagainstanecclesiasticalabuse:assuchutterancesaswerenaturaltoamaninclosetouchwiththepeople,who,shockedatthereportsofwhatthepardon-sellershadsaid,wished to contradict some of the statements which had been made intheir defense. One does not know how Lindsay would expect aprofessionaltheologian towrite.Butcertainly theseTheses lackneitherin profundity of theological insight nor in the strictest logicaldevelopment of their theme. They constitute, in point of fact, atheologicaldocumentofthefirstimportance,workingoutacompleteandclosely knit argument against, not the abuses of the indulgence traffic,andnoteventhetheoryofindulgences,merely,butthewholesacerdotalconception of the saving process - an outgrowth and embodiment ofwhichindulgenceswere.Thepopularaspectsof thematterarereserved

to the endof thedocument, andarepresented there,not for theirownsake,butasancillaryargumentsforthetheologicalconclusionaimedat.E.BratkeisrightininsistingonthedistinctivelytheologicalcharacteroftheTheses:theywere,hesaystruly,"ascientificattemptatatheologicalexamination"; and Luther's object in publishing them was a clearlypositive one. "Not abuses," says Bratke rightly, "nor the doctrine ofpenance,butthedoctrineoftheacquisitionofsalvation,itwas,forwhichLuther seized his weapons in his own interests and in the interests ofChristianity."8

BernhardBess9maysupplyus,however,withourtypicalexampleofhowthe Theses should not be dealt with. He wishes to vindicate aReformatoryimportanceforthem;buthehasdifficultyindiscoveringit.Theydonot look very important at first sight, he says. Everybodywhoreadsthemforthefirsttimehasafeelingofdisappointmentwiththem.Evenlettersofpardon.EverytrueChristian,whetherlivingordead,hasasharegiven tohimbyGod inall thebenefitsofChrist and theChurch,even without letters of pardon" - there is included in these "letters ofpardon,"expresslydeclaredunnecessary,thewholesacerdotalmachineryofsalvation;andLutherisassertingsalvationapartfromthismachineryas normal salvation. Reducing the ecclesiastical part in salvation to apurelyministerial and declaratory one, he sets the sinful soul nakedlyface to face with its God and throws it back immediately on His freemercyforitssalvation.

ThesignificanceoftheThesesasaReformationactemergesthusinthis:that they are a bold, an astonishingly bold, and a powerful, anastonishinglypowerful,assertionoftheevangelicaldoctrineofsalvation,embodied in a searching, well-compacted, and thoroughly wrought-outrefutationofthesacerdotalconception,astheunderlyingfoundationonwhich the edifice of the indulgence traffic was raised. This is whatWaltherKöhlermeanswhenhedeclares thatwemustrecognize this asthe fundamental idea of Luther's Theses: "the emancipation of thebelieverfromthetutelageoftheecclesiasticalinstitute";andadds,"ThusGodadvancesforhimintotheforeground;HealoneisLordofdeathandlife; and to theChurch falls themodest role of agent ofGodon earth -only there and nowhere else." "The most far-reaching consequences

flowed from this," he continues; "Luther smote the Pope on his crownand simply obliterated his high pretensions with reference to thesalvationofsouls in thisworldand thenext,and in theirplace setGodand the soul in a personal communion which in its whole intercoursebearsthestampof interiornessandspirituality."JuliusKöstlinputsthewholematterwithhisaccustomedclearnessandbalance-thoughwithalittlewiderreferencethantheThesesthemselves-whenhedescribestheadvance in Luther's testimony marked by the indulgence controversythus:"Ashehadup to this timeproclaimedsalvation inChrist throughfaith, in opposition to all humanmerit, so he now proclaims it also inopposition to an external human ecclesiasticism and priesthood,whoseactsarerepresentedasconditioningtheimpartingofsalvationitself,andasinandof themselves,evenwithoutfaith,effectingsalvationforthoseinwhoseintereststheyareperformed."10

How, in these circumstances,PhilipSchaff can sayof theTheses, "theyweremoreCatholicthanProtestant,"11passescomprehension.Hedoes,nodoubt,addonthenextpage,"TheformonlyisRomish,thespiritandaim are Protestant"; but that is an inadequate correction. They arenothing less than, to speak negatively, an anti-sacerdotal, to speakpositively, an evangelical manifesto. There are "remainders ofRomanism"inthem,tobesure,forLutherhadnotworkedhiswayyettotheperipheryofhissystemofthought.These"remaindersofRomanism"ledhiminafteryearstospeakofhimselfasatthistimestillinvolvedinthegreatsuperstitionof theRoman tyranny (1520), andevenasamadpapist,sosunkinthePope'sdogmasthathewasreadytomurderanyonewhorefusedobediencetothePope(1545).Butthesestrongexpressionswitness rather to the horror with which he had come to look uponeverythingthatwaspapist thandojusticetothestageofhisdevelopingProtestantism which he had reached in 1517. The remainders ofRomanismimbeddedintheThesesare,afterall,veryfewandveryslight.Luther was not yet ready to reject indulgences in every sense. He stillbelievedinapurgatory.Hestillhadagreatreverence for theorganizedChurch;putahighvalueonthepriestlyfunction;andhonoredthePopeastheheadoftheecclesiasticalorder.Itisevenpossibletodrawoutfromthe Theses, indeed, some sentences which, in isolation, may appearstartlinglyRomish.Wehaveinmindheresuch,forexample,asthesixty-

ninth,seventy-first,andseventy-third.Itistobeobservedthattheseareconsecutive odd numbers. That is because they are mere protases,preparingtheway,eachforaringingapodosisinwhichthegravamenoftheassertionlies.

Luther has reached the stage in his argument here where he has thecrying abuses connectedwith the preaching of indulgences in view.Hedeclares, tobe sure, "It is incumbentonbishopsandcurates to receivethecommissariesoftheapostolicalpardonswithallreverence."Butthatis only that he may add with the more force: "But much more is itincumbentonthemtoseetoitwithall theireyesandtotakeheedto itwithalltheirearsthatthesemendonotpreachtheirowndreamsinsteadofthecommissionofthePope."Heproclaims,itistrue,"Hewhospeaksagainst the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema andaccursed."Butthatisonlytogivezesttothecontrast:"Buthewhoexertshimselfagainstthewantonnessandlicenseofspeechof thepreacherofpardons,lethimbeblessed."Ifheallowsthat"thePopejustlyfulminatesagainstthosewhouseanykindofmachinationstotheinjuryofthetrafficinpardons,"thatisonlythathemayadd:"Muchmoredoesheintendtofulminateagainstthosewhounderpretextofpardonsusemachinationsto the injury of holy charity and truth." If Luther seems in thesestatementstoallowthevalidityofindulgences,thatmustbesetdowntothe fault of his antithetical rhetoric rather than of his doctrine. Theseprotasesarereallyofthenatureofrhetoricalconcessions,andaremeantto serve only as hammers to drive home the contrary assertions of hisapodoses.Lutherhasalreadyreducedvalidindulgencestotherelaxationofecclesiasticalpenances,andcurbedthePope'spowerwithreferencetothe remission of sin to a purely declaratory function. "The Pope hasneitherthewillnorthepowertoremitanypenalties,exceptthosewhichhehasimposedbyhisownauthorityorbythatoftheCanons.ThePopehasnopowertoremitanyguiltexceptbydeclaringandapprobatingittohave been remitted by God." These two Theses (5 and 6) cut upsacerdotalismbytheroots.

Wemustbewary,too,lestwebemisledbyLuther'ssomewhatartificialuseofhisterms.Hepersistentlymeansby"indulgences,""pardons,"notthe indulgenceswhich actually existed in theworld inwhich he lived -

whichheheldtobegrosscorruptionsof theonlyreal indulgences-butsuch indulgences as hewaswilling to admit to be valid, that is to say,relaxations of ecclesiastically imposed penances; and he repeatedlyspeakssoastoimplythatitisthesewhichthePopereallyintends-oratleastinthejudgmentofcharityoughttobeassumedreallytointend-byall the indulgences which he commissions. Even more persistently hemeansby"thePope,"notthePopeasheactuallywas,butthePopeasheshouldbe; that is to say, a "public person" representing andpracticallyidentical with the ecclesiastical Canons. Thus, when he declares in theforty-secondThesisthat"itisnotthemindofthePopethatthebuyingofpardons is comparable to works of mercy," he explains in his"Resolutions"(1518)thatwhathereallymeansisthattheCanonsdonotput the two on a par. "I understand the Pope," he says,12 "as a publicperson, that is, as he speaks through the Canons: there are no Canonswhichdeclarethatthevalueofindulgencesiscomparabletothatofworksof mercy." At an earlier point he had said with great distinctness (onThesis26),"IamnotintheleastmovedbywhatispleasingordispleasingtothesupremePontiff.Heisamanlikeothermen;therehavebeenmanysupreme Pontiffs who were pleased not only with errors and vices butevenwiththemostmonstrousthings.IhearkentothePopeaspope;thatiswhenhespeaksintheCanonsandspeaksaccordingtotheCanons,orwhenhedetermineswithaCouncil:butnotwhenhespeaksaccordingtohisownhead-forIdonotwishtobecompelledtosay,withsomewhoseknowledge of Christ is defective, that the horrible deeds of bloodcommittedbyJuliusIIagainsttheChristianpeoplewerethegooddeedsofapiouspastordonetoChrist'ssheep."13ThePopetoLutherwasthusanadministrativeofficer:notpreciselywhatweshouldcallaresponsibleruler, but rather what we should speak of as a limited executive. ThedistinctionhedrawsisnotbetweenthePopespeakingexcathedraandinhis own private capacity; it is rather between the Pope speaking ofhimself and according to his mandate. Only when the Pope spokeaccordingtohismandatewashethePope,andLutherrepeatedly intheThesesascribestothe"Pope"whathefoundintheCanons,anddeniestothe"Pope"whattheactualPopewassayinganddoing,becauseitwasnotin theCanons.TohimthePopewasnot somuchauthoritative aswhatwasauthoritativewas"thePope."

What Luther found it hardest to separate himself from in the Catholicsystem, was the authoritative ministration of the priest, God'srepresentative, toweakand tremblingsouls.ThestrengthandpurityoftheevangelicalismoftheThesesismanifestedinnothingmoredecisivelythan in their clear proclamation of the dependence of the soul forsalvationon themere grace ofGod alone.ButLuther couldnot escapefromthefeelingthat,insomeway,thepriesthadanintermediatingpartto play in the application of this salvation. This feeling finds itsexpressionparticularlyinThesis7:"Godneverremitsguilt toanyoneatall,exceptatthesametimeHesubjectshim,humbledinallthings,tothepriest,Hisvicar."IntheexpositionofthisThesisinthe"Resolutions"hehasmuchadotodiscoveranessentialpart insalvation for thepriest toplay.Whenthedustclearsaway,whathehastosayisseentoreducetothis:"TheremissionofGod,therefore,worksgrace,buttheremissionofthepriest,peace."14Wemaybesavedwithoutthepriest,butweneedhisministrationtoknowthatwearesaved.Theawakenedsinner,byvirtueoftheveryfactthatheisawakened,cannotbelievethathe-evenhe-isforgiven,andneedstheintermediationofGod'srepresentative,thepriest,to assure him of it. The mischief is that Luther is inclined, if not toconfuse,yettojointogetherthesetwothings,andtotreatsalvationitselfas therefore not quite accomplished until it is wrought in foroconscientiae as well as in foro coeli. "The remission of sin and thedonationofgraceisnotenough,"hesays,15"butthereisnecessaryalsothe belief that it is remitted." It makes no difference to him, he says,whetheryousaythatthepriest isthesinequanonoranyotherkindofcauseoftheremissionofsin:allthatheisexigentforisthatitbeallowedthat in some way or other the priestly absolution is concerned in theremissionofsinandguilt.

Hewillhave,however,noopusoperatum;anddespitethismagnifyingofthepartofabsolutioninsalvation,heputsthepriestfirmlyinhisplace,asamereminister.Itisafterallnotthepriest,byvirtueofanypowershemaypossess,buttheman'sownfaithwhichinhisabsolutionbringshimremission."Foryouwillhaveonlysomuchpeace,"hedeclares,16"asyouhavefaithinthewordsofHimwhopromised,'whatsoeveryouloose,etc.'ForourpeaceisChrist,butinfaith.Ifanyonedoesnotbelievethisword,hemaybeabsolvedamillion timesby thePopehimself,andconfessto

thewholeworld,andhewillnevercometorest." "ForgivenessdependsnotonthepriestbutonthewordofChrist;thepriestmaybeactingforthe sake of gain or of honor - do you but seek without hypocrisy forforgivenessandbelieveChristwhohasgivenyouHispromise,andeventhoughitbeofmerefrivolitythatheabsolvesyou,youneverthelesswillreceiveforgiveness fromyour faith . . . your faith receives itwholly. Sogreat a thing is thewordofChrist, and faith in it."17 "Accordingly it isthroughfaiththatwearejustified,throughfaithalsothatwearebroughttopeace-notthroughworks,penances,orconfession."18Thereisnolackevenhere,therefore,ofthenoteofsalvationbypuregracethroughfaithalone.Thereisonlyanefforttoplacetheactualexperienceofsalvationinsome real connection with the ministrations of the Church. Andunderlying this there is a tendency to confuse salvation itself with theassurance of it. Both these points of view lived on in the Lutheranchurches.

The part played, in the line of thought just reviewed, by Luther'sconceptionofevangelicalrepentanceoughtnottobepassedoverwithoutnotice.ThisconceptionisinasensetherulingconceptionoftheTheses.TheChristian,accordingtoLuther,isarepentantsinner,andbyhisverynature as a repentant sinner must suffer continuously the pangs ofrepentance.Bythesepangsheisdriventomortificationsofthefleshandbecomesevengreedyofsuffering,whichherecognizesashisappropriatelife-element.SostronganemphasisdoesLutherplaceonsufferingasamark of the Christian life, indeed, that he has been sometimesrepresentedas thinkingof it as agood in itself, after the fashionof themystics. Walther Köhler, for example, cries out, "The whole life apenance!NotonlyasoftenastheChurchrequiresitintheconfessional,no, the Christian's whole life is to be a great process of dying,'mortification of the flesh' - up to the soul's leaving in death its bodilyhouse. . . . The mystical warp is visible in this through and throughpersonal religion."19 This, however, is a misconception. Luther is notdealing with men as men and with essential goods; he is speaking ofsinners awakened to a knowledge of their sin, and of their necessaryexperienceundertheburdenoftheirconsciousnessofguiltandpollution.He is giving us not his philosophy of life in the abstract, but hisconceptionspecificallyoftheChristianlife.This,hesays,isnecessarilya

life of penitent pain. In the fundamental opening Theses, he alreadypoints out that suffering, the suffering of rueful penitence, necessarilybelongstoeverysinner,solongasheremainsasinner-providedthatheremains a repentant sinner. Without this compunction there is noremissionofsin(36);withitthereisnocessationinthislifeofsuffering.Theveryprocessofsalvationbringspain:noman,enteringintolife,canexpect anything else for the outerman but "the cross, death, and hell"(58);nordoesheseek toescape them,buthewelcomes themratherasmakingforhispeace(40,29).Andso,preaching"thepietyofthecross"(68),Lutherarrivesat lengthat thoseamazingclosingTheses inwhich,invoking a curse on those who cry, "Peace, peace!" when there is nopeace,andpronouncingablessingonthosewhocallout,"Thecross,thecross!"-thoughitisnorealcrosstothechildrenofGod-hedeclaresthatChristiansmuststrivetofollowChrist,theirHead,throughpains,deaths,and hells, and only thus to enter heaven through many tribulations -rather than, he adds, striking at the indulgence usages, "through thesecurityofpeace."ThereisanoteofimitatioChristihere,ofcourse;butnotinthemysticalsense.RathertherespeakshereadeepconvictionthattheChristianlifeisabattle,astruggle,astrenuouswork;andagreatcryofoutrageatthewholetendencyoftheindulgencesystemtoungirdtheloins,andcallmenoff fromtheconflict, lulling theirconsciences intoafatal sleep. Luther is not dreaming here of the purchase of heaven byhuman suffering or works. He has a Christian man in mind. He isspeaking of the path over which one treads, who, in his new life, isjourneyingtohisfinalbliss.Clearlyhedoesnotexpectto"liedown"onthe grace that saves him. He looks at the Christian life as a life ofstrenuousmoraleffort.Hisbrandof"passive"salvationisallactivity.

Itslackofmoralearnestnesswastoearnestmindsthecrowningoffenseofthesystemofindulgences.Inthemidstofasystemofwork-salvationithad grown up as an expedient by means of which the work might beescapedandthesalvationneverthelesssecured.The"works"couldnot,tobe sure, be altogether escaped: there must be something to take theirplace and represent them. That much the underlying idea of work-salvationdemanded.Thatsomethingwasmoney.TheexperienceofyoungFriedrichMecum(weknowhimasMyconius)mayinstructushere.Asayouth of eighteen he heard Tetzel preach the indulgences in 1510 at

Annaberg.Hewasdeeplymovedwithdesiretosavehissoul.Hehadnomoney,buthadhenotread,postedon thechurchdoor, that itwas thewishoftheholyFatherthatfromnowontheindulgencesshouldbesoldforalowpriceandevenindeedgivengratistothoseunabletopurchasethem?He presented himself at Tetzel's dwelling tomake his plea. Thehighcommissaryhimselfhecouldnotsee;butthepriestsandconfessorsin the ante-chamber pointed out to him that indulgences could not begiven, and if given would be worthless. They would benefit only thosewho stretched out a helping hand. Let him go out and beg from somepiouspersononlysomuchasagroschen,orsixpfennigs-andhecouldpurchaseoneforthat.Thiswasnotmereheartlessness.Itwasintrinsictothesystem.Anindulgencewasarelaxationofpenance,andpenancewaspayment: provision might be made for less payment but not for nopayment at all. At the bottom of all lies the fundamental notion thatsalvationmustbepaidfor:itisonlyaquestionoftheprice.Indulgencesthusemergetosightasaschemetoevadeone'sspiritualandmoraldebtsandtosecureeternalfelicityattheleastpossiblecost.

We need not insist here on the peculiarities of the Jubilee indulgenceswith which Luther was most immediately concerned, and thecharacteristic feature of which was that it included the sacrament ofpenance within itself. All indulgences in their developed form made apart of the sacerdotal system and worked in with the sacrament ofpenance:theywerenotofferedtotheheathenbuttoChristians,tomen,that is, who had been baptized and had access to the ordinary ghostlyministrations.The fundamental ideaembedded in them-ofwhich theyare,indeed,theculminatingillustration-isthattheofficesoftheChurchmaybe called innotmerely to supplementbut to take theplace of theduties of personal religion and common morality: they thus put thecapstoneonsacerdotalreligiosity.Itmaybeacoarsewayofputtingit,tosay that in this system amanmight buy his way into heaven; that hemightpurchaseimmunityforsin;thathemightevenbarterforlicensetosin. But with whatever finessing the direct statement may be avoided,both in theory and practice it amounts to that. Baptism, penance,indulgence - these threeprovisionstakentogetherprovideamethodbywhichaman,throughtheofficesof theChurch,mightescapeeveryevilconsequence of his sin, inborn and self-committed; and by the

expenditure of only a little ceremonial care and a little money, assurehimselfofunmeritedsalvation.Hewhoisbaptizedisbroughtintoastateofgraceandthroughpenancemaymaintainhimselfingrace-and,intheinterests at once of the comfort of weak souls and of the power of theChurch, the efficacy of penance is exalted, despite the defects ofcontritionandthesubstitutionforitofmereattrition.Relievedbytheseofficesof theeternalpenalitiesof theirsin, indulgencesnowcome in torelieve men of their temporal penalties. Both the eternal and thetemporalpenaltiesbeinggone,guiltneednotbebotheredwith:hellandpurgatoryhavingbothbeenabolished,guiltwilltakecareofitself.Thusabaptizedman - and allwithin the pale of the Church are baptized - byshriving himself, say, every Easter and buying an indulgence or two,makeshimselfsafe.TheChurchtakescareofhimthroughout,anditcostshimnothingbutanannualconfessionandthefewcoinsthatrattleinthecollectionbox.AdolfHarnacksumsupthematterthus:"EverymanwhosurrendershimselftotheCatholicChurch. . .cansecuresalvationfromalleternalandtemporalpenalties-ifheactwithshrewdnessandfindaskilfulpriest."

It was one of the attractions of the indulgences which Tetzel hawkedabout that they gave the purchaser the right to choose a confessor forhimselfandrequiredthisconfessor toabsolvehim.Theythusmadehisimmunity from all punishment sure. Marvelous to say, the vendors ofindulgenceswerenotsatisfiedwiththussellingthejusticeofheaven;theywishedtosellthejusticeofearth,too.Luther,itistrue,inapassageinhis"Resolutions"20 denies that "the Pope" "remits civil or rather criminalpenalties, inflictedby thecivil law,"butheadds that"the legatesdodothis in some places when they are personally present"; and in anotherplacehebetrayswhyhewishestoshield"thePope"fromtheonusofthisiniquity,sayingthat"thePope"cannotbesupposedtohavethepowertoremitcivilpenalties,because in that case "the letters of indulgencewillabolishallgibbetsandracksthroughouttheworld"-thatistosay,woulddo away altogether with the punishment of crime. In point of fact theactual as distinguished from Luther's ideal Pope did issue indulgencesembodying thispreciseprovision,and those soldbyTetzelwereamongthem.HenryCharlesLearemarksuponthemthus:Thepowertoprotectfrom all secular courts "was delegated to the peripatetic vendors of

indulgences, who thus carried impunity for crime to everyman's door.TheSt.Peter'sindulgences,soldbyTetzelandhiscolleagues,wereofthischaracter, and not only released the purchasers from all spiritualpenalties but forbade all secular or criminal prosecution. . . . It wasfortunate that the Reformation came to prevent the Holy See fromrenderingalljustice,humananddivine,acommoditytobesoldinopenmarket."21

It isvery instructivetoobservethesuperficialresemblancebetween thelanguage in which the indulgences were commended and that of theevangelicalproclamation.Bothofferedasalvationthattherecipienthadnotearnedbyhisworks,butwastoreceivefromtheimmensemercyofGod. "We have been conceived . . . in sin" - Tetzel's preaching is thussummarizedby JuliusKöstlin - "andarewrapped in bands of sin. It ishard - yea, impossible - to attain salvationwithout divine help.Not byworksof righteousnesswhichwehavedone,butofHismercy,hasGodsavedus.Therefore...putonthearmorofGod."22Theattractivenessofindulgences arose from this very thing - that theyoffered tomen relieffrom the dread of anticipated punishment and reception into bliss, ongrounds less onerous than the "works of righteousness" or "merit-making"involvedintheordinarychurchsystem.Tothesuperficialviewthis could be given very much the appearance of Luther's doctrine ofjustificationbyfaith.InboththepuremercyofGodtolostandhelplesssinnerscouldbepointedtoasthesourceofthesalvationoffered.InboththemeritsofChristcouldbepointedtoasthegroundoftheacceptanceofthesinner.TheRomanistsincludedintheir"Treasure"also,itistrue,themeritsof the saints, andLuther thereforecouples the two inThesis58,althoughtellingusinhis"Resolutions"thatthesaintshavenomeritstooffer, and if they had theywould do us no good. It does not go deeplyenoughtosay that thedifferencebetweenthe twoproclamations lies inthis-thatLutherdemandsforthisfreesalvationfaithalone,whileTetzelproposestohand itover formoneydown- inaccordancewith thequipattributedtoCardinalBorgia, thatGoddesiresnotthedeathofsinners,butthattheyshallpayandlive.Thefundamentaldifferencebetweenthetwodoctrines is thefundamentaldifferencebetweenevangelicalismandsacerdotalism.EvangelicalismcastsmanbackonGodandGodonly;thefaith that it asks of him is faith in God's saving grace in Christ alone.

SacerdotalismthrowshimintothehandsoftheChurchandaskshimtoputhis confidence in it - or, in the indulgences, very specifically in thePope.HeistosuspendhissalvationonwhatthePopecando-whetherdirectlybyhisownpoweror in thewayofsuffrage - transferring tohiscredit themerits of Christ andHis saints. This difference is correlatedwiththisfurtherone,thatthereleaseofferedintheindulgenceswasfrompenalty, that sought in evangelicalism very distinctly from guilt.Transposedintopositivelanguage,thatmeansthatintheonecasedesirefor comfort and happiness holds themind, in the other a yearning forholiness.Theoneisnon-ethical andmustneedsbear its fruits as such.Theothertingleswithethicismtothefingertips.Themind,freedbyitshighenthusiasmfromdebilitatingfearofsuffering,isfiredtounceasingendeavorbyagreatambitiontobewell-pleasingtoGod.Thegulfwhichseparated Luther and the proclamation of indulgences and compelledhimtoappearinoppositiontoitwasthereforeradicalandgoesdowntotherootsofthecontradictorysystemsofdoctrine.Itwasnottheabuseswhich accompanied this proclamation which moved him, though theyshockedhimprofoundly. Itwas indeednot the indulgences themselves,butwhatlaybehindandbeneaththeindulgences.J.Janssenisperfectlyright,then,whenspeakingoftheabusesofthetraffic,hewrites:"Itwasnot, however, especially these abuses which occasioned Luther to hisprocedure against indulgences, but the doctrine of indulgences itself,particularlythechurchdoctrineofgoodworkswhichwascontrarytohisconceptionsaboutjustificationandthebondageofthehumanwill."23

TheRomanCuriahadnodifficultyinperceivingpreciselywhereLuther'sblow fell. The lighter forces rushed, of course, to the defense of theperipheralthings:thepapalauthority,thelegitimacyofindulgences.Theresultwasthat,asLuthersaysintheopeningwordsof"TheBabylonishCaptivity,"theyservedasteachersforhimandopenedhiseyestomattersonwhichhehadnotperfectlyinformedhimselfbefore.Hehadpreservedreverence for thePopeasheadof theChurch.They taught him to lookuponhimasAntichrist.Hehadnotwishedtotallytorejectindulgences."By thekind aid of Sylvester and theFriars," he now learned that theycould properly be described only as "the mere impostures of Romanflatterers, by which they took away both faith in God and men'smoney."24 In his "Assertio" of the Articles condemned by Leo's Bull,

written in the same year (1520), he, with mock humility, retracts hisstatement,objectedto,totheeffectthatindulgenceswerepiousfraudsofbelievers - a statement apparently borrowed fromAlbert ofMainzwhocalls thempious frauds bywhich theChurch allured believers to piousworks-andnowassertsthattheyarejustimpiousfraudsandimposturesof wicked popes.25 But the Curia in its immediate action went deeperthan these things. When Luther appeared before Cardinal Cajetan inOctober,1518, therepresentativeof thePope laidhis fingeron just twopropositionswhichherequiredhimabsolutelytorecant.Theseweretheassertion in the fifty-eighth Thesis that the merits of Christ workeffectuallywithoutthe interventionof thePopeandthereforecannotbethe"Treasure"drawnuponby the indulgences; and an assertion in the"Resolutions"ontheseventhThesistotheeffectthatthesacramentsdonot work effectively unless received by faith. Obviously in these twopropositions is embodied the essence of evangelicalism: salvation theimmediate gift of Christ; faith and faith alone the real instrument ofreceptionofgrace.

Cajetan's entire dealing with Luther consisted in insistence on hisrecantingjustthesetwoassertions.LuthergivesaveryamusingaccountofanundignifiedsceneinwhichCajetanpressedhimtorecantthefifty-eighthThesis,onthebasisofanExtravagantofClementVI's.Hewouldlistentonoexplanations,butsimplydemandedcontinuously,pointingattheExtravagant,"Doyoubelievethatordoyounot?"Atlast,saysLuther,the Legate tried to beat him downwith an interminable speech drawnfrom"thefables"ofSt.Thomas, intowhichLutherahalfscoreof timesattempted in vain to break."Finally," he proceeds in his description, "Itoobegan toshriek, and said, 'If it canbe shown that thatExtravagantteaches that themerits of Christ are the treasure of indulgences, I willrecant,accordingtoyourwish.'GreatGod,intowhattriumphantgesturesandscornfullaughterhenowbrokeout!HeseizedthebooksuddenlyandreadfuriouslyandsnarlinglyuntilhecametotheplacewhereitsaysthatChrist purchased a treasure by His suffering, etc. Here I said, 'Listen,reverend Father, note well the words - "He purchased." If Christpurchased the treasurebyHismerits, it follows that the treasure isnotthemerits,butthatwhichthemeritshavepurchased-thatisthekeysofthe Church. Therefore my thesis is true.' Here he became suddenly

confused; and since he did not wish to appear confused he jumpedviolently to other subjects and sought to have this forgotten. But Iwas(notveryrespectfully,Iconfess)incensed,andbrokeoutthus:'ReverendFather,youmustnotthinkthatGermansareignorantofgrammaralso;"tobeatreasure"and"topurchase"aredifferentthings.'"26

WemustconfessthatLutherescapedbytheskinofhis teeth that time.Fortunatelyhehadbetterreasons forcontendingthat theScripturesdonotteachthedoctrineinquestionthanthatClementandSixtusdonot.InhiswrittenanswertoCajetanhedealswiththemattermoreseriously.Hearguesthequestioneventhere,however,withtheunderstandingthathisbusiness is to showthathisThesis isnot indisharmonywith thepapalteaching;andhenotverysafelypromises toadoptashisownwhateverthePopemaydeclaretobetrue,apromisewhichtwoyearsafterwardshecould not have repeated. On the real evangelical core of the Thesis,however-thatthemeritsofChristworkgraceindependentlyofthePope-andon the secondpropositionwhichhewas required to recant - thatthe sacraments are without effect in the absence of faith - he wasabsolutely unbending. He throws his assertion concerning faith,moreover,intosuchaformastomakeitincludeassurance-amatterofsomeinterestinviewofthepresenceofaphraseortwointheThesesandin the letter toAlbertofMainz enclosinga copyof them tohim,whichmight be incautiously read as denying the possibility of assurance, butwhich really mean only to deny that assurance can be derived fromanythingwhateverexceptChristalone.WhathedeclarestoCajetantobe"absolutely true," is "that noman can be just before God except alonethrough faith"; and therefore, he adds, "it is necessary that a mancertainlybelievethatheisjustandnotdoubtthathereceivesgrace.Forifhe doubt it, and is uncertain of it," he argues, "then he is not just butopposesgraceandcastsitawayfromhim."27

WhatLutheriseagertodois,nottoleavemeninuncertaintyastotheirsalvation, but to protect them from placing their trust in anything butChrist-certainlynotinlettersofpardon(Thesis32:"Thosewhobelievethatthroughlettersofpardontheyaremadesureoftheirownsalvation,willbeeternallydamnedalongwiththeirteachers"),orintheassurancesofanymanwhatever,nomatterwhathisassumedspiritualauthoritymay

be (Thesis 52: "Vain is thehopeof salvation through letters of pardon,evenifacommissary-nay,thePopehimself-weretopledgehissoulforthem"):butjustascertainlynot intheirowncontrition(Thesis30:"Noman is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of theattainmentofplenaryremission"-athesiswhichLutherdeclaresinthe"Resolutions" not to be true in his sense but only in that of hisopponents). "May all such teaching as would persuade to security andconfidence (securitatem et fiduciam) in or through anything whateverexceptthemercyofGod,whichisChrist,beaccursed,"hecriesoutinthe"Resolutions"whenspeakingofThesis52.28"Bewareofconfidinginthycontrition,"hesayswhencommentingonThesis36-andthecommentisneeded,lesttheunwaryreadermightsupposethatThesistocounselthisvery thing - "or of attributing the remission of sins to thy sorrow.Goddoesnotlookwithfavorontheebecauseofthesethings,butbecauseofthy faithwithwhich thou hast believedHis threatenings and promisesandwhichhaswroughtsuchsorrow.""Guardthyself,then,"hesaysagain(onThesis 38), "against ever in anywise trusting in thy contrition, butonlyinthemerewordofthybestandmostfaithfulSaviour,JesusChrist:thyheart candeceive thee,Hecannotdeceive thee -whether thoudostpossessHimordostdesireHim."29

How pure the evangelicalism here expressed is may be perceived byreading only a few lines of the positive comment on the great centralTheses 36, 37. "It is impossible that one should be a ChristianwithoutChrist;butifanyonehasChrist,hehaswithHimallthatisChrist's.FortheholyApostlespeaksthus-. . .Rom.viii.32:'HowshallHenotwithHimalsogiveusallthings?"'"ForthisistheconfidenceofChristians,andthe joy of our consciences, that by faith our sins become not ours butChrist's,onwhomGodhasputoursinsandHehasborneoursins-HewhoistheLambofGodthattakethawaythesinoftheworld.AndagainallChrist'srighteousnessisours.ForHelaysHishandsuponusanditiswellwithus;andHespreadsHisrobeoverusandcoversus-theblessedSaviourforever,Amen!""Butsincethissweetestparticipationandjoyfulinterchangedoesnottakeplaceexceptbyfaith-andmancannotgiveandcannot take away this faith - I think it sufficiently clear that thisparticipation isnot givenby thepowerof thekeys, orby thebenefit oflettersof indulgence,butrather isgivenbeforeandapart fromthemby

God alone; as remission before remission, and absolution beforeabsolution,soparticipationbeforeparticipation.Whatparticipationthendoes thePope give inhisparticipation? I answer:Theyought to sayaswas said above of remission in Thesis 6, that he gives participationdeclaratively. For how they can say anything else I confess I do notunderstand."30 "Why then do they magnify the Pontiff because of thekeysandthinkofhimasaterriblebeing?Thekeysarenothis,butrathermine,giventome formy salvation, formyconsolation, granted formypeaceandquiet.InthekeysthePontiffismyservantandminister;hehasno need of them as a Pontiff, but I."31 Through all it is faith that iscelebrated. "You have as much as you believe."32 The sacraments areefficaciousnotbecause theyareenacted,butbecause they arebelieved.Absolutioniseffectivenotbecauseit isgiven,butbecauseit isbelieved.Only-thepenitentbelieverneedstheauthoritativepriestlywordthathemaybelievethathe-evenhe-canreallybesharerinthesegreatthings."Therefore it is neither the sacrament, nor the priest, but faith in thewordofChrist,throughthepriestandhisoffice,thatjustifiesthee.Whatdifference does it make to thee if the Lord speak through an ass or ajenny,ifonlythoudosthearHisword,onwhichthoudoststaythyhopeandrestthyfaith?"33

Itisnot,however,onlyinasentencehereandtherethattheevangelicalnoteissoundedintheTheses.Whatrequirestobeinsisteduponis thattheyconstituteintheirentiretyacompactandwell-orderedpresentationof the evangelical position in opposition to sacerdotalism. Thispresentationwascalledoutbythepreachingofindulgencesandtakesitsformfromitsprimaryreferencetothem.Butwhatitstrikesparticularlyatisthesacerdotalrootsofindulgences,andwhatitsetsinoppositiontothemisthepureevangelicalprinciple.ItmustnotbeimaginedthattheseTheseswerehastilypreparedmerelytomeetasuddenemergencycreatedbyTetzel'spreachingatJüterbog.Lutherhadpreachedonindulgencesonthesameday,October31,oftheprecedingyear,andinthemidsummer(July27)beforethat.And-thisisthepointtotakeespecialnoteof-theTheses repeat the thought andmuchof the languageof these sermons.They are therefore the deliberate expression of long-meditated andthoroughlymatured thought; in substance and language alike they hadbeenfullyinmindforayearandmore.The"Resolutions,"publishedthe

nextyear-andmanifestingnexttonoadvanceinopinionontheTheseswhichtheyexpound-showthatLutherwasthoroughlyinformedonthewholesubjectandhaditsentireliteratureateasycommand.HischoiceofOctober31,theeveofAllSaints'Day,forpostingtheTheses,hasalsoitsverydistinctsignificance.Thischoicewasdeterminedbysomethingmorethanadesiretogainforthemthepublicitywhichthatdayprovided.AllSaints' Day was not merely the anniversary of the consecration of thechurch,elaborateservicesonwhichwereattendedby thousands. Itwasalso the day onwhich the great collection of relics accumulated by theElectorwasexhibited;andtothevenerationof themandattendanceonthe day's services special indulgenceswere attached. Itwas, in aword,IndulgenceDayatWittenberg;andthatwastheattractionwhichbroughtthecrowdsthitheronit.Luther,wehavejustpointedout,hadpreachedasermonagainstindulgencesontheprecedingOctober31.OnthisOctober31 he posts his Theses. The coincidence is not accidental. The Thesescamenotatthebeginningbutinthemiddleofhisattackonindulgences,andhave in view,notTetzel andhis Jubilee indulgences alone,but thewhole indulgencesystem.ThatthepreachinginGermanyof theJubileeindulgenceswastheoccasionofLuther'scomingforwardinthisattackonindulgences, he tells us himself.He explains somewhatobjectivelyhowhewasdrawn into it,whenwriting tohisecclesiastical superior: "Iwasaskedbymanystrangersaswellasfriends,bothbyletterandbywordofmouth,formyopinionofthesenewnottosaylicentiousteachings;forawhileIheldout-butintheendtheircomplaintsbecamesobitterastoendanger reverence for the Pope."34 Similarly he declares in the"Resolutions": "I have been compelled to lay down all these positionsbecause I saw that some were infected with false opinions, and otherswerelaughinginthetavernsandholdinguptheholypriesthoodtoopenridicule, because of the great license with which the indulgences arepreached."Thisisnottosay,however,thatinmeetingthiscalluponhim,Lutherwasnotmovedbyadeeper-lyingmotiveanddidnotwishtogotothebottomofthematter.WhenwritingprivatelytohisfriendshedidnothesitatetosayasearlyasthemiddleofFebruary,1518,that"indulgencesnowseemtometobenothingbutasnareforsoulsandworthabsolutelynothingexcepttothosewhoslumberandidleinthewayofChrist,"andto explain his coming forward against them thus: "For the sake ofopposing this fraud, for the love of truth, I entered this dangerous

labyrinthofdisputation."35

Thedocument itselfhowever is thebestwitness to the caregiven to itspreparation and to the depth of its purpose as an anti-sacerdotalmanifesto.Therearenosignsofhasteaboutit,and,inpointoffact,thequestionisarguedinitfromthepointofsightoffundamentalprinciples.In its openingpropositions,Lutherbegins by layingdown in firm linestheChristiandoctrineofpenitence.Itis,hesays,ofcoursetheverymarkof the penitent sinner that he is penitent; and of course he can neverceasetobepenitentsolongasheis,whatasaChristianhemustbe-apenitentsinner.Hispenitenceisnotonlyfundamentallyaninteriorfact:but if it is real, itmanifests itself in outwardmortifications.This beingwhataChristianmanessentiallyis,whatnowhasthePopetodowiththepenalties which he suffers - which constitute the very substance andmanifestation of the penitence by virtue of which he is a penitent asdistinguished from an impenitent sinner? Luther's answer is, Nothingwhatever. With reference to the living he declares that the Pope canrelieve a man only of penalties of his own imposing; with respect topenalties of God's imposing he has only a declarative function. Withreferencetothedying,why,bytheveryactofdyingtheyescapeoutofthePope'shands.Thereis,ofcourse,purgatory.Butpurgatoryisnotaplacewhere old scores are paid off; but a place where imperfect souls areperfectedinholiness;andsurelythePopeneithercannorwouldwishtointermittheirperfecting.Clearly,then,itisfutiletotrustinindulgences.There is nothing for them to do. They cannot release us from thenecessity of beingChristians; and ifwe are Christians,we can have nomanner of need of them. In asserting this, Luther closes this first andprincipalpartofthedocument-constitutingonethirdofthewhole-withthegreatevangelicaldeclarations: "Every trulycontriteChristianhasofright plenary remission of penalty and guilt - even without letters ofpardon.EverytrueChristian,whetherlivingordead,hasgiventohimbyGod,ashare inall thebenefitsofChristandtheChurch-evenwithoutlettersofpardon"(Theses36,37).

Having thus laid down the general principles, Luther now takes a newstartandpointsoutsomeofthedangerswhichaccompanythepreachingof indulgences. There is the danger that the purchase of indulgences

shouldbemadetoappearmoreimportantthantheexerciseofcharity,oreven than themaintenanceofourdependents.There is thedanger thatthe head of the Church may be made to appear more desirous of thepeople's money than of their prayers. There is the danger that thepreaching of indulgences may encroach upon or even supersede thepreaching of the gospel in the churches. After all, the preaching of thegospelisthemainthing.ItisthetruetreasureoftheChurch:indeed,itistheonlytreasureonwhichtheChurchcandraw.Thesectioncloseswithsomepointedantitheses,contrastingtheindulgencesandthegospel:theindulgenceswhichmakethe last tobe firstandseekaftermen's riches,andthegospelwhichmakesthefirsttobelastandseeksafterthosemenwhoarerich indeed: indulgencesaregainful thingsnodoubt,butgraceandthepietyofthecross-theybelongtothegospel.

A third start is now taken, and Luther sharply arraigns the actualmisdeeds of the preachers of pardons and their unmeasured assertions(licentiosa praedicatio) . Of course the commissaries of the apostolicalpardons are not to be excluded fromdioceses and parishes: they comewiththePope'scommissionandthePopeistheheadoftheChurch.Butbishopsandcuratesarebound to see to it that theunbridled licenseoftheirpreachingiscurbedwithinthejustlimitsoftheircommission.Asitis,theyhavefilledtheworldwithmurmuringsanditisnoteasytodefendthePopeagainstthesharpquestionswhichthepeopleareasking.Lutheradduces eight of these questions as specimens: they constitute atremendous indictment against the whole indulgence traffic from thepointofviewofpractical common sense, andare all themore effectivebecauserepeatedoutofthemouthofthepeople.Theyaresuchasthese:If thePopehas thepower toreleasesouls frompurgatory,whydoeshenot,outofhismerecharity,releasethewhole lotof them,andnotdoletheir release out one by one for money? If souls are released frompurgatoryby indulgences,whydoes thePopekeep theendowments formassesforthesesamesouls,aftertheyhavebeenreleased?Whyshouldthe money of a wicked man move the Pope to release a soul frompurgatorymorethanthatsoul'sowndeepneed?WhydoesthePopetreatdeadCanonsasstillaliveandtakemoney forrelaxing them?WhydoestherichPopenotbuildSt.Peter'soutofhisownsuperfluityandnottaxthepoorforit?Whatisit,afterall,thatthePoperemitstothosewhose

perfectcontritionhasalreadygainedtheirremission?What is theeffectofaccumulatingindulgences?IfitisthesalvationofsoulsandnotmoneythatthePopeisafter,whydoeshesuspendoldlettersofpardonandputnewonesonsale?Suchsearchingargumentsasthese,Lutherjustlysays,cannotbemetbyadisplayofforce:theymustbeanswered.

Thenhebrings thewholedocument toaclosewithsome ferventwordsrenouncingagospelofease,cryingPeace,peace!suchastheindulgencesoffer: and proclaiming the strenuous gospel of the cross: "Christiansshouldbeexhorted to strive to follow theirHead,Christ, throughpainsand deaths and hells, and thus to trust to enter heaven rather throughmanytribulationsthanthroughthesecurityofpeace."

Itbelongstothegeneralstructureofthedocument-advancingasitdoesfrom the principles which underlie the indulgence traffic, through thedangerswhich accompany it, to its actual abuses - that its tone shouldgrow sharper and its attack more direct with its progress. Luther'sargumentative purpose and his rhetorical instinct have no doubtcooperated to produce this result. It suited the end he had in view topresent the indulgencesasa speciesunder abroader genus.But also itpleasedhisrhetoricalsensesotomanagehismaterialastohaveitgrowin force and directness of assertion steadily to the end, and to close inwhat deserves the name of a fervent peroration. The calm, detachedpropositions of the first section pass in the second into a series ofrhetorical repetitions, and these give way as the third section isapproached to stinging antitheses. Nevertheless the real weight of thedocument lies in its first section, and it is by virtue of the propositionslaiddowntherethatitisworthyofitsplaceasthefirstgreatReformationact,andthedayofitspostingisjustlylookeduponasthebirthdayoftheReformation.

Thepostingof theseThesesdoesnotmarktheacquisitionbyLuther ofhisevangelicalconvictions.Thesehadlongbeenhis-howlongwehardlyknowbutmustcontentourselveswithsaying,withWaltherKöhler, thatthey were apparently acquired somewhere between 1509 and 1515.Neither does their posting mark the beginning of the evangelicalproclamation.Fromatleast1515Lutherhadbeendiligentlypropagatinghis evangelicalism inpulpit andchair, andhad already fairly converted

his immediatecommunityto it.Hecouldalreadyboastof thevictoryof"ourtheology"intheuniversity,andthetownwasinhishands.WhatismarkedbythepostingoftheseTheses is the issuingof theReformationoutofthenarrowconfinesoftheuniversitycirclesofWittenberganditsstartonitscareerasaworld-movement.TheirpostinggavewingstotheReformation. And it gave it wings primarily by rallying to its aid thesmoldering sense of outrage which had long been gathering against agross ecclesiastical abuse. This would not have carried it far, however,had not the document in which it was thus sent abroad had in it thepotencyofthenewlife.

"What isepoch-making in theTheses,"writesE.Bratke,36"is that theyare the first public proclamation in which Luther in full consciousnessmade the truth of justifying faith as the sole principle of thecommunicationofsalvation,thethemeofatheologicalcontroversy,andthus laid before the Church a problem for further research, whichafterwardsbecamethemotiveandprincipleofanewdevelopmentoftheChristianChurch,yes,ofcivilizationingeneral."WhatBratkeistryingtosayhereistrue;and,beingtrue,isvastlyimportant.Buthedoesnotsayitwell.Lutherhadoftenbeforeproclaimedtheprincipleofjustifyingfaithinfullenthusiasm,toaswideapublicashisvoicecouldreach.IthappensthatneitherfaithnorjustificationisoncementionedintheTheses.ItisintheLecturesonRomansof1515-1516thattheepoch-makingexpositionofjustificationbyfaithwasmade,notintheTheses.Nevertheless,itistruethattheThesesaretheexpressoutcomeofLuther'snew"lifeprinciple,"andhaveastheirfundamentalpurposetosetitinoppositionto"humanecclesiasticism and sacerdotalism." And it is true that the idea ofjustificationbyfaithunderliesthemthroughoutandonlydoesnotcometoexplicitexpressioninthembecausetheoccasiondoesnotcallforthat:Luthercannotexpoundthem(as in the"Resolutions")withoutdwellinglargelyon it.Thematterwouldbebetter expressed,however,by sayingthatLutherheresetstheevangelicalprinciple flatly inoppositiontothesacerdotal.Whathehereattacksisjustthesacerdotalprincipleinoneofitsmostportentousembodiments-theteachingthatmenareto looktotheChurchastheinstituteofsalvationforalltheirsouls'welfare,andtoderivefromtheChurchalltheirconfidenceinlifeandindeath.Whathesetsoveragainstthissacerdotalismistheevangelicalprinciplethatman

isdependentforhissalvationonGodandonGodalone-onGoddirectly,apart fromallhuman intermediation -and is to look toGod forand toderive from God immediately all that makes for his soul's welfare. IntheseThesesLutherbroughtoutof theacademiccircle inwhichhehadhitherto moved, and cast into the arena of the wide world's conflicts,undercircumstanceswhichattractedandheld theattentionofmen,hisnewly found evangelical principle, thrown out into sharp contrast withthe established sacerdotalism. It is this thatmade the posting of theseTheses the first act of the Reformation, and has rightly made OctoberThirty-firstthebirthdayoftheReformation.

Endnotes:

1. ReprintedfromThePrincetonTheologicalReview,xv.1917,pp.501-529.

2. P. Kalkoff, "Luther und die Entscheidungsjahre der Reformation,"1917,p.9.

3. FortheThesesseeanystandardeditionofLuther's"Works":e.g."D.Martin LuthersWerke,"Weimar edition, i. 1883, pp. 233-238. Cf."Works of Martin Luther," Philadelphia, i. 1915, pp. 29-38; andPhilip Schaff, "History of theChristianChurch," vi. 1888, pp. 160-166.

4. A.Plummer,"TheContinentalReformation,"1912,p.98.5. "HistoryoftheChristianChurch,"vi.1888,p.157.6. Op.cit.,p.98.7. "AHistoryoftheReformation,"ed.2,i.1912,p.228.8. E.Bratke,"Luther's95Thesen,"1884,pp.275and279;cf.p.273.9. "Die 95 Thesen Luther's und der Anfang der Reformation," in

ProtestantischeMonatshefte,v.1901,pp.434ff.10. "TheTheologyofLuther,"i.1897,p.218(Hay'stranslation,fromthe

secondGermanedition).11. Op.cit.,p.157.12. "Lutherswerke,"weimaredition,i.1883,p.599.13. P.582.14. P.542.15. P.543.

16. P.541.17. Pp.543f.18. P.544.19. See"MartinLutherunddiedeutscheReformation,"ed.2,1917,p.35.20. "LuthersWerke,"Weimaredition,i.1883,p.536.21. "TheCambridgeModernHistory,"i.1902,p.662.22. "TheTheologyofLuther,"i.1897,p.223(Hay'stranslation,fromthe

secondGermanedition).23. J.Janssen,"GeschichtedesdeutschenVolkes,"ii.1886,p.75.24. "Luthers Werke," ed. Weimar, vi. 1888, p. 497. Cf. "Works,"

Philadelphia,ii.1916,p.170.25. "Werke,"vii.1897,p.125.26. FromhislettertoGeorgeSpalatin,writtenatAugsburg,October14,

1518:E.L.Enders,"M.Luther'sBriefwechsel,"i.1884,pp.246-247.27. "LutherssämmtlicheSchriften,"Walchedition,xv.1899,col.578;cf.

"Werke,"Weimaredition,ii.1884,p.13.28. "Werke,"ed.Weimar,i.1883,p.604.29. P.596.30. P.593.31. P.596.32. P.595,33. P.595.34. To Jerome Scultetus, Bishop of Brandenburg: Enders,

"Briefwecheel,"i.1884,p.148.35. To Spalatin, February 15, 1518: Enders, "Briefwechsel," i. 1884, p.

155.36. Op.cit.,p.315.

EdwardsandtheNewEnglandTheology1


Jonathan Edwards, saint andmetaphysician, revivalist and theologian,stands out as the one figure of real greatness in the intellectual life ofcolonial America. Born, bred, passing his whole life on the verge ofcivilization, he has made his voice heard wherever men have busiedthemselves with those two greatest topics which can engage humanthought-Godandthesoul.AFrenchphilosopherofscantsympathywithEdwards'chiefconcernmentwrites:2

TherearefewnamesoftheeighteenthcenturywhichhaveobtainedsuchcelebrityasthatofJonathanEdwards.Criticsandhistoriansdowntoourown day have praised in dithyrambic terms the logical vigor and theconstructive powers of a writer whom they hold (as is done byMackintosh,DugaldStewart,RobertHall,evenFichte)tobethegreatestmetaphysicianAmericahas yetproduced.Whoknows, theyhave askedthemselves, to what heights this original genius might have risen, if,insteadofbeingborninahalf-savagecountry,farfromthetraditionsofphilosophy and science, he had appeared rather in our old world, andtherereceivedthedirectimpulseofthemodernmind.Perhapshewouldhave taken a place between Leibniz and Kant among the founders ofimmortal systems, instead of the work he has left reducing itself to asublime and barbarous theology, which astonishes our reason andoutragesourheart,theobjectofatonceourhorrorandadmiration.

Edwards'greatness isnot,however, thusmerelyconjectural.Hewasno"mute, ingloriousMilton,"butthemostarticulateofmen.Nor is itasametaphysician that he makes his largest claim upon our admiration,subtle metaphysician as he showed himself to be. His ontologicalspeculations,onwhichhistitletorecognitionasametaphysicianmainlyrests, belong to his extreme youth, and had been definitely put behindhimatanagewhenmostmenfirstbegintoprobesuchproblems.Itwas,asLyon indeedsuggests, to theology thathegavehismatureyearsand

hismostprolongedandsearchingthought,especiallytotheproblemsofsin and salvation. And these problemswere approached by him not aspurely theoretical, but as intensely practical ones. Therefore he was amanofactionas trulyasamanof thought,andpowerfullywroughtonhisage,settingatworkenergieswhichhavenotyetspenttheirforce.Heismuchmoreaccuratelycharacterized,therefore,byaphilosopherofourown, who is as little in sympathy, however, with hismain interests asLyonhimself.F.J.E.Woodbridgesays:3

Hewasdistinctlyagreatman.Hedidnotmerelyexpressthethoughtofhistime,ormeet itsimply inthespiritofhistraditions.Hestemmeditandmoulded it.NewEngland thoughtwasalreadymaking toward thatcolorless theology which marked it later. That he checked. It wasdecidedlyArminian.HemadeitCalvinistic....Histimedoesnotexplainhim.

Edwardshadaremarkablephilosophicalbent;buthehadanevenmoreremarkable sense and taste for divine things; and, therefore (soWoodbridgeconcludes,withatleastrelativejustice),"werememberhim,not as the greatest of American philosophers, but as the greatest ofAmericanCalvinists."

I.THEPERIODOFEDWARDS'PREPARATION

Itwas a verydecadentNewEngland intowhichEdwardswas born, on5thOctober1703.ThereligiousfervorwhichthePuritanimmigrantshadbroughtwith them into theNewWorldhadnotbeenable topropagateitself unimpaired to the third and fourth generation. Already in 1678,IncreaseMatherhadbewailedthat"thebodyoftherisinggenerationisapoor,perishing,unconverted,and(excepttheLordpourdownHisSpirit)an undone generation."4 There were general influences operativethroughoutChristendomatthisepoch,depressingtothelifeofthespirit,whichwerenotunfelt inNewEngland;andthesewerereinforced therebythehardnessoftheconditionsofexistenceinarawland.Everywherethinking and living alike were moving on a lowered plane; not merelyspiritualitybutplainmoralitywas suffering someeclipse.The churchesfelt compelled to recede from the high ideals which had been theirheritage,andwere introducing into theirmembership andadmitting to

theirmysteriesmenwho,thoughdecentinlife,madenoprofessionofachange of heart. If only they had been themselves baptized, they wereencouragedtooffertheirchildrenforbaptism(undertheso-called"Half-Way Covenant"), and to come themselves to the Table of the Lord(conceived as a "converting ordinance"). The household into whichEdwardswas born, however, not only protected him frommuch of theevilwhichwaspervading thecommunity,butpowerfully stimulatedhisspiritualandintellectuallife.HebeganthestudyofLatinattheageofsix,and by thirteen had acquired a respectable knowledge of "the threelearnedlanguages"whichatthetimeformedpartofthecurriculaofthecolleges - Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Before he had completed histhirteenth year (September 1716), he entered the "Collegiate School ofConnecticut"(afterwardsYaleCollege).Duringhissecondyearatcollegehe fell in with Locke's "Essay concerningHumanUnderstanding," andhadmore satisfaction and pleasure in studying it, he tells us himself,5"thanthemostgreedymiserfinds,whengatheringuphandfulsofsilverand gold, from some newly discovered treasure." He graduated at theheadof his class in 1720,whenhewas just short of seventeenyears ofage, but remained at college (as the customof the timewas) two yearslonger(tothesummerof1722)forthestudyofDivinity.Inthesummerof1722 hewas "approbated" to preach, and fromAugust 1722 until April1723hesuppliedthepulpitofalittleknotofPresbyteriansinNewYorkCity.6Returninghome,hewasappointedtutoratYaleinJune1724,andfilledthispostwithdistinguishedability,duringamosttryingperiodinthelifeofthecollege,forthenexttwoyears(untilSeptember1726).Hisresignation of his tutorshipwas occasioned by an invitation to becomethecolleagueandsuccessorofhisgrandfather,SolomonStoddard,inthepastorate of the church atNorthampton,Mass., where, accordingly, hewasordainedandinstalledon15thFebruary1727.

Byhis installationatNorthampton,Edwards'periodofpreparationwasbroughttoaclose.Hispreparationhadbeenremarkable,bothintensivelyandextensively.Bornwithadropofinkinhisveins,Edwardshadalmostfrominfancyheldapeninhishand.Fromhisearliestyouthhehadbeenaccustomed to trace out on paper to its last consequence every fertilethought which came to him. A number of the early products of hisobservation and reflection have been preserved, revealing a precocity

whichisalmostbeyondbelief.7

ItisintheseyouthfulwritingsthatEdwardspropoundshisspiritualisticmetaphysics,anditischieflyonthestrengthofthemthatheholdsaplacein our histories of philosophy. His whole system is already present insubstance in the essay "Of Being," which was written before he wassixteenyearsofage.And,thoughthereisnoreasontobelievethatheeverrenouncedtheopinionssetforthintheseyouthfuldiscussions-thereare,on the contrary,occasional suggestions, even inhis latestwritings, thatthey still lurked at the back of his brain - he never formally reverts tothemsubsequentlytohisYaleperiod(upto1727).8Hisengagementwithsuch topics belongs, therefore, distinctively to his formative period,beforehebecameengrossedwiththedutiesoftheactiveministryandthelinesofthoughtmoreimmediatelycalledintoexercisebythem.Intheseearlyyears,certainlyindependentlyofBerkeley,9andapparentlywithnosuggestion from outside beyondwhatmight be derived from Newton'sexplanationsoflightandcolor,andLocke'streatmentofsensationasthesourceofideas,heworkedoutforhimselfacompletesystemofIdealism,whichtrembledindeedonthebrinkofmerephenomenalism,andmighthavebetrayedhimintoPantheismsavefortheintensityofhisperceptionof the living God. "Speaking most strictly," he declares, "there is nopropersubstancebutGodHimself."Theuniverseexists"nowherebutintheDivinemind."Whetherthisistrue"withrespecttobodiesonly,"oroffinitespiritsaswell,heseemsatfirsttohavewavered;ultimatelyhecametothemoreinclusiveopinion.10

Edwardswasnotsoabsorbedinsuchspeculationsastoneglecttheneedsofhisspirit.Throughoutalltheseformativeyearsheremainedfirstofallamanofreligion.Hehadbeenthesubjectofdeepreligiousimpressionsfrom his earliest boyhood, and he gave himself, during this period ofpreparation,tothemostassiduousandintensecultivationofhisreligiousnature. "I made seeking my salvation," he himself tells us, "the mainbusiness of my life."11 But about the time of his graduation (1720) achangecameoverhim,which relieved the strainofhis inwarddistress.From his childhood, his mind had revolted against the sovereignty ofGod: "it used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me." Now all thispassedunobservedlyaway;andgradually,byaprocesshecouldnottrace,

thisverydoctrinecametobenotmerelyamatterofcoursetohimbutamatter of rejoicing: "The doctrine has very often appeared exceedinglypleasant,bright,andsweet;absolutesovereigntyiswhatIlovetoascribetoGod."OnedayhewasreadingITim.i.17,"NowuntotheKing,eternal,immortal, invisible,theonlywiseGod,behonorandglory, foreverandever,Amen,"and,asheread,"asenseof thegloryof theDivineBeing"tookpossessionofhim,"anewsense,quitedifferent fromanything"he"ever experiencedbefore."He longed to be "rapt up toHim in heaven,andbeasitwereswallowedupinHimforever."12Fromthatmomenthisunderstandingofdivinethingsincreased,andhisenjoymentofGodgrew.There were, no doubt, intervals of depression. But, on the whole, hisprogress was steadily upwards and his consecration more and morecomplete.Itwasthisdevoutyoungman,withthe joyof theLord inhisheart,who turnedhis back in the earlymonths of 1727 on his brilliantacademiclifeandlaidasideforeverhisphilosophicalspeculations,totakeuptheworkofapastoratNorthampton.

II.EDWARDSTHEPASTOR

Edwardswasordainedco-pastorwithhisgrandfatheron 15thFebruary1727, and on the latter's death, two years later, succeeded to the solechargeoftheparish.Northamptonwasrelativelyaveryimportantplace.Itwas the county town, and nearly half of the area of the province laywithin the county. Itwas, therefore, a sortof little local capital, and itspeopleprided themselveson theirculture,energy,and independenceofmind.Therewasbuttheonechurchinthetown,anditwasprobablythelargestandmostinfluentialintheprovince,outsideofBoston.Itwasnotunitedinsentiment,beingoftentornwithfactionaldisputes.But,underthestrongpreachingofSolomonStoddard,ithadbeenrepeatedlyvisitedwithrevivals.Theseperiodsof awakening continuedat intervalsduringEdwards' pastorate; the church became famous for them, and itsmembership was filled up by them. At one time the membershipnumberedsixhundredandtwenty,andincludednearlytheentireadultpopulationofthetown.Stoddardhadbeentheprotagonist forthe laxerviews of admission toChurch-ordinances, and early in the century hadintroduced into the Northampton church the practice of opening theLord's Supper to those whomade no profession of conversion. In this

practiceEdwardsatfirstacquiesced;but,becomingconvincedthatitwaswrong,soughtafterawhiletocorrectit,withdisastrousconsequencestohimself. Meanwhile it had given to the membership of the churchsomethingofthecharacterofamixedmultitude,whichthecircumstancethat large numbers of them had been introduced in the religiousexcitementofrevivalshadtendedtoincrease.

To the pastoral care of this important congregation, Edwards gavehimself with single-hearted devotion. Assiduous house-to-housevisitationdidnot,itistrue,formpartofhisplanofwork;butthisdidnotargue carelessness or neglect; it was in accordance with his deliberatejudgment of his special gifts and fitnesses. And, if he did not go to hispeople in their homes, save at the call of illness or special need, heencouraged them to come freely to him, and grudged neither time norlabor inmeetingtheir individualrequirements.Heremained,of course,alsoastudent,spendingordinarilyfromthirteentofourteenoursdailyinis study. This work did not separate itself from, but was kept strictlysubsidiary to, his pastoral service. Not only had he turned his backdefinitelyonthepurelyacademicspeculationswhichhadengagedhimsodeeplyatYale,butheproducednopurely theologicalworks during thewhole of his twenty-three years' pastorate at Northampton. Hispublications during this period, besides sermons, consisted only oftreatisesinpracticalDivinity.Theydealprincipallywithproblemsraisedbythegreatreligiousawakeningsinwhichhispreachingwasfruitful.13

Itwas inhis sermons thatEdwards' studiesbore their richest fruit.Hedidnotsparehimselfinhispublicinstruction.Henotonlyfaithfullyfilledthe regular appointments of the church, but freely undertook specialdiscoursesandlectures,andduringtimesof"attentiontoreligion"wentfrequentlytotheaidoftheneighboringchurches.Fromthefirsthewasrecognizedasa remarkablepreacher, as arresting and awakening ashewas instructive. Filled himself with the profoundest sense of theheinousness of sin, as an offense against the majesty of God and anoutrage of His love, he set himself to arouse his hearers to somerealization of the horror of their condition as objects of the divinedispleasure,andoftheincrediblegoodnessofGodininterveningfortheirsalvation. Sideby sidewith themostmovingportrayal ofGod's love in

Christ,andoftheblessednessofcommunionwithHim,hethereforeset,with the most startling effect, equally vivid pictures of the dangers ofunforgiven sin and the terrors of the lost estate. The effect of suchpreaching, delivered with the force of the sincerest conviction, wasoverwhelming.Agreatawakeningbeganinthechurchattheendof1735,in which more than three hundred converts were gathered in,14 andwhich extended throughout the churches of the Connecticut valley. InconnectionwithavisitfromWhitefieldin1740anotherwaveofreligiousfervor was started, which did not spend its force until it covered thewholeland.NoonecouldrecognizemorefullythanEdwardstheevilthatmixeswiththegoodinsuchseasonsofreligiousexcitement.Hediligentlysought tocurbexcesses,andearnestlyendeavored to separate the chafffromthewheat.Butnoonecouldprotestmorestronglyagainstcastingout the wheat with the chaff. He subjected all the phenomena of therevivals inwhichheparticipatedtothemostsearchinganalyticalstudy;and,while sadly acknowledging thatmuch self-deceptionwas possible,andthatthereincouldonlytooreadilybegiventofalse"enthusiasm,"heearnestlycontendedthatagenuineworkofgracemight findexpressioninmentalandevenphysicalexcitement.Itwasoneoftheincidentalfruitsoftheserevivalsthat,aswehaveseen,hegavetotheworldinaseriesofstudies perhaps the most thorough examination of the phenomena ofreligiousexcitementithasyetreceived,andcertainly,inhisgreattreatiseonthe"ReligiousAffections,"oneofthemostcompletesystemsofwhathasbeenstrikinglycalled"spiritualdiagnostics"itpossesses.

For twenty-three years Edwards pursued his fruitful ministry atNorthampton;underhisguidancethechurchbecameacitysetonahillto which all eyes were turned. But in the reaction from the revival of1740-1742conditionsarosewhichcausedhimgreatsearchingsofheart,andledultimatelytohisseparationfromhiscongregation.Inthisrevival,practically thewholeadultpopulationof the townwasbrought intothechurch;theywereadmittedundertheexcitementofthetimeandunderarulingintroducedaslongbeforeas1704byStoddard,whichlookeduponall the ordinances of the church, including the Lord's Supper, as"convertingordinances,"notpresupposing,butadaptedtobringabout,achange of heart. As time passed, it became evident enough that aconsiderable body of the existing membership of the church had not

experienced that change of heart by which alone they could beconstitutedChristians,andindeedtheymadenoclaimtohavedoneso.On giving serious study to the question for himself, Edwards becameconvinced that participation in the Lord's Supper could properly beallowed only to those professing real "conversion." It was his duty aspastor and guide of his people to guard the Lord's Table fromprofanation,andhewasnotamanto leaveunperformedadutyclearlyperceived. Two obvious measures presented themselves to him -unworthymembers of the churchmust be exscindedbydiscipline, andgreater care must be exercised in receiving new applicants formembership. No doubt discipline was among the functions which theChurch claimed to exercise; but the practice of it had fallenmuch intodecay as a sequence to the lowered conception which had come to beentertained of the requirements for church membership. The door ofadmissiontotheLord'sSupper,ontheotherhand,hadbeenformallysetwideopen;andthisloosepolicyhadbeenpersistedinforhalfacentury,and had become traditional. What Edwards felt himself compelled toundertake, it will be seen, was a return in theory and practice to theoriginal platform of the Congregational churches, which conceived theChurchtobe,inthestrictestsenseofthewords,"acompanyofsaintsbycalling," amongwhom there should be permitted to enter nothing thatwasnot clean.15This,which should have beenhis strength, andwhichultimately gave the victory to the movement which he inauguratedthroughoutthechurchesofNewEngland,16wasinhisownpersonalcasehis weakness. It gave a radical appearance to the reforms which headvocated, which he himself was far from giving to them. It is notnecessary to go into the details of the controversy regarding a case ofdiscipline,which emerged in 1744, orthe subsequent difficulties (1748-1749) regarding the conditions of admission to the Lord's Supper. Theresultwasthat,afterasharpcontestrunningthroughtwoyears,Edwardswasdismissedfromhispastorateon22dJune1750.

III.EDWARDSTHETHEOLOGIAN

By his dismissal from his church at Northampton, in his forty-seventhyear,thesecondperiodofEdwards'life-theperiodofstrenuouspastorallabor-wasbroughttoanabruptclose.Afterafewmonthsheremovedto

the little frontierhamlet (therewereonlytwelvewhite families residentthere) of Stockbridge, as missionary of the "Society in London forPropagating theGospel inNewEnglandand thePartsAdjacent" to theHousatonic Indiansgathered there,andaspastorof the littlechurchofwhitesettlers.Inthisexilehehopedtofindleisuretowrite,indefenseoftheCalvinisticsystemagainsttherampant"Arminianism"oftheday,theworks which he had long had in contemplation, and for which he hadmade large preparation. Peace and quiet he did not find; he wasembroiled from the first in a trying struggle against the greed andcorruptionoftheadministratorsofthefundsdesignedforthebenefitoftheIndians.Buthemade,ifhecouldnotfind,therequisiteleisure.Itwasat Stockbridge that he wrote the treatises on which his fame as atheologian chiefly rests: the great works on the Will (written in 1753,published in 1754), andOriginal Sin (in thepresswhenhedied, 1758),thestrikingessayson"TheEnd forwhichGodcreated theWorld,"andthe "Nature of True Virtue" (published 1765, after his death), and theunfinished "History of Redemption" (published 1772). No doubt heutilizedfortheseworksmaterialpreviouslycollected.Helivedpracticallywithhispeninhishand,andaccumulatedanimmenseamountofwrittenmatter-his"bestthoughts,"asithasbeenfelicitouslycalled.TheworkontheWill,indeed,haditselfbeenlongonthestocks.Wefindhimmakingdiligent studies for it alreadyat the opening of 1747;17 and, thoughhisworkonitwasrepeatedlyinterruptedforlongintervals,18hetellsusthatbeforeheleftNorthamptonhe"hadmadeconsiderablepreparation,andwas deeply engaged in the prosecution of this design."19 The rapidcompletionof thebook in the course of a fewmonths in 1753was not,therefore,sowonderfulafeatasitmightotherwiseappear.Nevertheless,itisthesevenyearsatStockbridgewhichdeservetobecalledthefruitfulyearsofEdwards'theologicalwork.Theywereinterruptedintheautumnof1757byaninvitationtohimtobecomethePresidentoftheCollegeofNewJersey,atPrinceton,insuccessiontohisson-in-law,AaronBurr.Itwaswithgreatreluctancethatheacceptedthiscall; itseemedtohimtothreaten thepreventionofwhathehad thought tomakehis life-work -thepreparation, towit,ofaseriesofvolumesonall theseveralpartsofthe Arminian controversy.20 But the college at Princeton, which hadbeen founded and thus far carried on by men whose sympathies werewiththewarm-hearted,revivalisticpietytowhichhisownlifehadbeen

dedicated, had claims upon him which he could not disown. On theadvice of a council of his friends,21 therefore, he accepted the call andremovedtoPrincetontotakeuphisnewduties, inJanuary1758.Therehewasinoculatedforsmallpoxon13thFebruary,anddiedofthisdiseaseon22dMarchinthefifty-fifthyearofhisage.

ThepeculiarityofEdwards' theologicalworkisdueto theunion in itofthe richest religious sentimentwith the highest intellectual powers. Hewasfirstofallamanoffaith,anditisthisthatgivesitscharactertohiswhole lifeandall itsproducts;buthisstrongreligious feelinghadat itsdisposalamentalforceandlogicalacutenessofthefirstorder;hewasatoncedeeplyemotional,and,asEzraStilescalledhim,a"strongreasoner."Hisanalyticalsubtletyhasprobablyneverbeensurpassed;butwithitwascombinedabroadgraspofreligioustruthwhichenabledhimtoseeitasawhole,andtodealwithitsseveralpartswithoutexaggerationandwithasense of their relations in the system.The system towhichhe gavehissincere adhesion, and to the defense of which, against the tendencieswhichwereinhisdaythreateningtoundermineit,heconsecratedallhispowers, was simply Calvinism. From this system as it had beenexpoundedby its chief representativeshedidnot consciouslydepart inany of its constitutive elements. The breadth and particularity of hisacquaintancewithitinitsclassicalexpounders,andthecompletenessofhis adoption of it in his own thought, are frequently underestimated.There is a true sense inwhichhewas amanof thought rather than oflearning. There were no great libraries accessible in WesternMassachusetts in the middle of the eighteenth century. His nativedispositiontoreasonoutforhimselfthesubjectswhichwerepresentedtohis thoughtwas reinforced by his habits of study; itwas his custom todevelop on paper, to its furthest logical consequences, every topic ofimportance towhichhis attentionwasdirected.He lived in the "ageofreason," andwas in this respect a true child of his time.22 In the taskwhich he undertook, furthermore, an appeal to authority would havebeenuseless;itwasuniquelytothecourtofreasonthathecouldhaletheadversaries of theCalvinistic system.Accordingly it is only in hismoredidactic - as distinguished from controversial - treatise on "ReligiousAffections," that Edwards cites with any frequency earlier writers insupportofhispositions.Thereadermustguardhimself,however, from

the illusion that Edwards was not himself conscious of the support ofearlierwritersbeneathhim.23Hisacquaintancewiththemastersof thesystemofthoughthewasdefending,forexample,waswideandminute.Amesius and Wollebius had been his textbooks at college. The well-selectedlibraryatYale,wemaybesure,hadbeenthoroughlyexploredbyhim; at the close of his divinity studies, he speaks of the reading of"doctrinal books or books of controversy" as if itwere part of his dailybusiness.24 As would have been expected, he fed himself on the greatPuritan divines, and formed not merely his thought but his life uponthem.We findhim inhisyouth, for instance,diligentlyusingManton's"Sermons on the 119th Psalm" as a spiritual guide; and in his rareallusions to authorities in his works, he betrays familiarity with suchwriters as William Perkins, John Preston, Thomas Blake, AnthonyBurgess, Stephen Charnock, John Flavel, Theophilus Gale, ThomasGoodwin, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford, Thomas Shephard, RichardSibbes,JohnSmiththePlatonist,andSamuelClark theArian.Evenhiscontemporariesheknewandestimatedat their truevalues:IsaacWattsandPhilipDoddridgeasamatterofcourse;andalsoThomasBoston,theschemeofthoughtofwhose"ViewoftheCovenantofGrace"heconfessedhe did not understand, but whose "Fourfold State of Man" he "likedexceedinglywell."25HisCalvinhecertainlyknewthoroughly,thoughhewouldnotswearinhiswords;26andalsohisTurretin,whomhespeaksof as "the great Turretine";27 while van Mastricht he declares "muchbetter" than even Turretin, "or," he adds with some fervor, "than anyotherbookintheworld,exceptingtheBible,inmyopinion."28Thecloseagreement of his teaching with that of the best esteemed Calvinisticdivines is, therefore, both conscious and deliberate; his omission toappealtothemdoesnotargueeitherignoranceorcontempt;itisincidentto his habitual manner and to the special task he was prosecuting. Inpoint of fact, what he teaches is just the "standard" Calvinism in itscompleteness.

As an independent thinker, he is, of course, not without hisindividualisms, and that in conception no less than in expression. HisexplanationoftheidentityofthehumanracewithitsHead,foundedasitis on a doctrine of personal identity which reduces it to an "arbitraryconstitution"ofGod,bindingitssuccessivemomentstogether,ispeculiar

tohimself.29InansweringobjectionstothedoctrineofOriginalSin,heappealsatonepointtoStapfer,andspeaks,afterhim,inthelanguageofthatformofdoctrineknownas"mediateimputation."30Butthisisonlyinordertoillustratehisownviewthatallmankindareoneastrulyasandbythesamekindofdivineconstitutionthatanindividuallifeisoneinitsconsecutivemoments.Eveninthisimmediatecontexthedoesnotteachthedoctrineof"mediateimputation,"insistingratherthat,Adamandhisposteritybeinginthestrictestsenseone,inthemnolessthaninhim"theguiltarisingfromthefirstexistingofadepraveddisposition"cannotatallbe distinguished from "the guilt of Adam's first sin"; and elsewherethroughoutthetreatisehespeaksinthetermsofthecommonCalvinisticdoctrine.Hismostmarked individualism, however, lay in the region ofphilosophyrather thanof theology. Inanessayon"TheNatureofTrueVirtue," he develops, in opposition to the view that all virtue may bereducedultimatelytoself-love,aneccentrictheoryofvirtueasconsistinginlovetobeingingeneral.Butofthisagainwehearnothingelsewhereinhisworks, though it becamegerminal for theNewEngland theology ofthenextage.Suchindividualismsinanycaseareinnowaycharacteristicofhis teaching.He strove after no show of originality. An independentthinkerhecertainlyclaimedtobe,and"utterlydisclaimedadependence,"say,"onCalvin,"inthesenseof"believingthedoctrinesheheldbecauseCalvinbelievedand taught them."31This verydisclaimer is,however, aproclamation of agreement with Calvin, though not as if he "believedeverything justasCalvintaught";he isonlysolicitousthatheshouldbeunderstoodtobenotablindfollowerofCalvin,butaconvinceddefenderof Calvinism.His one concernwas, accordingly, not to improve on theCalvinismof thegreatexpounders of the system, but to place themainelements of the Calvinistic system, as commonly understood, beyondcavil. His marvelous invention was employed, therefore, only in thediscovery and development of the fullest andmost convincing possiblearrayofargumentsintheirfavor.ThisistrueevenofhisgreattreatiseontheWill.Thisis,inthecommonjudgment,thegreatestofallhistreatises,and the common judgment here is right.32 But the doctrine of thistreatise is precisely the doctrine of the Calvinistic schoolmen. "Thenoveltyofthetreatise,"wehavebeenwelltoldlongago,33"liesnotinthepositionittakesanddefends,butinthemultitudeofproofs,thefecundityand urgency of the arguments by which he maintains it." Edwards'

originality thus consists less in the content of his thought than in hismanner of thinking.He enters into the greattraditionwhich had comedowntohim,and"infusesitwithhispersonalityandmakesitlive,"and"the vitality of his thought gives to its product the value of a uniquecreation."34 The effect of Edwards' labors was quite in the line of hispurpose, and not disproportionate to his greatness. The movementagainst Calvinism which was overspreading the land was in a greatmeasure checked, and the elimination of Calvinism as a determiningfactor inthethoughtofNewEngland,whichseemedtobe imminentashewrote,waspostponedformorethanahundredyears.35

IV.THENEWENGLANDTHEOLOGY

ItwasEdwards'misfortune that he gave his name to a party; and to apartywhich,never inperfectagreementwithhim in itsdoctrinal ideas,finished by becoming the earnest advocate of (as it has been sharplyexpressed36) "a set of opinions which he gained his chief celebrity indemolishing."TheaffiliationofthispartywithEdwardswasverydirect."Bellamy . . . and Hopkins," says G. P. Fisher,37 tracing the descent,"were pupils of Edwards; from Hopkins, West derived his theology;Smalley studied with Bellamy, and Emmons with Smalley." But theinheritanceofthepartyfromEdwardsshoweditselfmuchmorestronglyonthepracticalthanonthedoctrinalside.Itsmembersweretheheirsofhisrevivalistzealandofhisawakeningpreaching;theyalsoimitatedhisattempt to purify the Church by discipline and strict guarding of theLord'sTable - inaword, to restore theChurch to itsPuritan ideal of acongregation of saints.38 Pressing to extremes in both matters, asfollowers will, the "Edwardeans" or "New Divinity" men became aferment in the churches ofNew England, and, creating discussion anddisturbances everywhere, gradually won their way to dominance.Meanwhiletheirdoctrinal teachingwascontinuallysufferingchange.AsFisher (p. 7) puts it, "in the process of defending the established faith,theywereledtorecastitinnewformsandtochangeitsaspect."Only,itwas not merely the form and aspect of their inherited faith, but itssubstance, that they were steadily transforming. Accordingly, Fisherproceeds to explain that what on this side constituted their commoncharacterwasnotsomuchacommondoctrineasacommonmethod: "

the fact that their views were the result of independent reflection andwere maintained on philosophical grounds." Here, too, they werefollowersofEdwards;butin-theirexaggerationofhisrationalmethod,withouthissolidgroundinginthehistoryofthought,theylostcontinuitywiththepastandbecamethecreatorsofa"NewEnglandtheology"whichitisonlyrightfranklytodescribeasprovincial.39

ItisafarcryfromJonathanEdwardstheCalvinist,defendingwithalltheforceofhisunsurpassedreasoningpowersthedoctrineofadeterminedwill,andcommendingatheoryofvirtuewhichidentifieditwithgeneralbenevolence,toNathanielW.TaylorthePelagianizer,buildinghissystemupon thedoctrineof thepower to the contrary as its foundation stone,andreducingallvirtueultimatelytoself-love.Taylor'steaching,inpointof fact,was inmanyrespects theexactantipodesofEdwards', andveryfairlyreproducedthecongeriesoftendencieswhichthelatterconsideredit his lifework to withstand. Yet Taylor looked upon himself as an"Edwardean," though in him the outcome of the long developmentreceiveditsfirstappropriatedesignation-the"NewHavenDivinity."ItsseveralsuccessivephaseswereboundtogetherbythenodoubtexternalcircumstancethattheyweretaughtingeneralbymenwhohadreceivedtheirtrainingatNewHaven.

The growth of the New Divinity to that dominance in the theologicalthoughtofNewEnglandfromwhichitderivesitsclaimtobecalled"theNew England Theology" was gradual, though somewhat rapid. SamuelHopkins tells us that at the beginning - in 1756 - therewere notmorethan four or five "who espoused the sentimentswhich since have beencalled 'Edwardean,' and 'New Divinity'; and since, after someimprovement was made upon them, 'Hopkintonian,' or 'Hopkinsian'sentiments."40 The younger Edwards still spoke of them in 1777 as asmallparty.41In1787,EzraStiles,chafingundertheirgrowinginfluenceand marking the increasing divergence of views among themselves,fancied he saw their end approaching.42 In this he was mistaken: theNew Divinity, in the person of Timothy Dwight, succeeded him asPresidentofYaleCollege,andthroughalongseriesofyearswasinfusedinto generation after generation of students.43 The "confusions" Stilesobservedwere,however,real;or,rather,theprogressivegivingwayofthe

so-calledEdwardeanstothosetendenciesofthoughttowhichtheywereoriginally set in opposition.44 The younger Edwards drew up a carefulaccountofwhathedeemed the (ten) "Improvements inTheologymadeby President Edwards and those who have followed his course ofthought."45ThreeofthemostcardinalofthesehedoesnotpretendwereintroducedbyEdwards,attributingthemsimplytothosewhomhecallsEdwards' "followers." These are the substitution of the Governmental(Grotian) for the Satisfaction doctrine of the Atonement, in theaccomplishmentofwhichhehimself,withpartialforerunnersinBellamyand West, was the chief agent; the discarding of the doctrine of theimputationofsininfavoroftheviewthatmenarecondemnedfortheirownpersonalsinonly-acontentionwhichwasmadeinanextremeformbyNathanielEmmons,whoconfinedallmoralqualitytoactsofvolition,and afterwards became a leading element in Nathaniel W. Taylor'ssystem;andtheperversionofEdwards'distinctionbetween"natural"and"moral" inability so as to ground on the "natural" ability of theunregenerate, after the fashion introduced by Samuel Hopkins46 - atheory of the capacities and duties of men without the Spirit, whichafterwards, in the hands of NathanielW. Taylor, became the core of anewPelagianizingsystem.

The external victory of the New Divinity in New England wasmarkeddoubtless by the election of Timothy Dwight to the Presidency of YaleCollege (1795);andcertainly it couldhave foundnoonebetter fitted tocommend it tomoderatemen; probably no written system of theologyhaseverenjoyedwideracceptancethanDwight's"Sermons."47ButafterDwight came Taylor, and in the teaching of the latter the downwardmovementoftheNewDivinityranoutintoasystemwhichturned,asonitshinge,uponthePelagianizingdoctrinesofthenativesinlessnessoftherace,theplenaryabilityofthesinnertorenovatehisownsoul,andself-loveorthedesireforhappinessasthespringofallvoluntaryaction.Fromthisextremesomereactionwasinevitable,andthehistoryoftheso-called"New England Theology" closes with the moderate reaction of theteachingofEdwardsA.Park.Parkwasofthatlineoftheologicaldescentwhich came through Hopkins, Emmons, andWoods; but he sought toincorporate into his system all that seemed to him to be the results ofNewEnglandthinkingforthecenturywhichprecededhim,notexcepting

theextremepositionsofTaylorhimself.Revertingsofar fromTaylorastoreturntoperhapsasomewhatmoredeterministicdoctrineofthewill,he was able to rise above Taylor in his doctrines of election andregeneration, and to give to the general type of thought which herepresentedaleaseoflifeforanothergeneration.But,withthedeathofParkin1900,thehistoryof"NewEnglandTheology"seemstocometoanend.48

LITERATURE:A.AlistofEdwards'worksisgivenbyDwight,i.pp.765f.; S. Miller, 254 ff.; and Ridderbos, 327 ff. (opp. cit. infra). A briefbibliography will be found in Allen, op. cit. infra, pp. 391 ff. The firsteditionofEdwards'Workswasin8vols.,ed.S.Austin,Worcester,Mass.,1808-1809.Thiseditionhasbeenfrequentlyreproducedin4vols.:NewYork, 1844, 1852, 1856, 1863, 1881. A new and enlarged edition in 10vols., ed. S. E. Dwight, vol. i. being aMemoir, appeared at New York,1829. An editionwas published at London in 8 vols., 1837, to which 2supplementaryvols.wereadded,Edinburgh,1847.LaterBritisheditionsare: London, 1840,with Dwight'sMemoir and an Essay byH. Rogers;London, 1865 (Bohn), in 2 vols. Additional writings of Edwards havebeen published: "Charity and its Fruits," ed. Tryon Edwards, London,1852 (subsequently reissued under the title "Christian Love, asManifestedintheHeartandLife,"ed.6,Philadelphia,1874);"Selectionsfrom the UnpublishedWritings of Jonathan Edwards," edited with anintroduction by A. B. Grosart, Edinburgh, 1865; "Observationsconcerning the Scripture Economy of the Trinity," edited with anintroduction by Egbert C. Smyth, New York, 1880; "An UnpublishedEssayofEdwardsontheTrinity,"editedwithanintroductionbyGeorgeP. Fisher, New York, 1903; "Selected Sermons of Jonathan Edwards,"editedwithanintroductionandnotesbyH.N.Gardiner,NewYorkandLondon,1904(containsonenewsermon).

B. For life, etc., see S. Hopkins, "The Life and Character of the lateReverend...Mr.JonathanEdwards,"Boston,1765,Northampton,1804;S.E.Dwight, "Memoir," being vol. i. of his editionof the "Works" (seeabove),NewYork, 1829;S.Miller, "LifeofJonathanEdwards,"Boston,1837and1848(vol.viii.of firstseriesofJaredSparks's"TheLibraryofAmericanBiography");A.V.G.Allen,"JonathanEdwards,"Bostonand

NewYork,1889;WillistonWalker,"TenNewEnglandLeaders,"BostonandNewYork,1901,pp.215-263;idem,"AHistoryoftheCongregationalChurches in the United States," New York, 1894, chaps. vii. viii. ix.;JosephTracy,"TheGreatAwakening,"Boston,1842.

C. Themost comprehensive survey of Edwards' theological teaching isgiven by Jan Ridderbos, "De Theologie van Jonathan Edwards," TheHague, 1907; see also G. P. Fisher, "Discussions in History andTheology," New York, 1880, pp. 227-252; Noah Porter, "The PrincetonReview ... and the Edwardean Theology," in TheNew Englander, xviii.1860, pp. 737 ff.; H. N. Gardiner, "Jonathan Edwards: a Retrospect,"Boston and New York, 1901; "Exercises Commemorating the Two-Hundredth Anniversary of the Birth of Jonathan Edwards, held atAndoverTheologicalSeminary,"Andover,1904.

D.TheNewEnglandTheologyshouldbestudiedintheworksofitschiefexponents. Lives of many of them are also accessible. See also F. H.Foster,"AGeneticHistoryoftheNewEnglandTheology,"Chicago,1907;G.N.Boardman,"AHistoryofNewEnglandTheology,"NewYork,1899;C. Hodge, "Princeton Essays," first series, 1846, pp. 285-307, secondseries, 1847, pp. 206-235, "Essays and Reviews," 1856, pp. 539-633;LymanH. Atwater, The Biblical Repertory and PrincetonReview, xxvi.1854, pp. 217-246, xxx. 1858, pp. 585-620, xxxi. 1859, pp. 489-538, xl.1868,pp.368398;EdwardsA.Park,"TheAtonement,"Boston,1859;G.P. Fisher, "Discussions in History and Theology," pp. 285-354; H. B.Smith,"FaithandPhilosophy,"NewYork,1877,pp.215-264.

Endnotes:

1. Reprintedfromthe"EncyclopwdiaofReligionandEthics,"editedbyJames Hastings, M.A., D.D., v. 1912, pp. 221-227. Used bypermissionofthepublishers,CharlesScribner'sSons.

2. Georges Lyon, "L'Idéalisme en Angleterre au XVIIIe siècle," Paris,1888,pp.406f.

3. ThePhilosophicalReview,xiii.1904,p.405.4. H. M. Dexter, "Congregationalism ... in its Literature," New York,

1880,p.476,note36.

5. Dwight's "Memoir," prefixed to his edition of Edwards' "Works," i.1829,p.30.

6. See E. H. Gillett, "History of the Presbyterian Church," revisededition,Philadelphia,pp.38f.

7. Onthisground,indeed,Lyon,forexample,refusestobelieveintheirgenuineness. It is futile to adduce the parallel of a Pascal, hedeclares;suchacomparisonismuchtoomodest;theyoungEdwardsunitedinhimselfmanyPascals,and,byadoublemiracle,combinedwith themgiftsbyvirtueofwhichhe far surpassedaGalileoand aNewton;whatweareaskedtobelieveisnotmerelythatasaboyinhis teens he worked out independently a system of metaphysicscloselysimilartothatofBerkeley,butthatheanticipatedmostofthescientific discoveries which constitute the glory of the succeedingcentury.

It iswell to recognize thatLyonhaspermitted himself some slightexaggerationinstatinghiscase,fortherenewedexaminationoftheMSS.whichhe,and,followinghim,A.V.G.Allenaskedfor,hasfullyvindicated the youthful origin of these discussions. (See especiallyEgbertC.Smyth,"SomeEarlyWritingsofJonathanEdwards,1714-1726," in "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society," NewSeries, x. 1896, pp. 212 ff.: 23dOctober, 1895; also The AmericanJournal ofTheology, i. 1897, p. 951; cf.H.N.Gardiner, "JonathanEdwards: a Retrospect," 1901.) There is, for instance, a banteringletteron the immaterialityof the soul, fullofmarksof immaturity,nodoubt,butequallyfullofthesignsofpromise,whichwaswrittenin1714-1715,whenEdwardswastenyearsold.Therearesomeveryacuteobservationsonthebehaviorofspidersinspinningtheirwebswhich anticipate the results of modern investigation (on theseobservations,seeEgbertC.Smyth,TheAndoverReview,xiii. 1890,pp. 1-19; and Henry C. McCook, The Presbyterian and ReformedReview, i.1890,pp.393-402),andwhichcannothavebeenwrittenlater than his thirteenth year. There are, above all, metaphysicaldiscussions of "Being," "Atoms," and "Prejudices of Imagination,"writtenatleastasearlyashisjunioryearatcollege,thatistosay,hissixteenthyear, inwhichthefundamentalprinciplesofhisIdealisticphilosophy are fully set out. And, besides numerous other

discussionsfollowingouttheseviews,thereisalongseriesofnotesonnaturalscience,filledwithacutesuggestions,whichmustbelongtohisYaleperiod.Itisall,nodoubt,veryremarkable.ButthisonlyshowsthatEdwardswasaveryremarkableyouth.

8. Cf.PresidentT.D.woolsey,"EdwardsMemorial,"Boston,1870,pp.32-33;andE.C.Smyth, "Proceedingsof theAmericanAntiquarianSociety,"ascited,p.232;H.N.Gardiner,p.117.

9. SoE.C.SmythandH.N.Gardiner,locc.cit.;itisnowknownthathehadnotreadBerkeleybefore1730(F.B.Dexter,"TheManuscriptsofJonathanEdwards,"Cambridge,1901,p.16).

10. Hecouldwriteoftheriseofanewthought:"Ifwemeanthatthereissomesubstancebesidesthatthought,thatbringsthatthoughtforth;if itbeGod,Iacknowledge it;but if therebemeantsomething elsethathasnoproperties,itseemstomeabsurd"(AmericanJournalofTheology, i. 1897, p. 957).Of "all dependent existencewhatsoever"he comes at last to affirm that it is "in a constant flux," "renewedeverymoment,asthecolorsofbodiesareeverymomentrenewedbythe light that shines upon them; and all is constantly proceedingfrom God, as light from the sun" ("Original Sin": "Works," 4 vol.edition, New York, ii. 1856, p. 490). He did not mean by this,however, to sublimate the universe into "shadows." He was onlyattemptingtodeclarethatithasnoothersubstratebutGod:thatitsrealityandpersistencearegrounded,notinsomemysteriouscreated"substance" underlying the properties, but in the " infinitely exactandpreciseDivineIdea,togetherwithananswerable,perfectlyexact,precise and stable Will, with respect to correspondentcommunications to Created Minds, and effects on their minds"(Dwight, i, p. 674). He is engaged, in other words, in a purelyontological investigation, and his contention ismerely that God isthe continuumof all finite existence.He is as far as possible fromdenyingtherealityorpersistenceofthesefiniteexistences;theyaretohimreal"creations,"because theyrepresenta fixedpurpose andanestablishedconstitutionofGod.(OnEdwards'earlyIdealism,seeespeciallyEgbertC. Smyth,American Journal of Theology, i. 1897,pp.959f.;G.P.Fisher,"DiacussionsinHistoryandTheology,"NewYork, 1880, pp. 229 f.;H.N. Gardiner, op. cit., pp. 115-160; J. H.

MacCracken,"TheSourcesofJonathanEdwards's Idealism," inthePhilosophicalReview,xi.1902,pp.26ff.;alsoG.Lyon,loc.cit.;andI.W. Riley, "American Philosophy: the Early Schools," New York,1907.)

11. Dwight,i.p.59.12. Ibid.,p.60.13. Such, for instance, are the "Narrative of Surprising Conversions,"

publishedin1736,the"ThoughtsontheRevivalofReligioninNewEnglandin1740,"publishedin1742,andthatverysearchingstudyofthemovementsofthehumansoulundertheexcitementofreligiousmotives called "A Treatise concerning Religious Affections,"published in 1746.Then there is the "HumbleAttempt to PromoteExplicit Agreement and Visible Union of God's People inExtraordinaryPrayerfortheRevivalofReligion,"publishedin1749,whichbelongstothesameclass,andthebrief"AccountoftheLifeoftheRev.DavidBrainerd,"publishedinthesameyear.Thereremainsonly the "Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God,concerning the Qualifications requisite to a Complete Standing inFullCommunion in theVisibleChurchofGod,"published in 1749,alongwithwhich should bementioned the defense of its positionsagainst Solomon Williams, entitled "Misrepresentations Correctedand Truth Vindicated," although this was not published untilsomewhat later (1752). No doubt there was much more than thiswritten during these score or more of years, for Edwards wascontinually adding to the mass of his manuscript treasures; andsome of these voluminous "observations" have since been put intoprint,althoughthegreaterpartofthemremainyetinthenotebookswherehewrotethem.

14. Morethanfivehundredfiftymemberswereadded to thechurchatNorthampton during Edwards' pastorate (see Solomon Clark,"Historical Catalogue of theNorthampton First Church," 1891, pp.40-67).

15. According to the organic law of the Congregational churches (theCambridgePlatform),"saintsbycalling"are"suchashavenotonlyattained the knowledge of the principles of religion, and are freefrom gross and open scandals, but also do, together with theprofessionoftheirfaithandrepentance,walkinblamelessobedience

totheword."16. Cf.H.N.Gardiner, "SelectedSermonsof JonathanEdwards,"New

York,1904,p.xii.17. LettertoJosephBellamy,15thJanuary1747,printedbyF.B.Dexter,

"The Manuscripts of Jonathan Edwards" (reprinted from the"ProceedingsoftheMassachusettsHistoricalSociety,"March1901),p. 13; letter to John Erskine, 22d January 1747, reconstructed byDwight, i. pp. 249-250, but since come to light ("ExercisesCommemorating the Two-Hundredth Anniversary of the Birth ofJonathanEdwards,heldatAndoverTheologicalSeminary,October4and5,1903,"Andover,1904,p.63oftheAppendices).

18. Dwight,i.pp.251,270,411.19. Ibid.,pp.411,507,532,537.20. Ibid.,p.569.21. Dwight(i.p.576)wasnotable toascertainall thefacts concerning

this council;EzraStiles, "LiteraryDiary,"NewYork, iii. 1901, p. 4,suppliesinterestingdetails.

22. Cf.thediscussionofEdwards'"rationalism,"byJanRidderbos,"DeTheologievanJonathanEdwards,"1907,pp.310-313.

23. Hopkins tellsus that"hehadanenormous thirst forknowledge, inthe pursuit of which he spared no cost or pains. He read all thebooks, especiallybooks treatingof theology, that he couldprocure,fromwhichhecouldhopetoderiveanyassistanceinthediscoveryoftruth."Fromhisyouthup,however,hedislikedadisplayoflearning.Inhisearliestmaxims,bythesideof"Letmuchmodestybeseeninthestyle,"hesetsthisother:"LetitnotlookasifIwasmuchread,orwasconversantwithbooks,orwiththelearnedworld"(Dwight,i.pp.41f.).

24. Dwight,i.p.93.25. Ibid.,p.242.26. PrefacetothetreatiseontheWill,Dwight,ii.1829,p.13.27. "Works,"4vol.edition,iii.1856,p.123,note.28. LettertoJosephBellamy,15thJanuary1747,printedbyF.B.Dexter,

op.cit.,p.13.29. "Works,"4vol.edition,ii.1856,pp.489ff.;Dwight,ii.pp.555f.30. "Works,"4vol.edition,ii.pp.483f.;Dwight,ii.pp.544f.31. Dwight,ii.p.13.

32. Cf.F.J.E.Woodbridge, inThePhilosophicalReview,xiii. 1904,p.396;andG.Lyon,op.cit.,p.412.

33. Lyman H. Atwater, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review,xxx.1858,p.597.

34. H.N.Gardiner,"SelectedSermons,"1904,p.xviii.35. Cf.WillistonWalker,"TenNewEnglandLeaders,"1901,p.232.36. LymanH.Atwater,p.589;cf.J.Ridderbos,pp.320f.37. "ADiscourseCommemorativeoftheHistoryoftheChurchofChrist

in Yale College during the First Century of its Existence," NewHaven,1858,p.36.

38. Onthe"rigidity"oftheNewDivinitymenin"Churchadministration"and"discipline,"seethe interestingdetails inEzraStiles's"Diary,"iii.1901,pp.273f.,343f.,358f.

39. Cf.Woodbridge, inThePhilosophicalReview,xiii. 1904, pp. 394 f.Themenwhoworkedoutthistheologicaltransmutationweremenofhigh character, great intellectual gifts, immense energy of thought,andwhatmayalmostbecalledfatallogicalfacility.Anypeoplemightbeproudtohaveproducedinthecourseofacenturysuchaseriesof"strong reasoners" on religious themes as Joseph Bellamy (1719-1790), Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), Stephen West (1735-1819),John Smalley (1734-1820), Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801),Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1840), Timothy Dwight (1752-1817),EleazarT.Fitch (1791-1871), andNathanielW.Taylor (17861858) -all,with the single exceptionof the youngerEdwards, graduates ofYaleCollege;nottospeakofyetothersofequalpowers, lyingmoreoffthelineofdirectdevelopment,likeLeonardWoods(1774-1854),Bennet Tyler (1783-1858), Edward D. Griffin (1770-1837), MosesStuart(1780-1852),LymanBeecher (1775-1863),CharlesG. Finney(1792-1875), Leonard Bacon (18021881), Horace Bushnell (1802-1876),andEdwardsA.Park(1808-1900).

40. E.A.Park, "Memoir of theLife andCharacter of SamuelHopkins,D.D.,"Boston,1854,p.237;Fisher,"ADiscourse,"ascited,p.80.

41. EzraStiles,ii.1901,p.227;Fisher,loc.cit.42. "It has been the Ton," he writes (Ezra Stiles, iii. pp. 273-275), "to

directStudentsindivinitythesethirtyyearspastoragenerationtoreadtheBible,PresidentEdwards',Dr.Bellamy's,andMr.Hopkins'Writings - and thiswas a pretty good Sufficiency of Reading." But

now, "theNewDivinity Gentlemen are getting into Confusion andrunning into different sentiments." "The younger Class, but yet infull vigor, suppose they see further than these Oracles, and aredisposedtobecomeOraclesthemselvesandwish towriteTheologyand have their own Books come into Vogue." He thought these"confusions"thebeginningoftheend.

43. YoungTheodoreD.Woolsey in1822canspeakof "Hopkinsianism"as"asortofnetwhichcatchesallbutthePresbyterianeelswhoslipthrough." It had become, he says, "a general term whichcomprehendsallwhoarenotArminiansanddisagreewithTurretinontheatonement"(YaleReview,i.1912[January],p.246).

44. We note Hopkins already conscious of divergence from Edwards'teaching-adivergencewhichhecallsan"improvement."EzraStilestells us (iii. pp. 273 f.) that in 1787 the New Divinity men werebeginningto"denyarealvicariousSufferinginChrist'sAtonement,"and were "generally giving up the Doctrine of Imputation both inOriginalSinandinJustification";andsomeofthem,"recedingfromdisinterested Benevolence, are going into the Idea that all holyMotiveoperatesasterminatinginpersonalHappiness,"-averyfairstatementoftheactualdrift.

45. PublishedinDwight,i.pp.613ff.46. Cf. G. N. Boardman, "A History of New England Theology," New

York,1899,p.50.47. Cf. G. P. Fisher, "A Discourse," as cited, p. 37: "No work on

systematic divinity has had such currency and authority in GreatBritain, at least outside the established Church of England, as theSermonsofDr.Dwight.Inthatcountrytheyhavepassedthroughnotlessthanfortyeditions."

48. Cf.F.H.Foster,"AGeneticHistoryof theNewEnglandTheology,"Chicago, 1907, pp. 543-553 ("Conclusion"), where the fact is fullyrecognized,thoughthereasonsassignedforitarequestionable.

CharlesDarwin'sReligiousLife:ASketchinSpiritualBiography1


Therewasagreatdealofdiscussioninthenewspapers,aboutthetimeofMr.Darwin'sdeath,concerninghisreligiousopinions,provoked,inpart,bythepublicationofaletterwrittenbyhimin1879toaJenastudent,inreply to inquiries as to his views with reference to a revelation and afuturelife;2inpartbyareportpublishedbyDrs.AvelingandBüchnerofaninterviewwhichtheyhadhadwithhimduringthelastyearofhislife.3Ofcoursetheappearanceoftheelaborate"LifeandLetters"byhisson4hasnowput an end to all possibledoubt as to so simple amatter.Mr.Darwindescribeshimself as living generally, andmore andmore ashegrewolder,inastateofmindwhich,withmuchfluctuationofjudgmentfromacoldtheismdownthescale,neverreaching,however,adogmaticatheism, would be best described as agnosticism.5 But the "Life andLetters" does far more for us thanmerely determine this fact. "In thethree huge volumes which are put forth to embalm the philosopher'sname," as Blackwood somewhat flippantly expresses it, "he is observedlike one of his own specimens under the microscope, and everypeculiarity recorded, for all the world as if a philosopher were asimportant as a mollusc, though we can scarcely hope that a son ofDarwin's would commit himself to such a revolutionary view."6 Theresultofthisexcessivelyminutedescription,andallthemorebecause itis so lacking in proportion and perspective, is that we are put inpossessionofabundantmaterial fortracingtheevolutionofhis lifeandopinionswith an accuracy and fullness of detail seldom equaled in theliteratureofbiography.Forexample,althoughthebookwasnotwrittenin order to depict Mr. Darwin's "inward life," it is quite possible toarrangeoutof the facts itgivesa fairlycompletehistoryofhisspiritualchanges.Andthisprovesunexpectedlyinteresting.SuchmenasBunyanand Augustine and St. Paul himself have opened to us their spiritualgrowthfromdarknessintolight,andmadeusfamiliarwitheveryphase

ofthestrugglebywhichaspiritmovesupwardtothehopeofglory.SuchawriterasRousseauliftsforusacorneroftheveilthathidesfromviewthedepthsofanessentiallyevilnature.Butwehavelackedanycompleterecord of the experiences of an essentially noble soul about which theshadesofdoubtareslowlygathering.This it is thatMr.Darwin's "Life"givesus.

No one who reads the "Life and Letters" will think of doubting theunusual sweetness of Mr. Darwin's character. In his school-days he ispainted by his fellow students as "cheerful, good-tempered, andcommunicative."7Atcollege,weseehim,throughhiscompanions'eyes,as"themostgenial,warmhearted,generous,andaffectionateoffriends,"with sympathies alive for "all that was good and true," and "a cordialhatredforeverythingfalse,orvile,orcruel,ormean,ordishonorable"-in a word, as one "pre-eminently good, and just, and lovable."8 A co-laborer with him in the high studies of his mature life sums up hisimpressionsofhiswholecharacterinequallystrikingwords:"ThosewhoknewCharlesDarwin,"hesays,"mostintimatelyareunanimousintheirappreciation of the unsurpassed nobility and beauty of his wholecharacter. In him there was no 'other side.' Not only was he thePhilosopher who has wrought a greater revolution in human thoughtwithinaquarterofacenturythananymanofourtime-orperhapsofanytime-. . .butasaManheexemplifiedinhisownlifethattruereligion,which isdeeper,wider,and loftier thananyTheology.For thisnotonlyinspiredhimwiththedevotiontoTruthwhichwasthemaster-passionofhis great nature; butmade him themost admirable husband, brother,andfather;thekindestfriend,neighbour,andmaster;thegenuinelover,notonlyofhis fellow-man,butofeverycreature."9Mr.Darwinhimselfdoubtedwhetherthereligioussentimentwaseverstronglydevelopedinhim,10 but this opinionwaswritten in his later years, and the contextshowsthatthere isanemphasisupontheword"sentiment."Therewas,on theother hand, a truly religious coloring thrown over all his earlieryears,andthefruitsofreligionneverlefthislife.But,nevertheless,theregradually faded out from his thought all purely religious concepts, andtheregraduallydiedoutofhisheartall thehigherreligioussentiments,togetherwithalltheaccompanyingconsolations,hopes,andaspirations.Onthequietstageofthisamiablelifethereisplayedoutbeforeoureyes

thetragedyofthedeathofreligionoutofahumansoul.Thespectacleisnonethelessinstructivethatitisofferedinthecaseofonebeforewhomwegladlydoffourhatsintrueandadmiringreverence.

Thefirstclearglimpsewhichwegetofthefuturephilosopher,asachild,isaveryattractiveone.Heseemstohavebeensweet-tempered,simple-hearted, conscientious, not without his childish faults, but with a fullsupplyof childishvirtues.Here isaprettypicture.Being sent, at abouttheageofnineyears, toMr.Butler'sschool,situatedaboutamile fromhishome,heoftenranhome"inthelongerintervalsbetweenthecallingsoverandbeforelockingupatnight. . . .Irememberintheearlypartofmyschool life,"hewrites, "that Ioftenhad torunveryquickly tobe intime,andfrombeingafleetrunnerwasgenerallysuccessful;butwhenindoubtIprayedearnestlytoGodtohelpme,andIwellrememberthatIattributedmy success to theprayers andnot tomyquick running, andmarvelledhowgenerally Iwas aided."11Thus,heaven lay abouthim inhisinfancy.Buthedoesnotseemtohavebeenadiligentstudent,andhisschool-life was not altogether profitable; his subsequent stay atEdinburghwasnomore so; andbeforehe reached the age of twenty itseemed clear that his heart was not in the profession of medicine towhichhehadbeendestined.Inthesecircumstances,hisfather,whowasanominalmemberoftheChurchofEngland,tookastepwhichseemedfromhispointofview,nodoubt,quitenatural;andproposedthathissonshouldbecomeaclergyman.12"Hewasveryproperlyvehement,"thesonwrites,"againstmyturningintoan idlesportingman" -as if thiswasasufficient reason for the contemplated step. The son himself was,however, more conscientious. "I asked for some time to consider," hewrites, "as fromwhat little Ihadheardor thoughton the subject Ihadscruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church ofEngland; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a countryclergyman.AccordinglyIreadwithcare'PearsonontheCreed,'andafewotherbooksondivinity;andasIdidnotthenintheleastdoubtthestrictand literal truth of everyword in theBible,13 I soon persuadedmyselfthatourCreedmustbefullyaccepted."14

ThisstepledtoresidenceatCambridge,where,however,againthetimewasmostlywasted.The influencesunderwhichhe there fell,moreover,

were not altogether calculated to quicken his reverence for the highcalling towhichhehaddevotedhimself. "Theway inwhich the servicewas conducted in chapel shows that the dean, at least, was not overzealous. I have heard my father tell [it is Mr. Francis Darwin who iswriting]howateveningchapeltheDeanusedtoreadalternateversesofthe Psalms, without making even a pretence of waiting for thecongregationtotaketheirshare.AndwhentheLessonwasalengthyone,he would rise and go on with the Canticles after the scholar had readfifteenortwentyverses."15NorwerehisassociatesatCambridgealwaysallthatcouldbedesired:fromhispassionforsporthe"gotintoasportingset, including some dissipated low-minded youngmen,"withwhomhespent days and evenings of which (he says) he should have feltashamed.16 Fortunately, he had other companions also, of a higherstamp,17andamongthempreeminentlyProfessorHenslow,whounitedinhisownpersonthewidestscientificlearningandthedeepestpiety,andwithwhomhe happily became quite intimate, gaining fromhim, as hesays,"morethanIcanexpress."18Bestofall,Henslowwasaccustomedtolethislightshine,andtalkedfreely"onallsubjects,includinghisdeepsenseofreligion."19Accordingly,aswearenotsurprisedtolearn,itwaswithhimthatMr.Darwinwishedtoreaddivinity.20Notthathewasevennowreadytoenterwithspirituponhispreparationforhisfuturework.AtouchinglettertohisfriendFox,writtenin1829,ontheoccasionofthedeath of the latter's sister, shows that his heart at this time knewsomewhatof theconsolationsofChristianity. "I feelmost sincerely anddeeplyforyou,"hewrites,"andallyourfamily;butatthesametime,asfarasanyonecan,byhisowngoodprinciplesandreligion,besupportedundersuchamisfortune,you,Iamassured,willknowwheretolookforsuchsupport.AndaftersopureandholyacomfortastheBibleaffords,Iamequallyassuredhowuselessthesympathyofallfriendsmustappear,althoughitbeasheartfeltandsincere,asIhopeyoubelievemecapableoffeeling."21ButhestillhadconscientiousscruplesabouttakingOrders.A fellowstudentwrites (1829): "We had an earnest conversation aboutgoingintoHolyOrders;andIrememberhisaskingme,withreferencetothe question put by theBishop in the ordination service, 'Do you trustthat you are inwardlymoved by the Holy Spirit, etc.,' whether I couldanswerintheaffirmative,andonmysayingIcouldnot,hesaid,'NeithercanI,andthereforeIcannottakeOrders."'22Andcertainly the linesof

his intellectual interestwerecastelsewhere.Onlyunder thepressureofhis approaching examinations was he led to anything like professionalstudy.Onsuchoccasions,however,heshowedthathismindwasopentoimpression. "In order to pass the B.A. examination," hewrites, "it wasalsonecessarytogetupPaley's'EvidencesofChristianity,'andhis'MoralPhilosophy.' Thiswasdone in a thoroughmanner, and I am convincedthat I could have written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfectcorrectness,butnotofcourseintheclearlanguageofPaley.Thelogicofthisbookand,asImayadd,ofhis 'NaturalTheology,'gavemeasmuchdelight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, withoutattemptingtolearnanypartbyrote,wastheonlypartoftheacademicalcoursewhich,asIthenfeltandasIstillbelieve,wasoftheleastusetomeintheeducationofmymind.IdidnotatthattimetroublemyselfaboutPaley'spremises;andtakingtheseontrust,Iwascharmedandconvincedbythelonglineofargumentation."23Despitesuchoccasionalpleasureinhiswork,when,onleavingCambridge,theofferofaplaceintheBeagleexpeditioncame,andhis fatherobjected tohis taking it thathisproperclerical studies would be interrupted, Josiah Wedgwood was able toargue: "If I sawCharles nowabsorbed inprofessional studies, I shouldprobablythinkitwouldnotbeadvisabletointerruptthem;butthisisnot,and, I think, will not be the case with him. His present pursuit ofknowledge is in the same track as he would have to follow in theexpedition."24Bythisrepresentation,hisfather'sconsentwasobtained,although,with that long-sightedwisdomwhichhissonalwaysregardedashisdistinguishing characteristic, he "considered it as again changinghisprofession."25Andso,indeed,itproved.Mr.Darwin'sestimateofthesacrednessofaclergyman'sofficeimprovedsomewhatabovewhatitwaswhenhewasreadytoundertakeit,ifhecouldsigntheCreed,becausethelifeof acountry clergymanoffered advantages in a sportingway.26Hewritesin1835tohisfriendFox,almostsadly:"Idarehardlylookforwardtothefuture,forIdonotknowwhatwillbecomeofme.Yoursituationisabove envy: I do not venture even to frame such happy visions. To apersonfittotaketheoffice,thelifeofaclergymanisatypeofallthatisrespectable and happy."27 But though, perhaps because, his feelingtowardtheclericalofficehadgrowntobesohigh,henolongerthoughtofenteringit.HewritesinhisAutobiographythatthisintentionwasnever"formallygivenup,butdiedanaturaldeathwhen,onleavingCambridge,

IjoinedtheBeagleasnaturalist."28

ThelettertoFoxwhichhasjustbeenquotedisasufficientindicationthatitwasnothisChristianfaith,butonlyhisintentionoftakingOrdersthatwas dying out during the course of his five years' cruise. Other likeindications arenot lacking.29We are, therefore, not surprised to read:"WhilstonboardtheBeagleIwasquiteorthodox,andIrememberbeingheartilylaughedatbysomeoftheofficers(thoughthemselvesorthodox)for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point ofmorality."30 Nevertheless, his defection from Christianity was duringthese years silently and, as it were, negatively preparing in the everincreasingcompletenessofhisabsorptioninscientificpursuits,bywhichhewasleftlittletimefororinterestinotherthings.AndonhisreturntoEngland,theworkingupoftheimmensemassofmaterialwhichhehadcollectedduringhis voyage claimedhis attentionevenmoreexclusivelythan its collection had done. Thus he was given occasion to occupyhimself so wholly with science that there was not only no time left tothink of his former intention of entering theministry - therewas littletime left to remember that therewas a soulwithinhimor a future lifebeyond the grave. Readers of the sad account which Mr. Darwinappended at the very end of his life31 (1881) to his autobiographicalnotes,ofhowatabouttheageofthirtyorthereaboutshishigheraesthetictastes began to show atrophy, so that he lost his love for poetry, art,music,andhismindmoreandmorebegantotakeuponitthecharacterofakindofmachineforgrindinggenerallawsoutoflargecollectionsoffacts,willnotbeabletoresistthesuspicionthatthisexclusivedirectiontoonetypeofthinkingwasreally,ashehimselfbelieved,injurioustohisintellectaswellasenfeeblingtohisemotionalnature,andlayattherootofhissubsequentdriftawayfromreligion.

It was an ominous conjunction, that simultaneously with the earlyprogress of this "curious and lamentable loss of the higher aesthetictastes," a more positive influence was entering his mind which wasdestinedmostseriouslytomodifyhisthoughtondivinethings."InJuly[1837],"he tellsus,"Iopenedmyfirstnote-bookfor facts inrelation totheOrigin of Species, aboutwhich I had long reflected."32The changethat was passing over his views as to the manner in which species

originate is illustrated by his biographer by the quotation of a passagefromhismanuscript"Journal,"writtenin1834,inwhichhefreelyspeaksof"creation,"whichwasomittedfromtheprinted"Journal,"theproofsofwhichwerecompletedin1837-afactwhich"harmonizeswiththechangeweknowtohavebeenproceedinginhisviews."33Weraisenoquestionas to the compatibility of the Darwinian form of the hypothesis ofevolutionwithChristianity;Mr.Darwinhimselfsaysthat"science"(andinspeakingof "science"hehas "evolution" inmind) "hasnothing todowithChrist, except in so far as the habit of scientific researchmakes aman cautious in admitting evidence."34 But if we confine ourselves toMr.Darwin'sownpersonalreligioushistory,itisveryclearthat,whetheron account of a peculiarity of constitution or by an illogical train ofreasoningorotherwise,ashewroughtouthistheoryofevolution,hegaveuphisChristianfaith-nay,thathisdoctrineofevolutiondirectlyexpelledhisChristianbelief.Howitoperatedinsodoingitisnotdifficultdimlytotrace.Hewasthoroughlypersuaded(likeMr.Huxley35)that,initsplainmeaning,Genesis teaches creation by immediate, separate, and suddenfiatsofGodforeachseveralspecies.Andashemoreandmoreconvincedhimselfthatspecies,onthecontrary,originatedaccordingtonaturallaw,andthroughalongcourseofgradualmodification,hefeltevermoreandmore thatGenesis "mustgo."ButGenesis isan integralpartof theOldTestament, andwith the truth and authority of the Old Testament thetruthandauthorityofChristianity itself is inseparablyboundup.Thus,the doctrine of evolution once heartily adopted by him graduallyundermined his faith, until he cast off the whole of Christianity as anunproved delusion. The process was neither rapid nor unopposed. Hespeaksofhisunwillingness to giveuphisbelief andof the slow rate atwhich unbelief crept over him, although it became at last complete.36Drs.BüchnerandAvelingreporthimasassigningtheageof fortyyears(1849) as thedate of the completion of theprocess.37Of course, otherargumentscamegraduallytothesupportoftheoriginaldisturbingcause,to strengthen him in his new position, until his former acceptance ofChristianity became almost incredible to him. A deeply interestingaccount is given of thewhole process in theAutobiography.38 "Duringthese two years," he says - meaning the years when his theory ofevolutionwastakingshapeinhismind-"Iwasledtothinkmuchaboutreligion. . . . Ihadgraduallycomebythistime, i.e.1836to1839,tosee

thattheOldTestamentwasnomoretobetrustedthanthesacredbooksoftheHindoos.Thequestionthencontinuallyrosebeforemymindandwouldnot bebanished, - is it credible that ifGodwerenow tomake arevelation to theHindoos,hewouldpermit it to be connectedwith thebelief in Vishnu, Siva, etc., as Christianity is connected with the OldTestament?Thisappearedtometobeutterlyincredible."Hereistherootofthewholematter.HisdoctrineofevolutionhadantiquatedforhimtheOldTestamentrecord;butChristianity is too intimately connectedwiththeOldTestament to standasdivine if theOldTestamentbe fabulous.Certainly, if the premises are sound, the conclusion is inevitable. OnlybothconclusionandpremisesmustshatterthemselvesagainstthefactofthesupernaturaloriginofChristianity.Oncetheconclusionwasreached,however,bolsteringarguments,pressingdirectlyagainstChristianity,didnotfailtomaketheirappearance:thedifficultyofprovingmiracles,theirantecedentincredibility,thecredulityoftheageinwhichtheyprofesstohave been wrought, the unhistorical character of the Gospels, theirdiscrepancies,man's proneness to religious enthusiasm39 - arguments,allofthem,drawnfromasphereinwhichMr.Darwinwasnotamaster,andallof them, inreality,afterthoughtscalled intosupport thedoubtswhichwerealreadydominatinghim.How impervious to evidenceheatlastbecame isnaively illustratedby thewordswithwhichhe closeshisaccountofhowhelosthisfaith.Hesayshefeelssurethathegaveuphisbelief unwillingly: "For I can well remember often and often inventingday-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, andmanuscriptsbeingdiscoveredatPompeiiorelsewhere,whichconfirmedin themost strikingmanner all that was written in the Gospels. But Ifound it more and more difficult, with free scope given to myimagination, to inventevidencewhichwouldsufficetoconvinceme."40When a man has reached a stage in which no conceivable historicalevidencecouldconvincehimoftheactualoccurrenceofahistoricalfact,wemay cease to wonder that the almost inconceivable richness of theactual historical evidence of Christianity was insufficient to retain hisconviction.Heceasestobeajudgeofthevalueofevidence;andthathehasresisteditisnoproofthatitisresistible;itisonlyanevidenceofsuchindurationofbelieving tissueonhispart that it isno longer capableofrespondingtothestrongestreagents.

Here,then,approximatelyattheageofforty,wehavereachedtheendofonegreatstageofMr.Darwin'sspiritualdevelopment.HewasnolongeraChristian;henolongerbelievedinarevelation.Weseetheeffectinthechangedtoneofhisspeech.Mr.J.BrodieInnisreportshimassayingthathedidnotattackMoses,andthathecouldnotrememberthathehadeverpublished aword directly41 against religion or the clergy.42But in hisprivatelettersofthislaterperiodhecertainlyspeakswithscantrespectofGenesis43 and the clergy,44 if not also of religion,45 and he evengraduallygrewsomewhat irreverent inhisuseof thenameofGod.Weseetheeffectstillmoresadlyinhislossoftheconsolationsofreligion.Itispainfultocomparehistouching,ifsomewhatformalandshallow,letterofcondolencetohis friendFox,written in1829,whichwehavealreadyquoted,withthehopelessgriefoflaterlettersofsimilarorigin.Helostadaughterwhomhetenderlylovedin1851,andhis"onlyconsolation"was"thatshepassedashort,thoughjoyouslife."46WhenFoxlostachildin1853,hisonlyappealistothesofteninginfluenceofthepassageoftime."As you must know," he writes him, "from your own most painfulexperience,timesoftensanddeadens,inamannertrulywonderful,one'sfeelingsandregrets.Atfirstitisindeedbitter.IcanonlyhopethatyourhealthandthatofpoorMrs.Foxmaybepreserved,andthattimemaydoits work softly, and bring you all together, once again, as the happyfamily, which, as I can well believe, you so lately formed."47 What acontrastwith"thepureandholycomfortaffordedbytheBible"!Alreadyhewas learning thegriefof thosewho"sorrowas the restwhohavenohope." Whether his habitual neglect of the Sunday rest and of theordinances of religion was another effect of the same change it isimpossibletosay,inourignoranceofhishabitsprevioustothelossofhisChristianfaith.Butthroughoutthewholeperiodofhis lifeatDown,wearetold,"week-daysandSundayspassedbyalike,eachwiththeirstatedintervalsofworkandrest,"whilehisvisitstothechurchwereconfinedtoafewrareoccasionsofweddingsandfunerals.48

ButthelossofChristianitydidnotnecessarilymeanthelossofreligion,and,asamatterof fact, inyieldingup revealed,Mr.Darwin retained astrong hold upon natural religion. There were yet God, the soul, thefuturelife.Thetheorywhichhehadelaboratedasasufficientaccountofthe differences that exist between the several kinds of organic beings,

includingman,was,however, destined toworkhavoc in hismindwitheventhesimplesttenetsofnaturalreligion.Againweraisenoquestionastowhetherthisdriftwasinevitable;itisenoughforourpresentpurposethatinMr.Darwin'scaseitwasactual.49Tounderstandhowthiswasso,it is only necessary for us to remember that he had laid hold upon"naturalselection"astheveracausaandsufficientaccountofallorganicforms.His conceptionwas that every formmay vary indefinitely in alldirections,andthateveryvariationwhichisagaintoitinadaptationtoits surroundings is necessarily preserved by that very fact through thesimplereactionofthesurroundingsuponthestruggleforexistence.Anydivineguidanceofthedirectionofthevariationseemedtohimasmuchopposedtotheonepremiseofthetheoryasanydivineinterferencewiththeworkingofnaturalselectionseemedtobeopposedtotheother;andheincludedallorganicphenomena,aswellmentalandmoralasphysical,in the scope of this natural process. Thus to him God became anincreasingly unnecessary and therefore an increasingly incrediblehypothecation.

Theseriousnessofthisdriftofthoughtmakesitworthwhiletoillustrateit somewhat in detail. During the whole time occupied in collectingmaterial for and in writing the "Origin of Species" Mr. Darwin was atheist,50or,asheexpresseditononeoccasion:"Manyyearsago,whenIwascollectingfactsforthe'Origin,'mybeliefinwhatiscalledapersonalGodwasas firmas thatofDr.Puseyhimself."51The rateatwhich thisfirmbeliefpassedawaywasslowenoughfortheprocesstooccupyseveralyears.Hetellsusthathisthoughtonsuchsubjectswasneverprofoundorlong-continued.52 This was certainly not the fault, however, of hisfriends,forfromthefirstpublicationofhisdevelopmenthypothesistheypliedhimwithproblemsthatforcedhimtofacethegreatquestionsoftherelationofhisviewstobeliefinGodandHismodesofactivity.Wegetthefirst glimpse of this in his correspondence with Sir Charles Lyell. Thatgreatgeologisthadsuggestedthatwemust"assumeaprimevalcreativepower"acting throughout thewholecourseofdevelopment, thoughnotuniformly,inordertoaccountforthesupervening,say,ofmanattheendof the series. To thisMr. Darwin replies with a decided negative. "Wemust,underpresentknowledge,"hewrote, "assumethecreationofoneor of a few forms in the same manner as philosophers assume the

existenceofapowerofattractionwithoutanyexplanation.ButIentirelyreject,asinmyjudgmentquiteunnecessary,anysubsequentaddition'ofnew powers and attributes and forces,' or of any 'principle ofimprovement,' except in so far as every character which is naturallyselected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement;otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that Irequiredsuchadditionstothetheoryofnaturalselection,Iwouldrejectitas rubbish. . . . If Iunderstandyou, the turning-point inourdifferencemust be, that you think it impossible that the intellectual powers of aspecies shouldbemuch improvedby the continuednatural selectionofthe most intellectual individuals. To show how minds graduate, justreflecthowimpossibleeveryonehasyetfoundit,todefinethedifferenceinmindofmanandthe loweranimals; the latterseemtohavetheverysame attributes in a much lower stage of perfection than the lowestsavage. I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of NaturalSelection,ifitrequiresmiraculousadditionsatanyonestageofdescent.Ithink Embryology, Homology, Classification, etc., show us that allvertebratahavedescendedfromoneparent;howthatparentappearedweknownot.Ifyouadmitineversolittleadegree,theexplanationwhichIhavegivenofEmbryology,HomologyandClassification,youwill find itdifficulttosay:thusfartheexplanationholdsgood,butnofurther;herewemustcallin 'theadditionofnewcreativeforces.'"53Afewdays laterhe wrote again: "I have reflected a good deal on what you say on thenecessity of continued intervention of creative power. I cannot see thisnecessity; and itsadmission, I think,wouldmake the theoryofNaturalSelectionvalueless.GrantasimpleArchetypalcreature,liketheMudfishor Lepidosiren, with the five senses and some vestige of mind, and Ibelieve natural selection will account for the production of everyvertebrateanimal."54

Let us weigh well the meaning to Mr. Darwin's own thought of thesestrongassertionsofthecompetencyofnaturalselectionto"account"foreverydistinguishingcharacteristicoflivingforms.Itmeanttohim,first,theassimilationofthehumanmind,initsessence,withtheintelligenceofthebrutes;andthismeanttheeliminationofwhatweordinarilymeanby "the soul."He only needed to have given "the five senses and somevestigeofmind,"suchasexists, for instance, in themud-fish, toenable

himbynaturalselectionalone,withtheexclusionofall"newpowersandattributes and forces," to account for themental power ofNewton, thehighimaginingsofMilton,thedevoutaspirationsofaBernard.Howearlyhe consciously formulated the extreme form of this conclusion it isdifficulttosay;butwefindhimin1871thankingMr.Tylorforgivinghimnewstandinggroundforit:"Itiswonderfulhowyoutraceanimismfromthelowerracesuptothereligiousbeliefofthehighestraces.Itwillmakemeforthefuturelookatreligion-abeliefinthesoul,etc.-fromanewpoint of view."55 Accordingly, the new view was incorporated in the"Descent ofMan," published that same year.56AndDr.Robert Lewinsseemsquiteaccuratelytosumuptheultimateopinionwhichheattainedonthissubjectinthefollowingwords:

Before concluding Imay, without violation of any confidence, mentionthat,bothvivavoceandinwriting,Mr.DarwinwasmuchlessreticenttomyselfthaninthislettertoJena.For,inananswertothedirectquestionI feltmyself justified, some years since, in addressing to that immortalexpertinBiology,astothebearingofhisresearchesontheexistenceofan"Anima,"or"Soul"inMan,hedistinctlystatedthat,inhisopinion,avitalor"spiritual"principle,apartfrominherentsomaticenergy,hadnomore locus standi in the human than in the other races of the AnimalKingdom - a conclusion that seems a mere corollary of, or indeed aposition tantamount with, his essential doctrine of human and bestialidentityofNatureandgenesis.57

Itwasbutacorollarytolossofbeliefinasoul,secondly,tolosebeliefalsoin immortality. Ifweareonewith thebrutes in origin,whynot also indestiny? Mr. Darwin thought it "base" in his opponents to "drag inimmortality,"inobjectiontohistheories;58butinhisownmindhewasallowinghistheoriestopushimmortalityout.Hisfinalpositionastothefutureofmanhegivesinaninterestingpassage intheautobiographicalnotes,written in 1876.Hespeaks thereof immortalityasa "strongandalmostinstinctivebelief,"butalsoofthe"intolerableness"ofthethoughtthatthemoreperfectraceofthefutureyearsshallbeannihilatedbythegradualcoolingofthesun,patheticallyadding:"Tothosewhofullyadmittheimmortalityofthehumansoul,thedestructionofourworldwillnotappearsodreadful."59Accordingly,whenwritingtotheJenastudent in

1879,after saying thathedidnotbelieve that "thereeverhadbeenanyrevelation," he adds: "As for a future life, every man must judge forhimself between conflicting vague probabilities."60 Thirdly, his settledconviction of the sufficiency of natural selection to account for alldifferentiationsinorganicformsdeeplyaffectedMr.Darwin'sideaofGodand of His relation to the world. His notion at this time (1859), whiletheistic,appearstohavebeensomewhatcrasslydeistic.Heseemsnevertohavebeenablefullytograsptheconceptionofdivineimmanence;butfromtheopeningofhisfirstnotebookonSpecies61totheendofhisdayshe gives ever repeated reason to the reader to fear that the soleconceptionsofGodinHisrelationtotheuniversewhichwerepossibletohimwereeitherthatGodshoulddoallthingswithoutsecondcauses,or,havingordainedsecondcauses,shouldsitoutsideandbeyondthemandleave them to do all things without Him. Beginning with this deisticconception,whichpushedGodoutofHisworks,itisperhapsnotstrangethathecouldneverbesurethathesawHiminHisworks;andwhenhecould trace effects to a "natural cause" or group a body of phenomenaundera "natural law," this seemed to him equivalent to disproving theconnectionofGodwith them.62The resultwas that the theistic proofsgraduallygrewmoreandmoremeaninglesstohim,until,atlast,nooneof them carried conviction to his mind. Sir Charles Lyell was not leftaloneinhiseffortstoclarifyMr.Darwin'sthinkingonsuchsubjects;soonDr.AsaGraytookhisplacebyhissideandbecameatoncethechiefforceintheendeavor.Nevertheless,Mr.Darwinoutlinesalreadyina lettertoLyellin186063theargumentsbywhichhestooduntotheend."Imustsayonemoreword,"hewrites,"aboutourquasi-theologicalcontroversyaboutnaturalselection....DoyouconsiderthatthesuccessivevariationsinthesizeofthecropofthePouterPigeon,whichmanhasaccumulatedtopleasehiscaprice,havebeendueto'thecreativeandsustainingpowersofBrahma?'InthesensethatanomnipotentandomniscientDeitymustorderandknoweverything,thismustbeadmitted;yet,inhonesttruth,Ican hardly admit it. It seems preposterous that a maker of a universeshould care about the crop of a pigeon solely64 to please man's sillyfancies.ButifyouagreewithmeinthinkingsuchaninterpositionoftheDeity uncalled for, I can see no reason whatever for believing in suchinterpositions in the case of natural beings, in which strange andadmirable peculiarities have been naturally selected for the creature's

ownbenefit.ImagineaPouterinastateofnaturewadingintothewater,andthen,beingbuoyedupbyitsinflatedcrop,sailingaboutinsearchoffood.Whatadmirationthiswouldhaveexcited-adaptationtothelawsofhydrostaticpressure,etc.ForthelifeofmeIcannotseeanydifficultyinnaturalselectionproducingthemostexquisitestructure,ifsuchstructurecanbearrivedatbygradation,andIknowfromexperiencehowharditisto name any structure towards which at least some gradations are notknown....P.S.-TheconclusionatwhichIhavecome,asIhavetoldAsaGray,isthatsuchaquestion,asistouchedoninthisnote,isbeyondthehumanintellect,like'predestinationandfreewill,'orthe'originofevil.'"Thereismuchconfusedthoughtinthisletter;butitconcernsusnowonlyto note that Mr. Darwin's difficulty arises on the one side from hisinability to conceive of God as immanent in the universe and hisconsequenttotalmisapprehensionofthenatureofdivineprovidence,andontheotherfromaverycrudenotionoffinalcausewhichpositsasingleextrinsicendasthesolepurposeoftheCreator.Noonewouldholdtoadoctrineofdivine"interpositions"suchasappearstohimhereastheonlyalternativetodivineabsence.Andnoonewouldholdtoateleologyoftherawsortwhichheherehasinmind-ateleologywhichfindstheendforwhicha thingexists in themisuseorabuseof itbyanoutside selectingagent.Mr.Darwinhimselffeltanaturalmentalinabilityfordealingwithsuchthemes,andaccordinglywaveredlongastotheattitudeheoughttoassumetowardtheevidencesofGod'shandinnature.Thushewrote inMay, 1860, to Dr. Gray: "With respect to the theological view of thequestion. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had nointentiontowriteatheistically.ButIownthatIcannotseeasplainlyasothersdo,andasIshouldwishtodo,evidenceofdesignandbeneficenceon all sides of us. There seems tome toomuchmisery in theworld. Icannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God wouldhavedesignedlycreatedtheIchneumonidaewiththeexpressintentionoftheirfeedingwithinthelivingbodiesofCaterpillars,orthatacatshouldplaywithmice.Notbelievingthis,Iseenonecessityinthebeliefthattheeye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow becontented toview thiswonderful universe, and especially the nature ofman, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I aminclined to lookat everythingas resulting fromdesigned laws,with thedetails,whethergoodorbad,lefttotheworkingoutofwhatwemaycall

chance.Notthatthisnotionatallsatisfiesme.Ifeelmostdeeplythatthewholesubjectistooprofoundforthehumanintellect.AdogmightaswellspeculateonthemindofNewton.Leteachmanhopeandbelievewhathecan. Certainly I agreewith you thatmy views are not at all necessarilyatheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one,owingtotheexcessivelycomplexactionofnaturallaws.Achild(whomayturnoutanidiot)isbornbytheactionofevenmorecomplexlaws,andIcan see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have beenaboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may havebeen expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw everyfutureeventandconsequence.ButthemoreIthinkthemorebewilderedI become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter."65 Thereasoning of this extract, which supposes that the fact that a result issecured by appropriate conditions furnishes ground for regarding it asundesigned, is less suitable to a grave thinker than to a redoubtablechampionlikeMr.AllanQuartermain,whoactuallymakesuseof it."Atlasthewasdraggedforthuninjured,thoughinaverypiousandprayerfulframe of mind," he is made to say of a negro whom he had saved bykillinganattackingbuffalo;"his'spirithadcertainlylookedthatway,'hesaid,orhewouldnowhavebeendead.As Inever like to interferewithtruepiety,Ididnotventuretosuggestthathisspirithaddeignedtomakeuseofmyeight-boreinhisinterest."66Dr.Grayappearstohaveralliedhis correspondent in his reply, on his notion of an omniscient andomnipotentCreator, foreseeingall futureeventsandconsequences, andyet not responsible for the results of the lawswhichHe ordains. At allevents,Mr.DarwinwriteshimagaininJulyofthesameyear:"Onewordmore on 'designed laws' and 'undesigned results.' I see a bird which Iwantforfood,takemygunandkillit-Idothisdesignedly.Aninnocentandgoodmanstandsunderatreeandiskilledbyaflashoflightning.Doyoubelieve (andI really should like tohear) thatGoddesignedlykilledthisman?Manyormostpeopledobelievethis;Ican'tanddon't.Ifyoubelieveso,doyoubelievethatwhenaswallowsnapsupagnatthatGoddesignedthatthatparticularswallowshouldsnapupthatparticulargnatatthatparticularinstant?Ibelievethatthemanandthegnatareinthesamepredicament. If thedeathofneithermannorgnataredesigned,Iseenogoodreasontobelievethattheirfirstbirthorproductionshouldbenecessarily designed."67 We read such words with almost as much

bewilderment as Mr. Darwin says he wrote them with. It is almostincrediblethatheshouldhavesoinextricablyconfusedthetwosensesoftheword"design"-soastoconfoundthequestionof intentionalactionwiththatoftheevidencesofcontrivance,thequestionoftheexistenceofageneralplaninGod'smind,inaccordancewithwhichallthingscometopass,withthatof theexistenceofmarksofHishandincreationarisingfromintelligentadaptationofmeanstoends.Itisequallyincrediblethathe should present the case of a particular swallow snapping up aparticulargnatataparticulartimeas (tousehisownwords) "aposer,"whenhecouldscarcelyhavealreadyforgottenthatallChristians,atleast,have long since learned to understand that the care of God extends aseasilytotheinfinitelylittleastotheinfinitelygreat;thattheveryhairsofourheadarenumbered,andnotonesparrowfallstothegroundunnotedby our Heavenly Father. Yet this seems to him so self-evidentlyunbelievable,thatherestshiscaseagainstGod'sdirectionof the lineofdevelopment - for this is reallywhathe is arguing against here - on itsobviousincredibility.

Andhefoundit impossibletoshakehimself freefromhisconfusion. InNovemberof thesameyearhewroteagaintoDr.Gray: "Igrieve tosaythatIcannothonestlygoasfarasyoudoaboutDesign.IamconsciousthatIaminanutterlyhopelessmuddle.Icannotthinkthattheworld,aswesee it, is theresultofchance;andyet Icannot lookateachseparatethingas theresultofDesign.Totakeacrucialexample,you leadme toinfer . . . that you believe 'that variation has been led along certainbeneficent lines.' I cannot believe this; and I think you would have tobelieve, that the tail of the Fantail was led to vary in the number anddirectionofitsfeathersinordertogratifythecapriceofafewmen.YetiftheFantailhadbeenawildbird,andhaduseditsabnormaltailforsomespecialend,astosailbeforethewind,unlikeotherbirds,everyonewouldhavesaid,'Whatabeautifulanddesignedadaptation.'Again,IsayIam,andshalleverremain,inahopelessmuddle."68Thereaderisapttoaskin wonder if we would not be right in thinking the fantail's tail a"beautifulanddesignedadaptation,"underthecircumstancessupposed.Mr.Darwinactuallyfallshereintotheincredibleconfusionofadducingaperversionbymanofthe lawsofnature,bywhichananimal isunfittedfor its environment, as an argument against the designed usefulness of

theselawsinfittinganimalstotheirenvironment.WemightaswellarguethatJael'snailwasnotdesignedlymadebecauseitwascapableofbeingadaptedtosofearfulause;thatthestylesofCaesar'sassassinscouldnothavebeenmanufacturedwith auseful intention.Nevertheless, inJune,1861,Mr.DarwinwritesagaintoDr.Gray:"Ihavebeenledtothinkmoreonthissubjectoflate,andgrievetosaythatIcometodiffermorefromyou.Itisnotthatdesignedvariationmakes,asitseemstome,mydeityof'NaturalSelection'superfluous,butratherfromstudying,lately,domesticvariation, and seeingwhat an enormous field of undesigned variabilitythereisreadyfornaturalselectiontoappropriateforanypurposeusefulto each creature."69 And a month later he writes to Miss JuliaWedgwood: "Owing to several correspondents I have been led lately tothink,orrathertotrytothinkoversomeofthechiefpointsdiscussedbyyou.Buttheresulthasbeenwithmeamaze-somethinglikethinkingontheoriginofevil, towhich youallude.Themind refuses to lookat thisuniverse,beingwhatitis,withouthavingbeendesigned;yet,whereonewouldmost expect design, viz. in the structure of a sentient being, themoreIthinkonthesubject,thelessIcanseeproofofdesign.AsaGrayand some others look at each variation, or at least at each beneficialvariation(whichA.Graywouldcomparewiththerain-drops70whichdonot fall on the sea, but on to the land to fertilize it) as having beenprovidentially designed. Yet when I ask him whether he looks at eachvariationoftherock-pigeon,bywhichmanhasmadebyaccumulationapouter or fantail pigeon, as providentially designed for man'samusement, he does not know what to answer; and if he, or anyone,admits [that] these variations are accidental, as far as purpose isconcerned(ofcoursenotaccidentalastotheircauseororigin),thenIcanseenoreasonwhyheshould rank theaccumulatedvariationsbywhichthe beautifully adaptedwoodpecker has been formed, as providentiallydesigned.Foritwouldbeeasytoimaginethelargecropofthepouter,ortail of the fantail, as of some use to birds, in a state of nature, havingpeculiar habits of life. These are the considerations which perplex meaboutdesign;butwhetheryouwillcaretohearthem,Iknownot."71Themostcarelessreaderofthislettercannotfailrenewedlytofeelthatwhilewhat was on trial before Mr. Darwin's thought was not the argument"fromdesign"somuchasgeneralprovidence,yethefallshereagainintotheconfusionofconfininghisviewofGod'spossiblepurposeindirecting

any course of events to the most proximate result, as if it were theindicationsofdesigninagivenorganismwhichhewas investigating.If,however, it is the existenceof a general andall-comprehendingplan inGod's mind, for the working out of which He directs and governs allthings,thatweareinquiringinto,theeverrecurringargumentfromthepouter and fantail pigeons is irrelevant, proceeding as it does on theunexpressed premise that God's direction of their variations can bevindicated only if these variations can be shown to be beneficial to thepigeons themselves and that in a state of nature. It is apparently anunthought thought with Mr. Darwin that the abundance of variationscapableofmisdirectiononman'spartforhispleasureorprofit,whileofabsolutelynousetothebirdinastateofnature,andliabletoabuseforthebirdandformanintheartificialstateofdomestication,mayyetbealinkinagreatchainwhichinallitslinksispreordainedforgoodends-whethermorally,mentally,orevenphysically,whetherinthisworldorinthe next. This narrowness of view, which confined his outlook to theimmediateproximateresult,playedsointothehandsofhisconfusionofthoughtabouttheword"design"asfromtheoutsetfatallytohandicaphisprogresstoareasonedconclusion.

ThehistoryofhisyieldingupChristianity,because,ashesaid,"it isnotsupported by evidence"72 - that is, because its appropriate evidence,beinghistorical,isofakindwhichlayoutsideofhisknowledgeorpowersofestimation-wasthereforeparalleledbyhisgradualyieldingupofhisreasonedbeliefinGod,becausealltheevidencesofHisactivitiesarenotcapableofbeinglookedatintheprocessofadissectionunderthesimplemicroscope.We have seen him at last reaching a position in which noevidence which he could even imagine would suffice to prove thehistoricaltruthofChristianitytohim.Hewasfastdriftingintoasimilarposition aboutdesign.Hewrites toDr.Gray, apparently in September,1861: "YourquestionwhatwouldconvincemeofDesign isaposer. If Isaw an angel come down to teach us good, and I was convinced fromothers seeing him that I was not mad, I should believe in design. If Icouldbeconvincedthoroughlythatlifeandmindwasinanunknownwaya function of other imponderable force, I should be convinced. Ifmanwasmadeofbrassorironandnowayconnectedwithanyotherorganismwhichhadeverlived,Ishouldperhapsbeconvinced.Butthisischildish

writing."73 I And so indeed it is, and in a sense in whichMr. Darwinscarcely intended. But such words teach us very clearly where the realdifficultylayinhisownmind.Lifeandmindwithhimwerefunctionsofmatter; and he could not see that any other concause in bringing newbirthsintotheworld,couldbewitnessedtobythenatureoftheresults,thanthenaturalforcesemployedinthenaturalprocessofreproduction.He believed firmly that indiscriminate variation, reacted upon throughnatural lawsby the struggle for existence,was the sufficientaccountofeverydiscrimination inorganicnature-was theveracausaofall formswhich life took; and believing this, he could see no need of God'sadditionalactivity toproduce thevery sameeffects, andcouldallownoevidenceof itsworking."Ihave lately,"hecontinues in the letter toDr.Gray just quoted, "been correspondingwith Lyell, who, I think, adoptsyourideaofthestreamofvariationhavingbeenledordesigned.Ihaveaskedhim(andhesayshewillhereafterreflectandanswerme)whetherhe believes that the shape ofmy nose was designed. If he does I havenothingmoretosay.Ifnot,seeingwhatFanciershavedonebyselectingindividualdifferencesinthenasalbonesofpigeons,Imustthinkthatitisillogicaltosupposethatthevariations,whichnaturalselectionpreservesforthegoodofanybeing,havebeendesigned.ButIknowthatIaminthesamesortofmuddle(asIhavesaidbefore)asalltheworldseemstobeinwith respect to free will, yet with everything supposed to have beenforeseenorpre-ordained."74Andagain,afewmonthslater,stilllaboringunder the same confusion, he writes to the same correspondent: "Ifanythingisdesigned,certainlymanmustbe:one's 'innerconsciousness'(though a false guide) tells one so; yet I cannot admit that men'srudimentarymammae...weredesigned.IfIwastosayIbelievedthis,Ishouldbelieve it in thesame incrediblemanneras theorthodoxbelievetheTrinityinUnity.Yousaythatyouareinahaze;Iaminthickmud;...yet I cannot keep out of the question."75 One wonders whether Mr.Darwin,inexaminingadoor-knockercarvedintheshapeofaface,wouldsaythathebelievedthehandlewas"designed,"butcouldnotadmitthatthecarvedfacewas"designed."Nevertheless,anincisedoutlineonabitofoldbone,thoughwithoutobvioususe,oracarelesschipontheedgeofaflint,thoughwithoutpossibleuse,wouldatoncebejudgedbyhimtobe"designed" - that is, to be evidence, if not of obvious contrivance, yetcertainly of intentional activity. Why he could not make a similar

distinctioninnaturalproductsremainsastandingmatterofsurprise.

The years ran on, however, and his eyes were still holden; he neveradvancedbeyondeventheillustrationshehadgraspedatfromthefirsttosupporthisposition.In1867his"VariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication"appeared,andonFebruary8thof thatyearhewrotetoSir Joseph Hooker: "I finish my book . . . by a single paragraph,answering,orratherthrowingdoubt, insofarassolittlespacepermits,onAsaGray'sdoctrinethateachvariationhasbeenspeciallyorderedorledalongabeneficial line.It is foolishtotouch such subjects,but therehavebeensomanyallusionstowhatIthinkaboutthepartwhichGodhasplayed in the formation of organic beings, that I thought it shabby toevade the question."76 In writing his Autobiography in 1876, he looksbackuponthis"argument"withpride,asonewhich"hasnever,asfarasIcan see, been answered."77 It has a claim, therefore, to be consideredsomething like a classic in thepresentdiscussion, and although it doesnotadvanceonestepeitherinforceorformbeyondtheearlierletterstoDr.Gray andSirLyell,we feel constrained to transcribe it here in full:"AnOmniscientCreator,"itruns,"musthaveforeseeneveryconsequencewhich results from the laws imposed byHim.But can it be reasonablymaintainedthattheCreatorintentionallyordered,ifweusethewordsintheordinarysense,thatcertainfragmentsofrockshouldassumecertainshapes so that the builder might erect his edifice? If the various lawswhich have determined the shape of each fragment were notpredeterminedfor thebuilder'ssake,can itwithanygreaterprobabilitybemaintainedthatHespeciallyordainedforthesakeofthebreedereachoftheinnumerablevariationsinourdomesticanimalsandplants;-manyof these variations being of no service to man, and not beneficial, farmoreofteninjurious,tothecreaturesthemselves?DidHeordainthatthecropandtail-feathersofthepigeonshouldvaryinorderthatthefanciermightmakehis grotesque pouter and fantail breeds?DidHe cause theframeandmentalqualitiesofthedogtovaryinorderthatabreedmightbe formedof indomitable ferocity,with jaws fitted topindown thebullforman'sbrutalsport?Butifwegiveuptheprincipleinonecase-ifwedonot admit that the variationsof the primeval dogwere intentionallyguided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect image ofsymmetry and vigor, might be formed - no shadow of reason can be

assignedforthebeliefthatvariations,alikeinnatureandtheresultofthesame general laws, which have been the groundwork through naturalselectionof the formation of themost perfectly adapted animals in theworld,man included,were intentionally and specially guided.Howevermuch wemay wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa Gray in hisbelief 'that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines,' like astream 'along definite and useful lines of irrigation.' If we assume thateachparticularvariationwasfromthebeginningofalltimepreordained,theplasticityoforganization,whichleadstomanyinjuriousdeviationsofstructure, as well as that redundant power of reproduction whichinevitablyleadstoastruggleforexistence,and,asaconsequence,tothenaturalselectionorsurvivalofthefittest,mustappeartoussuperfluouslawsofnature.Ontheotherhand,anomnipotentandomniscientCreatorordainseverythingandforeseeseverything.Thuswearebroughtfacetoface with a difficulty as insoluble as is that of free will andpredestination."78 We read with an amazement which is akin toamusement the string of queries withwhichMr. Darwin here plies hisreaders, as ifnoanswerwerepossible to conceptionbut the onewhichwould drive "the omnipotent and omniscient Creator" into impotencyand ignorance, ifnot intonon-existence.Anargumentwhichhasneverbeenanswered!Whyshould itbeanswered? Is itnot competent toanymantostringlikequestionstogetheradinfinitumwithanairofvictory?"Did the omnipotent and omniscient Creator intentionally order thatbeetlesshouldvarytosoextremeanextentinformandcolorationsolelyinorder thatMr.Darwinmight inhis enthusiastic youth arrange themartistically in his cabinet?Did he cause the blackthorn to growof suchstrongandclosefiberinorderthatPatmightcuthisshillalahfromitandbreakhisneighbor'shead?DidMr.Darwinhimselfwriteandprintthesewordsinorderthathisfellowsmightwonderwhyandhowhewasinsuchamuddle?"Butthereisreallynoendtoit,unlesswearereadytoconfessthatanobjectmaybeputtoausewhichwasnot"theendofitsbeing";thattheremaybeintentionspossiblebeyondtheobviousproximateone;and that there is a distinction between an intentional action and acontrivance.ThefallacyofMr.Darwin'sreasoninghereoughtnottohavebeenhiddenfromhim,ashetellsusrepeatedlythatheearlylearnedthedanger of reasoning by exclusion; and yet that is exactly the processemployedhere.

Dr. Gray did not delay long to point out some of the confusion underwhich his friend was laboring.79 And Mr. Wallace shortly afterwardshowed that therewas nomore difficulty in tracing the divine hand innaturalproduction,throughtheagencyofnaturalselection,thanthereisintracingthehandofmanintheformationoftheracesofdomesticatedanimals, throughartificialselection. Inneithercasedoesthereconfronttheoutwardeyeotherthanaseriesofformsproducedbynaturallaw;andin the one case as little as the other is the selecting concause of theoutsideagent excludedby theunbroken traceableness of theprocess ofdescent.80 But Mr. Darwin was immovable. One of the oddcircumstancesofthecasewasthathestillfeltabletoexpresspleasureinbeing spoken of as one whose great service to natural science lay "inbringingback to it Teleology."81 Yet this did notmean that he himselfbelieved in teleology; and in his Autobiographywritten in 1876 he setsasidethewholeteleologicalargumentasinvalid.82

Nor was the setting aside of teleology merely the discrediting of onetheisticproofinordertoclearthewayforothers.ThestrongacidofMr.Darwin'stheoryoftheoriginofmanateintotheveryheartof theotherproofsassurely,thoughnotbythesamechannel,asithadeatenintothefabricoftheargumentfromdesign.Wehavealreadyseenhimspeakingofthedemandofthemindforasufficientcausefortheuniverseanditscontents as possessing great weight with him; and he realized theargumentativevalueofthehumanconviction,arisingfromthefeelingsofdependenceandresponsibility, that there isOneaboveusonwhomwedependandtowhomweareresponsible.Butboththeseargumentswere,in his judgment, directly affected by his view of the origin of man'smental and moral nature, as a development, by means of theinterworkingofnaturallawsalone,fromthegermofintelligencefoundinbrutes.WehaveseenhowuncompromisinglyhedeniedtoLyelltheneedorproprietyofpostulatinganyadditionalpowersoranydirectingenergyfortheproductionofman'smentalandmoralnature.Inthesamespirithewritescomplainingly toMr.Wallace in1869:"Icanseenonecessityfor calling in an additional and proximate cause in regard to man."83This being so, he felt that he could scarcely trust man's intuitions orconvictions. And thus he was able at the end of his life (1881) toacknowledgehis"inwardconviction...thattheUniverseisnottheresult

ofchance,"andatoncetoadd:"Butthenwithmethehorriddoubtalwaysariseswhethertheconvictionsofman'smind,whichhasbeendevelopedfromthemindoftheloweranimals,areofanyvalueoratalltrustworthy.Wouldanyone trust in the convictionsof amonkey'smind, if there areany convictions in such a mind?"84 It is illustrative of Mr. Darwin'sstrangeconfusionof thoughtonmetaphysical subjects thathedoesnotappeartoperceivethatthisdoubt,ifvalidatall,oughttoaffectnotonlythe religious convictions of men, but all their convictions; and that it,therefore,underminestheverytheoryofman'sorigin,becauseofwhichitariseswithin him. There is not a whitmore reason to believe that theprocesses of physical research and the logical laws bymeans of whichinferencesaredrawnandinductionsattainedaretrustworthy, thanthatthese higher convictions, based on the same mental laws, aretrustworthy;andtheoriginofman'smindfromabrutishsource,iffataltotrustinonementalprocess,isfataltotrustinalltheothers, throwingus,astheresultofsuchaplea,intosheerintellectualsuicide.

In discussing these human convictions Mr. Darwin draws a sharpdistinctionbetween thosewhichappeared tohimto reston feelingandthatwhichspringsfromthe instinctivecausal judgmentanddemandsasufficient cause for the universe, and which, as he judged it to be"connected with reason and not with the feelings," "impressed him ashaving much more weight." To the argument from our Godwardemotions he allows but little value, although he looks backwith regretupon the timewhen the grandeurof aBrazilian forest stirred his heartwithfeelingsnotonlyofwonderandadmirationbutalsoofdevotion,andfilled and elevated his mind.85 He sadly confesses that the grandestsceneswouldnolongerawakensuchconvictionsandfeelingswithinhim,andacknowledges thathe isbecome like amanwho is color-blind andwhosefailuretoseeisofnovalueasevidenceagainsttheuniversalbeliefofmen.Buthemakesthisremarkonlyimmediatelytoendeavortorobitof its force.He urges that allmen of all races do not have this inwardconviction "of the existence of one God";86 and then attempts toconfound theconvictionwhichaccompanies theemotionswhichhehasdescribed,ormoreproperlywhichquickensthem,andtotherealityandabidingness of which they are undying witnesses, with the emotionsthemselves,asifall"themovingexperiencesofthesoulinthepresenceof

the sublimer aspects of nature" were resolvable "into moods offeelings."87 He does more; he attempts to resolve all such moods offeeling essentially into the one "sense of sublimity"; and then assumesthatthissensemustbeitselfresolvableintostillsimplerconstituents,bywhich it may be proved to be a composite of bestial elements; and towitnesstonothingbeyondourbrutishorigin.88"Thestateofmind,"hewrites, "which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which wasintimatelyconnectedwithabeliefinGod,didnotessentiallydifferfromthatwhichisoftencalledthesenseofsublimity;andhoweverdifficultitmaybetoexplainthegenesisofthissense,itcanhardlybeadvancedasanargumentfortheexistenceofGod,anymorethanthepowerfulthoughvagueand similar feelingsexcitedbymusic."89Here is reasoning! Is itthenafairconclusionthatbecausethe"senseofsublimity"nomorethanother similar feelings is itself a proof of divine existence, therefore thefirm convictionof the existence ofGod,which is "intimately connectedwith"afeelingsimilartosublimity,isalsowithoutevidentialvalue?Itisas if one should reason that because the sense of resentment which isintimatelyconnectedwiththeslapthatIfeeltinglinguponmycheekdoesnot essentially differ from that which is often called the sense ofindignation, which does not any more than other like feelings alwaysimply the existence of human objects, therefore the tingling slap is noevidence thatamantogive it really exists!Howstrongahold thisoddillusion of reasoning had uponMr. Darwin's mind is illustrated by analmost contemporary letter to Mr. E. Gurney, discussing the origin ofcapacity for enjoyment of music, which he closes with the followingwords:"Yoursimileofarchitectureseemstomeparticularlygood;forinthiscasetheappreciationalmostmustbeindividual,thoughpossiblythesense of sublimity excited by a grand cathedral may have someconnection with the vague feelings of terror and superstition in oursavage ancestors,when they entered a great cavern or gloomy forest. Iwish,"headds,semi-pathetically,"someonecouldanalysethefeelingofsublimity."90 He seems to think that to analyze this feeling would betantamounttolettingourconvictionofGod'sexistenceescapeinavapor.

HeascribedmuchmoreweighttotheconvictionoftheexistenceofGod,whicharisesfromourcausaljudgment,anditwaschieflyunderpressureof this instinct of thehumanmind, bywhichwe are forced to assign a

competent cause for all becoming, that he was continually beingcompelled "to look to aFirstCausehaving an intelligentmind in somedegree analogous to that of man," and so "to deserve to be called aTheist."Butasoften"thehorriddoubt...ariseswhethertheconvictionsofman'smind,"anymorethanthoseofamonkey'smindfromsomethingsimilar to which it has been developed, "are of any value or at alltrustworthy."91Thegrowthofsuchdoubtsinhismindisnottraceableinfull detail; but some record of it is left in the letters that have beenpreservedforus.For example, in 1860hewrote toDr.Gray: "I cannotanyhowbecontentedtoviewthiswonderfuluniverse,andespeciallythenature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of bruteforce."92Again,"Icannotthinkthattheworld,asweseeit,istheresultof chance."93Again, in 1861, hewrites toMissWedgwood: "Themindrefuses to look at this universe, being what it is, without having beendesigned."94At this time he deserved to be called a theist. In 1873 hewrites, in reply to a query by a Dutch student: "I may say that theimpossibilityofconceiving that thisgrandandwondrousuniverse,withour conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chiefargument for the existence of a God"; but immediately adds: "Butwhether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able todecide."95Andin1876,afterspeakingof"theextremedifficultyorratherimpossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe,includingman with his capacity of looking far backwards and far intofuturity,astheresultofblindchanceornecessity,"heimmediatelyadds:"But then arises the doubt, can themind ofman,which has, as I fullybelieve, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by thelowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?"96Nearlythesamewords,aswehaveseen,wererepeatedin1881.97Andheappears to havehad this branch of the subject in hismind ratherthanteleology,when, in 1882, he shook his head vaguelywhen theDuke ofArgyll urged that it was impossible to look upon the contrivances ofnaturewithoutseeingthattheywere theeffectandexpressionofmind;and looking hard at him, said: "Well, that often comes over me withoverwhelmingforce;butatothertimesitseemstogoaway."98

What, then, became of his instinctive causal judgment amid thesecrowding doubts? It was scarcely eradicated. He could write to Mr.

Grahamas lateas1881: "Youhaveexpressedmy inwardconviction . . .thattheUniverseisnottheresultofchance."99But"inwardconviction"withMr.Darwindidnotmean"reasonedopinion"whichistobeheldanddefended,but "naturaland instinctive feeling"which is to be corrected.Andhecertainlyallowedhiscausaljudgmentgraduallytofallmoreandmoreintoabeyance.InhislettertotheDutchstudent,in1873,heknewhowtoaddtohisavowalthathefelttheimpossibilityofconceivingofthisgranduniverse as causeless, the further avowal, "I am aware that ifweadmit a first cause, themind still craves to knowwhence it came, andhow it arose,"100and thus to dowhat he could to throwdoubt on thetheistic inference. And he also knew how to speak as if the agnosticinferencewerereasonableandphilosophical,everywheremaintaininghisright to assume living forms to begin with, as a philosopher assumesgravitation,101 bywhich, as he is careful to explain, he does notmeanthattheseforms(orthisform)havebeen"created"intheusualsenseofthat word, but "only that we know nothing as yet [of] how lifeoriginates";102andwritingaslateas1878:"Astotheeternityofmatter,Ihave never troubled myself about such insoluble questions."103Nevertheless, it isperfectly certain thatneitherMr.Darwinnoranyoneelsecanrejectbothcreationandnon-creation,bothafirstcauseandtheeternity ofmatter. As Professor Flint truly points out, "wemay believeeitherinaself-existentGodorinaself-existentworld,andmustbelieveinoneortheother;wecannotbelieveinaninfiniteregressofcauses."104WhenMr.Darwin threw doubt on the philosophical consistency of theassumptionofafirstcause,hewasboundtoinvestigatethehypothesisofthe eternity ofmatter; and until this latter task was completed he wasbound to keep silence on a subject on which he had so little right tospeak.WherehispredilectionwouldcarryhimisplainfromthepleasurewithwhichhereadofDr.Bastian'sArchebiosisin1872,wishingthathecould "live to see" it "proved true."105 We are regretfully forced torecognizeinhiswholecourseofargumentadesiretoeliminatetheproofsof God's activity in the world; "he did not like to retain God in hisknowledge."

Furtherevidenceofthistrendmaybeobservedinthetoneoftheadditiontotheautobiographicalnoteswhichhemade,withespecialreference tohis religious beliefs, in 1876, and in which he, somewhat strangely,

includeda full antitheisticargument,developed in soorderlyamannerthat itmaystandforusasacompleteexhibitofhisattitudetowardtheproblem of divine existence. In this remarkable document106 he firstdiscusses theargument fromdesign, concluding that the "oldargumentfromdesigninNature,asgivenbyPaley,whichformerlyseemedtomesoconclusive,"fails" now that the law of natural selection has beendiscovered." He adds that "there seems to be no more design in thevariabilityoforganicbeings,andintheactionofnaturalselection, thanin the course which the wind blows," and refers the reader to the"argument" givenat the endof "VariationofAnimalsandPlants underDomestication,"asonewhichhasneverbeenanswered.Havingset thismoredetailedteleologyaside,henextexaminesthebroaderformoftheargument from design, which rests on the general beneficentarrangementoftheworld,andconcludesthatthegreatfactofsufferingisopposed to the theistic inference, while the prevailing happiness, inconjunctionwith "the presence ofmuch suffering, agreeswell with theview thatallorganicbeingshavebeendevelopedthroughvariation andnatural selection."Next he discusses the "most usual argument" of thepresentday"fortheexistenceofanintelligentGod,"that"drawnfromthedeep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by mostpersons." He speaks sadly of his own former firm conviction of theexistenceofGod,anddescribeshowfeelingsofdevotionwelledupwithinhim in the presence of grand scenery; but he sets the argumentsummarilyasideasinvalid.Finally,headducesthedemandsofthecausaljudgment, in a passagewhichhas alreadybeenquoted, but discards it,too,withanexpressionofdoubtastothetrustworthinessofsuchgrandconclusionswhendrawnbyabrute-bredmindlikeman's.Hisconclusionisformulatedhelplessness:"Themysteryofthebeginningofallthingsisinsolublebyus;andIforonemustbecontenttoremainanAgnostic."Itwasoutofsuchareasonedpositionthathewrote in1879:"InmymostextremefluctuationsIhaveneverbeenanAtheistinthesenseofdenyingtheexistenceofGod.Ithinkthatgenerally(andmoreandmoreasIgrowolder), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correctdescriptionofmystateofmind."107Norcanwehelpcarryingover thelight thus gained to aid us in explaining thewordswritten to Jena thesame year:Mr.Darwin "considers that the theory of Evolution is quitecompatiblewith the belief in a God; but that youmust remember that

different persons have different definitions of what they mean byGod."108 It would be an interesting question what conception Mr.Darwin, who began with a deistic conception, had come to when hereached the agnostic stage and spoke familiarly of "what is called apersonalGod."109

Bysuchstagesasthesedidthisgreatmandriftfromhisearlytrust intoaninextinguishabledoubtwhethersuchamindasman'scanbetrustedinitsgrandconclusions;andbysuchreasoningasthisdidhesupporthissuicidal results. No more painful spectacle can be found in allbiographical literature; no more startling discovery of the process bywhichevengreatandgoodmencancomegraduallytoastateofmindinwhich,despitetheirmorenobleinstincts,theycanbut

Judgeallnaturefromherfeetofclay,WithoutthewilltolifttheireyestoseeHerGodlikehead,crownedwithspiritualfire,Andtouchingotherworlds.

Theprocessthatwehavebeenobserving,ashas110beentrulysaid,isnotthatofanejectmentof reverenceand faith from the system (as, say, inthecaseofMr.Froude),orofanencystingofthem(as,say,withMr.J.S.Mill),butsimplyofanatrophyofthem,astheydissolvepainlesslyaway.In Mr. Darwin's case this atrophy was accompanied by a similardeadeningofhishigheremotionalnature,bywhichhelosthispowerofenjoyingpoetry,music,andtoalargeextentscenery,andstoodlikesomegreattreeoftheforestwithbroad-reachingboughs,beneathwhichmenmayrestandrefreshthemselves,butwithdecayalreadymarkingitasitsown,asevidencedbythedeadnessofitsupperbranches.Hewasamandeadatthetop.

Itismoredifficulttotracethecourseofhispersonalreligiouslifeduringthis long-continuedatrophyingofhis religiousconceptions.Hewas notpermitted to enter upon this development without a word of faithfuladmonition.Whenthe"OriginofSpecies"waspublishedin1859,hisoldfriendandpreceptor,ProfessorA.Sedgwick,appearstohaveforeseenthepossible driftage of his thought, and wrote him the following touchingwords: "I have been lecturing three days aweek (formerly I gave six a

week)withoutmuchfatigue,butIfindbythelossofactivityandmemory,and of all productive powers, that my bodily frame is sinking slowlytowardstheearth.But Ihavevisionsof the future.Theyareasmuchapartofmyselfasmystomachandmyheart,andthesevisionsaretohavetheirantitype in solid fruition ofwhat is best and greatest. But on oneconditiononly-thatIhumblyacceptGod'srevelationofHimselfbothinHisworksandinHisword,anddomybesttoactinconformitywiththatknowledgewhichHe only can giveme, andHe only can sustainme indoing. If youand Idoall this,we shallmeet inheaven."111Theappealhadcome too late toaidhisoldpupil toconservehisChristian faith; itwasalreadylongsincehehadbelievedthatGodhadeverspokeninwordandhewasfastdriftingtoapositionfromwhichhecouldwithdifficultybelievethatHehadspokeninHisworks.Itisnotapleasantletterthathewrote toMrs. Boole in 1866, in reply to some very respectfully framedinquiries as to the relation of his theory to the possibility of belief ininspirationandapersonalandgoodGodwhoexercisesmoral influenceonman,towhichheisfreetoyield.Thewayinwhichheavoidsreplyingto these questions almost seems to be irritable,112 and is possibly anindex to his feelings toward the matters involved. Nevertheless, hissympathywithsufferingandhiswillingness to lendhishelptowardtheelevationofhisfellowmenremained;heevenaidedtheworkofChristianmissionsbycontributionsinmoney,113althoughhenolongersharedthehopesbywhichthosewerenervedwhocarriedthecivilizingmessagetotheir degraded fellow beings.Why, indeed, he should have trusted thenoble impulses of his conscience, and been willing to act upon them,when he judged that the brutish origin of man's whole mental naturevitiatedall itsgrandconclusions, itmightpuzzleabettermetaphysicianthanhelaidclaimtobesatisfactorilytoexplain;buthishigherlifeseemsto have taken this direction, and it is characteristic of him to close theletter to theDutch student,written in 1873, with such words as these:"Thesafestconclusionseemstobe that thewholesubject isbeyondthescopeofman'sintellect;butmancandohisduty."114Butwhenthereisno one to show us any truth, who is there to show us duty? If ourconscienceisbutthechancegrowthofthebrutemind,hemmedinbyitsenvironment and squeezed into a new form by the pressure of a fierceandunmoralstruggleforexistence,whatmoralimperativehasitsuchasdeservesthehighnameof"duty"?115Certainlytheargument isasvalid

hereasthere.Butbythepowerofsodivineaninconsistency,Mr.Darwinwasenabledascitizen,friend,husband,andfathertodohisduty.Hehadnosharpsenseofsin;116butsofarasdutylaybeforehimheretainedatender conscience.And thus, ashe approached the endofhis long andlaborious life, he felt able to say: "I feel no remorse from havingcommittedanygreatsin,buthaveoftenandoftenregretted that Ihavenotdonemoredirectgoodtomyfellowcreatures";117andagain,astheend came on, we learn that "he seemed to recognize the approach ofdeath,andsaid, 'Iamnot the leastafraidtodie."'118Andthushewentout into the dark without God in all his thoughts; with no hope forimmortality; andwith no keenness of regret for all the high and nobleaspirationsandalltheelevatingimaginingswhichhehadlostoutoflife.

Thatwemay appreciatehow sad a sightwehavebefore us, let us lookbackfromtheendtothebeginning.Westandatthedeathbedofamanwhom, in common with all the world, we most deeply honor. He hasmade himself a name which will live through many generations; andwithalhasmadehimselfbelovedbyallwhocameintoclosecontactwithhim.True, tender-hearted,andsympathetic,hehas intheretirementofinvalidismliveda lifewhichhasmoved theworld.But ishisdeath justthedeathweshouldexpectfromonewhohadoncegivenhimselftobeanambassadoroftheLord?Whenweturnfromwhathehasdonetowhathehasbecome,canwesaythat,intheveryquintessenceofliving,hehasfulfilled the promise of that long-ago ingenuous youth who sufferedsomething like remorsewhenhebeat apuppy, andashe ran to school"prayedearnestlytoGodtohelphim"?Letuslookuponhiminthelightofacontrast.TherewasanotherCharles,livingintheworldwithhim,buta few years his senior, whose childhood, too, was blessed with a vividsenseofthenearnessofheaven.He,too,hasleftussomeequallysimple-hearted and touching autobiographical notes; and from themwe learnthathis,too,wasaprayingchildhood."AsfarbackasIcanremember,"hewrites,"IhadthehabitofthankingGodforeverythingIreceived,andasking Him for everything I wanted. If I lost a book, or any of myplaythings, I prayed that I might find it. I prayed walking along thestreets,inschoolandoutofschool,whetherplayingorstudying.Ididnotdothisinobediencetoanyprescribedrule.Itseemednatural.IthoughtofGod as an everywhere-present Being, full of kindness and love, who

would not be offended if children talked to Him. I knewHe cared forsparrows."119ThusCharlesHodgeandCharlesDarwinbegantheirliveson a somewhat similar plane. And both write in their old age of theirchildhood's prayers with something like a smile. But how different thequalityofthesesmiles!CharlesDarwin'ssmileisalmostasneer:"Whenindoubt," hewrites, "I prayed earnestly toGod to helpme, and IwellrememberthatIattributedmysuccesstotheprayersandnottomyquickrunning,andmarvelledhowgenerallyIwasaided."120CharlesHodge'ssmile is the pleasant smile of onewho looks back on small beginningsfrom a well-won height. "There was little more in my prayers andpraises,"hewrites,"thanintheworshiprenderedbythefowlsoftheair.This mild form of natural religion did not amount to much."121 HisprayingchildhoodwasCharlesDarwin'shighestreligiousattainment;hisprayingchildhoodwastoCharlesHodgebuttheinconsiderableseedoutofwhichweremarvelouslytounfoldallthegracesofatrulydevoutlife.Starting from a common center, these two great men, with much ofnatural endowment in common, trod opposite paths; and when theshadesofdeathgatheredaroundthem,onecouldbutfacethedepthsofdarknessinhisgreatnessofsoulwithoutfear,andyieldlikeamantotheinevitable lotofall; theother,bathedina lightnotof theearth, rose inspirit upon his dead self to higher things, repeating to his loved onesabout him the comforting words of a sublime hope: "Why should yougrieve?TobeabsentfromthebodyistobewiththeLord,tobewiththeLord is to see theLord, to see theLord is tobe likeHim."122Theoneconceivedthathehadreachedtheendoflife,andlookedbackuponthelittlespacethathadbeenallottedtohimwithoutremorse,indeed,butnotwithoutasenseofitsincompleteness;theothercontemplatedallthathehadbeenenabledtodothroughthemanyyearsofrichfruitagewhichhadfallen to him, as but childhood's preparation for the true life which indeathwasbutdawninguponhim.123

Endnotes:

1. ReprintedfromThePresbyterianReview,ix.1888,pp.569-601.2. First published in the Deutsche Rundschau, then in the Separat-

Ausgabe of Professor Haeckel's paper: "Die Naturanschauung von

Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck," p. 60, note 17. Afterward also inEnglish journals: see The Academy, Nos. 545, 546, 547, 548 (xxii.1882).

3. TheNationalReformerforOctober29th,1882.4. "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, including an

autobiographical chapter." Edited by his son, Francis Darwin. Inthree volumes. London: John Murray, 1888. Seventh thousand,revised.Allreferencesinthepresentpaperaretothisedition.

5. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.304:writtenin1879.6. Blackwood'sEdinburghMagazine,cxliii.1888,p.105.7. Rev.JohnYardley,intheModernReview,July,1882,p.504.8. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.166.9. Dr.W.B.Carpenter,intheModernReview,July,1882,pp.523,524.10. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.311(1876).11. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.31.12. Ibid.,i.p.45.13. AninterestingindicationthatinMr.Darwin'smaturejudgmentthe

BibledoesteachthedoctrinesoftheCreed.14. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.45.15. Ibid.,i.p.165.16. Ibid.,i.p.48.17. Ibid.,i.p.49.18. Ibid.,i.p.188.19. Ibid.,i.p.188.20. Ibid.,i.pp.171.21. Ibid.,i.p.177f.22. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.171.23. Ibid.,i.p.47.24. Ibid.,i.p.199.25. Ibid.,i.p.197.26. Ibid.,i.p.45.27. Ibid.,i.p.262.28. Ibid.,i.p.45.29. Cf.hiswordsofappreciationofmissionarywork,ibid.,i.p.264.See

alsoi.p.246.30. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.307f.31. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.100ff.

32. Ibid.,i.p.68.33. Ibid.,ii.p.1.34. Ibid.,i.p.307.35. Ibid.,ii.p.181.36. Ibid.,i.pp.308f.37. NationalReformer,xl.1882,p.292.38. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.307-309.39. See them in full, "Life and Letters," i. p. 308. It is interesting to

observe that they all circle around miracles, evincing that Mr.Darwinfounddifficultyinpersuadinghimselfthatthesemiraclesdidnottakeplace.

40. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.308,309.41. Notetheword"directly."42. "LifeandLetters,"ii.pp.288f.43. Ibid.,ii.p.152.44. Ibid.,i.p.340.45. Ibid.,ii.p.143.46. Ibid.,i.p.380.47. Ibid.,i.p.388;cf.iii,p.39,note$,writtenin1863.48. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.127,128.49. Inthecaseofmanyothersithasnotprovedinevitable,ase.g.inthe

case ofDr.W.B. Carpenter,whose opinion isworth quoting here,becausehisgeneralconceptionoftherelationofGodtotheuniverseseems to be very similar to whatMr. Darwin's originally was. "Tomyself," he writes, in an interesting paper on "The Doctrine ofEvolution in its Relations to Theism" (Modern Review, October,1882, p. 685), "the conception of a continuity of action whichrequired no departure to meet special contingencies, because theplanwasall-perfect inthebeginning, isafathigherandnobleronethan that of a succession of interruptions.... And in describing theprocessof evolution in the ordinary language of Science, as due to'secondarycauses,'wenomoredispensewithaFirstCause,thanwedowhenwespeakofthosePhysicalForces,which,fromtheTheisticpointofview,aresomanydiversemodesofmanifestationofoneandthe same Power. Nor do we in the least set aside the idea of anoriginal Design, when we regard these adaptations which arecommonly attributed to special exertions of contriving power and

wisdom,astheoutcomeofanall-comprehensiveIntelligencewhichforesaw that the product would be 'good,' before calling intoexistencethegermfromwhichitwouldbeevolved."

50. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.313.51. Ibid.,iii.p.236(1878).52. Seee.g.i.pp.305,306(1871).53. Ibid.,ii.pp.210f.,writtenOctober11th,1859.54. Ibid.,ii.p.174.55. Ibid.,iii.p.151.56. "TheDescentofMan,"i.pp.62ff.57. JournalofScience,xix.1882,pp.751f.58. "LifeandLetters,"ii.p.228.59. Ibid.,i.p.312.60. Ibid.,i.p.307.61. Ibid.,ii.p.9(1837).62. We have seen that Dr. W. B. Carpenter refuses to be held in Mr.

Darwin's logic, although with him holding to a somewhat deisticconception of the divine relation to the process of development."Attach what weight we may to the physical causes which havebrought about this Evolution," he insists, "I cannot see how it ispossible to conceiveof any but aMoralCause for the endowmentsthatmadetheprimordialgermsusceptibleoftheiraction"(loc.cit.,p. 680). "And in the so-called laws of Organic Evolution, I seenothingbut theorderlyandcontinuousworking-outof theoriginalIntelligentDesign" (p.681).Dr.W.H.Dallingeralsobeginswithasimilarconception(comparingGod'srelationto theuniverse totherelation to his work of a machinist who constructs a calculatingmachine to thrownumbers of one order for a given time and thenintroduce suddenly a new series, "by prevised and preordainedarrangement"), and yet refuses the conclusion. "Evolution," heargues,"likegravitation,isonlyamethod;andtheself-adjustmentsdemonstrated in the 'origin of species' onlymake it, to reason, theclearer,thatvariationandsurvivalisamethodthattookitsorigininmind.Itistruethattheeggofamoth,andtheeyeofadog-fish,andtheforearmofatigermustbewhattheyaretoaccomplishtheendoftheirbeing.But thatonlyshows,asweshadeourmentaleyes,andgazebacktothebeginning,themagnificenceofthedesignthatwas

involvedinnature'sbeginning,soastobeevolved,bythedesignedrhythmofnature'smethods."SeethewholepassageinhiseloquentFernleylecturefor1887,on"TheCreator,andwhatwemayKnowoftheMethodofCreation"(London:T.Woolmer,1887),pp.61f.

63. "LifeandLetters,"ii.pp.303,304.64. Howmuchoftheargumentdependsonthisword!65. "LifeandLetters,"ii.pp.311,312.66. Dr. Flint seriously refutes this strange reasoning, which he justly

speaks of as "irrational," and only explicable in "saneminds" fromthe exigencies of foregone conclusions, in his "Theism," lecture vi.(ed.3,pp.189f.).

67. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.314,315.68. Ibid.,ii.pp.353,354.69. "LifeandLetters,"ii.p.373.70. Mr. Francis Darwin indicates in a note that Dr. Gray's metaphor

occurs in the essay "Darwin and his Reviewers" ("Darwiniana," p.157):"Thewholeanimatelifeofacountrydependsabsolutelyuponthe vegetation, the vegetation upon the rain. The moisture isfurnishedbytheocean, israisedbythesun'sheat fromtheocean'ssurface, and iswafted inlandby thewinds.Butwhatmultitudes ofrain-drops fall back into the ocean - are as much without a finalcause as the incipient varieties which come to nothing! Does itthereforefollowthattherainswhicharebestoweduponthesoilwithsuch rule and average regularity were not designed to supportvegetableandanimallife?"

71. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.313,314.72. NationalReformer,October29th,1882.73. "LifeandLetters,"ii.p.377.74. Ibid.,ii.p.378.75. Ibid.,ii.p.382.76. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.62.77. Ibid.,i.p.309.78. "VariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication,"authorized

edition,ii.1868,pp.515f.79. With reference to the first simile of the extract Dr. Gray pointedly

urged: "But in Mr. Darwin's parallel, to meet the case of natureaccording to his own view of it, not only the fragments of rock

(answering to variation) should fall, but the edifice (answering tonatural selection) should rise, irrespective of will or choice! "Mr.Darwin ("Life and Letters," iii. p. 84) calls this "a good slap," butthinksitdoesnotessentiallymeetthepoint.Mr.F.Darwin(loc.cit.)answersitlamelybyobservingthataccordingtohisfather'sparallelnatural selection should be the architect, not the edifice. Doarchitectsgetalongwithout"willorchoice"?

80. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.116.81. Ibid., iii. p. 189: "What you say about Teleology pleases me

especially,andIdonotthinkthatanyoneelsehasevernoticedthepart."ThiswaswrittenJune5th,1874.Seeiii.p.255,andii.p.201.

82. Ibid.,i.pp.309,310.83. Ibid.,iii.p.116.84. Ibid.,i.p.316.85. This paragraph is a report ofwhatMr.Darwin says,writing in his

Autobiographyin1876:see"LifeandLetters,"i.pp.311,312.86. Mr, Darwin writes more guardedly here than in his "Descent of

Man,"i.1871,p.63,wherehedeclares,chieflyonSirJohnLubbock'sauthority,thatthereare"numerousraces"whohavenoideaof"oneormoregods,andwhohavenowordsintheirlanguagestoexpresssuchanidea."ProfessorFlint,inhis"AntitheisticTheories," lecturevii.,withitsappropriateappendixes,hassiftedthisquestionof fact,withtheresultofshowingthevirtualuniversalityofreligion.

87. See this criticism properly pressed by Dr. Noah Porter, in NewEnglanderandYaleReview,forMarch,1888,p.207.

88. Theelementswhichinhisviewunitetoformareligiousemotionareenumeratedforusinthe"DescentofMan,"i.p.65:"Thefeelingofreligious devotion is a highly complex one, consisting of love,completesubmissiontoanexaltedandmysterioussuperior,astrongsenseofdependence,fear,reverence,gratitude,hopeforthefuture,andperhaps other elements."How, in these circumstances, he canspeakofhisstateofmind,involving"feelingsofwonder,admiration,anddevotion" ("Life andLetters," i. p. 311), as onewhich "did notessentially differ from that which is often called the sense ofsublimity," is somewhat mysterious. But we must remember thateventhiscomplexof emotionswas, inMr.Darwin'sview, distantlyapproached by certain mental states of dogs and monkeys.

Nevertheless,thewholedriftofthepassageinthe"DescentofMan"istocredittheresultsofman'sreasoningfacultiesasheprogressedmore and more in the power to use them; while the drift of thepresentpassageistodiscreditthem.

89. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.312.90. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.186,writtenJuly8th,1876.91. Ibid.,i.p.316:writtenin1881.92. Ibid.,ii.p.312.93. Ibid.,ii.p.353.94. Ibid.,i.pp.313f.95. Ibid.,i.p.306.96. Ibid.,i.pp.312f.97. Ibid.,i.p.316.98. Ibid.,i.p.316.99. Ibid.,i.p.316.100. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.306,307.101. E.g.ii.p.210.102. Ibid.,ii.p.251.103. Ibid.,iii.p.236.104. "Theism," ed. 3, p. 120. See alsonote xxii. p. 390: "Creation is the

only theory of the origin of the universe. Evolution assumes eitherthe creation or the self-existence of the universe. The evolutionistmustchoosebetweencreationandnon-creation.Theyareopposites.There is no intermediate term. The attempt to introduce one - theUnknowable - can lead to no result; for unless theUnknowable iscapable of creating, it can account for the origin of nothing." Thewholenoteshouldberead.

105. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.169.106. Ibid.,i.pp.307-313.107. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.304.108. Ibid.,i.p.307.109. Ibid.,iii.p.236(1878).110. F.W.H.Myers,intheFortnightlyReview,January,1888,p.103.111. "LifeandLetters,"ii.p.250.112. "LifeandLetters,"iii.pp.63,64.113. Ibid.,iii,pp.127,128.114. Ibid.,i.p.307.

115. What Mr. Darwin actually taught as to the moral sense may beconvenientlyreadinthethirdchapterofthe"DescentofMan.""Thissense,"he says, "asMackintosh remarks, 'has a rightful supremacyovereveryotherprincipleofhumanaction;'itissummedupinthatshortbutimperiouswordought,sofullofhighsignificance"(i.1871,p. 67). But what gives this "imperious word ought" so rightful asupremacy? Mr. Darwin teaches that "the moral sense isfundamentallyidenticalwiththesocialinstincts"(pp.93f.),andthat"the imperious word ought seems merely to employ theconsciousnessof theexistenceofapersistent instinct,either innateor partly acquired," so that "we hardly use the word ought in ametaphoricalsensewhenwesayhoundsought tohunt,pointers topoint,andretrieverstoretrievetheirgame"(p.88).Hehas,indeed,"endeavoredtoshowthatthesocialinstincts-theprimeprincipleofman'smoralconstitution-withtheaidofactiveintellectualpowersand the effects of habit, naturally lead to the golden rule, 'As yewouldthatmenshoulddo toyou,doye to themlikewise;'andthislies at the foundation of morality" (pp. 101, 102). But this is notbecause the golden rule is any more truly "moral" than any otherrule. "Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked socialinstincts,would inevitably acquire amoral sense or conscience, assoon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, ornearlyaswelldeveloped,asinman"(pp.68,69);butnotnecessarily"exactlythesamemoralsenseasours"(p.70).Forinstance,beessodevelopingamoralsensewoulddeveloponewhichrequired itasadutytomurdertheirbrothersandfertiledaughters.Thusthemorallawhasnomoresanctionthanarisesfromitsbeingthebestmodeofconservingthecommongood,as it isknown inpresentconditions;and its very opposite might be as moral and as imperious underchangedconditions.Mr.Darwin'sown tenderconsciencewas thus,in his own eyes, nothing more than the dissatisfaction that arosefromanunsatisfiedinheritedinstinct(p.69)!

116. Howinevitablethiswasmaybeseenfromthetemperatediscussionof the relationofnaturalistic evolution to the senseof sin, inJohnTulloch's"TheChristianDoctrineofSin,"lecturei.

117. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.359(1879).118. Ibid.,iii.p.358.

119. "TheLifeofCharlesHodge,"byhisson,A.A.Hodge,1880,p.13.120. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.31.121. "Life,"p.13.122. "Life,"p.582.123. SincethispaperwasputintotypeanewletterofMr.Darwin'sonhis

religious views has come to light, which adds, indeed, nothing towhatwe already knew, butwhich is so characteristic as to deserveinsertion here. It is dated March 11th, 1878, and runs as follows:"Dear Sir: I should have been very glad to have aided you in anydegree if it had been in my power. But to answer your questionwouldrequireanessay,andforthisIhavenotstrength,beingmuchout of health.Nor, indeed, could I have answered it distinctly andsatisfactorilywithanyamountof strength.The strongest argumentfortheexistenceofGod,asitseemstome,istheinstinctorintuitionwhich we all (as I suppose) feel that there must have been anintelligentbeginnerof theUniverse;but thencomes thedoubtanddifficultywhethersuchintuitionsaretrustworthy.Ihavetouchedonone point of difficulty in the two last pages of my 'Variation ofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication,'but I am forced to leavetheproblem insoluble.Nomanwho does his duty has anything tofear, and may hope for whatever he earnestly desires. - Dear Sir,yoursfaithfully,Ch.Darwin."(SeeTheBritishWeeklyforAugust3d,1888.)

TheLatestPhaseofHistoricalRationalism1


FIRSTARTICLE

I."DOGMA,"AND"EXTERNALAUTHORITY"

Mr. G. A. Simcox, reviewing Dr. Liddon's recently published "Life ofPusey,"tellsusthatDr.Pusey"developedintoagreattactician,whokeptanacademicalmajoritytogetherinfaceofallmannerofdiscouragementfromoutside."2Nothingismoreremarkable,indeed,thantheprosperityofDr.Pusey's leadership, and the successwithwhich he impressed hispeculiarmodesofthinkinguponawholechurch.Thesecretofitisnottobe found, however, in any "tact" which he may be supposed to haveexercised-aswemightbeledtosuspectbythemeresoundoftheword"tactician."Dr.Puseyhadasgreatacapacity forblunderingasanymanwhoeverlived;andonewondershowhiscausecouldsurvivehisrepeatedandgrosserrorsofjudgment."Whatstrikesusrather,"saysMr.Simcoxtruly, "ishowmany falsemoveshemade, andhow littleharm theydidhim."Thesecretofitisfoundinhisintensity,steadfastness,andsingle-hearted devotion to what he believed to be divine truth. The mere"tactician" has always ultimately failed, since the world began. Theblundererwho layshimselfawillingsacrificeupon thealtarofwhat hebelievestobethetruthofGodhasneverwhollyfailed.Thisistrueevenwhen truth has been misconceived. The power of truth is the greatestpoweronearth.Nexttoit,however,isthepowerofsincere,earnest,andsteadfastconviction.

Dr. Pusey himself lays open to us the secret of his power, in a letterwritten to Dr. Hook in the period of the deepest depression of thefortunesof"theparty.""Iamquitesure,"hesays,"thatnothingcanresistinfidelityexcept themostentiresystemof faith;onesaidmournfully, 'Icouldhavehad faith; I cannothaveopinions.'Onemusthave a strong,positive,objectivesystemwhichpeoplearetobelieve,becauseitistrue,

on authority out of themselves. Be that authority what it may, theScriptures through the individual teaching of the Spirit, the PrimitiveChurch,theChurchwhenitwasvisiblyone,thepresentChurch,itmustbe a strong authority out of one's self."3 Here is the most successfulleader of modern times telling us the principles that gave force to hisleadership. What do they prove to be? Two: the steadfast, consistentproclamation of an "entire system of faith," strong, positive, objective,whichpeoplearerequiredtobelieveonthesimplegroundthatitistrue;and the foundation of this system upon an external authority, an"authorityoutofone'sself."AllexperiencebearsDr.Puseyout.Theonlypropagandismthathaseverwona lastingholduponmenhasbeen theboldproclamationofpositive,dogmatic truth,basedonexternal,divineauthority;andtheonlypower thatcanresist the infidelityofourday isthepowerofconsistentlyconcatenateddogmatictruth,proclaimedontheauthorityofafullytrusted,"ThussaiththeLord."

Thevalueofpositivetruthproclaimedonthebasisofdivineauthority,isnot to bemeasured, of course, simply by its usefulness in propagatingChristianity.Ithasanindividualimportancewhichisfargreater.WithoutitChristianitywouldnotbeabletoacquireormaintainempireoverthesoul.AdolpheMonodpointsout,forexample,howdependentweareforalladequateconceptionsofsinuponthedogmaticteachingsof"externalauthority." "Our own personal meditations," he tells us,4 "will neverrevealtouswhatsinis;andhereIparticularlyfeelthenecessityandtherealityoftheinspirationandDivineauthorityoftheScriptures,becauseweshouldneverhave learned toknowwhatsin is,unlesswe learned itfromobedience to an outward authoritysuperior to us, independent ofoursecretfeelings,uponwhichweoughtcertainlytomeditatewithstudyandferventprayers.Butenlightenedtruthcomesfromabove,isgivenbytheSpiritofGod,speakingwiththeauthorityofGodhimself;forwemustbegin by believing the horror that sin ought to inspire, before we arecapableoffeelingit."Andhepointsoutequallyhowdependentwearefora proper basis for faith on the same "external authority." "Themore IstudytheScriptures,"hesays,5"theexampleofJesusChrist,andof theApostles,andthehistoryofmyownheart,themoreIamconvincedthata testimony of God, placed without us and above us, exempt from allintermixture of the sin and error which belong to a fallen race, and

receivedwithsubmissiononthesoleauthorityofGod,isthetruebasisoffaith." "If faith," he says,6 "has not for its basis a testimony of God towhichwemust submit, as toanauthority exterior to our own personaljudgment, superior to it, and independent of it, then faith is no faith."That thiswitness is true, theheartof everyChristianmaybe trusted tobearwitness.Butforthemomentwemayfixourattentiononthemoreexternalfactalreadyadvertedto,thattheonlybasisofanappealtomenwhichcanatallhopetobeprevalentispositivetruthcommendedonthecreditof"externalauthority."

What is ominous in the present-day drift of religious thought is thesustained effort that is being made to break down just these twoprinciples:theprincipleofasystematizedbodyofdoctrinesasthemattertobebelieved,andtheprincipleofanexternalauthorityasthebasisofbelief.Whatarrogatestoitselfthetitleof"thenewerreligiousthinking"sets itself, before everything else, in violent opposition to what it calls"dogma"and"externalauthority."Theendmaybeveryreadilyforeseen.Indefinite subjectivism or subjective indifferentism has no future. It isnotonlyinitsverynatureadisintegrating,butalsoadestructive,force.Itcan throw up no barrier against unbelief. Its very business is to breakdownbarriers.Andwhenthatworkisaccomplishedthefloodscomein.

The assault on positive doctrinal teaching is presented today chieflyunder the flag of "comprehension." Men bewail the divisions of theChurchofChrist,andproposethatweshallstopthinking,sothatwemaynolongerthinkdifferently.Thisisthetrueaccounttogiveofmanyofthephases of themodernmovement for "church union."Men are tired ofthinking.Theyare tiredofdefending thetruth.Letusallstop thinking,stopbelieving,theycry,andwhatahappyfamilyweshallbe!LookintoMr.DavidNelsonBeach'srecentbook(1893),whichhecalls"TheNewerReligious Thinking," but which seems to us to be rather a plea forunthinking irreligion, and seehowclearly this is itsdominantnote.HetellsusthatGodisnomorearespecterofreligionsthanofpersons;thatthedoctrineof theTrinity isamerephilosophyandoughtno longer tostandbetweenbrethren;thataccesstoGodisnolongertoberepresentedasexclusively"asamatterofterms,"throughChrist.Inaword,thelinesthat separate evangelical from "liberal" Christianity, and those that

separate distinctive Christianity from the higher heathenism, are to beobliterated.Weareno longertodefendanythingthatanyreligioussouldoubts.We are to recognize every honest worshiper as a child ofGod,thoughtheGodheworshipsmaybebutanothernameforforceorfortheworld.

We find the seeds of this movement towards "comprehension" in themost unlikely places. Even Dr. Schaff, in his latest book, representshimself as occupying a position in which not only Arminianism,Lutheranism,andCalvinism,butalsoRationalismandSupranaturalism,arereconciled. It isessentiallypresentwherever theconcessivehabitofdealingwithtruthhastakenroot.Forwhatisthe"concessive"methodofcontroversybutaneatdevicebywhichonemayappeartoconquerwhilereally yielding the citadel? It is as if the governor of a castle shouldsurrenderittothefoeifonlythefoewillpermithimtotakepossessionofitalongwiththem.OnthispathwaythereisnogoalexcepttheultimatenaturalizationofChristianity,andthatmeanstheperishingofdistinctiveChristianityoutoftheearth.Dr.PuseycallsattentiontothefactthattheRationalistsofGermanywere thedescendantsnotof theunbelieversofformercontroversies,butofthe"defenders"ofChristianity.Themethodofconcessionwastried,andthatwastheresult.Theso-called"defenders"werefoundinthecampoftheenemy.

Along with this attack on distinctive truth goes necessarily anaccompanyingattackon "external authority in religion."For if therebean"externalauthority,"thatwhichitteachesistrueforall.Thiscanker,too, has thereforenecessarily entered our churches. It exists in variousstagesofdevelopment.ItbeginsbyrejectingtheauthorityoftheBibleforminor matters only - in the "minima," in "circumstantials" and "by-passages"and"incidentalremarks,"andthelike.Thenextstepistorejectitsauthority foreverythingexcept "matters of faith andpractice."Thencomesunwillingness tobow to all its doctrinal deliverances and ethicalprecepts;andwe findmen likeDr.DeWitt,ofNewBrunswick,andMr.Horton, of London, subjecting the religious and ethical contents of theBible to the judgment of their "spiritual instinct." Then the circle iscompletedbysettingasidethewholeBibleasauthority;perchancewiththe remark, so far as the New Testament is concerned, that in the

apostolicagemendependedeachonthespirit inhisownheart,andnoone dreamed of making the New Testament the authoritative word ofGod,while it was only in the later second century that the canon wasformed, and "external authority" took the place of "internal authority."Thispointofviewcomestoitsrightsonlywheneveryshredof"externalauthority"inreligionisdiscarded,andappealismadetowhatisfranklyrecognizedaspurelyhumanreason:wecallitthenRationalism.Itisonlyanother form of this Rationalism, however, when it would fain believethatwhatitappealstowithinthehumanbreastisnottheunaidedspiritofman,but theHolyGhost in theheart, theLogos, the strongvoiceofGod. In this form it asks, "Were the Quakers right?" and differs fromtechnicalRationalismonly in amatter of temperature, the feelings andnotthecoldreasonalonebeinginvolved:wecallitthenMysticism.

OfcoursemencannotthusrejecttheBible, towhichChristappealedasauthoritative,withoutrejectingalsotheauthorityofChrist,whichisthuscommittedtotheBible'sauthority.Accordingly,wealreadyfindnotonlyawidespreadtendencytoneglecttheauthorityofChristonmanypoints,butalsoaformalrejectionofthatauthoritybyrespectableteachersinthechurches.We are told that authority is limited by knowledge, and thatChrist'sknowledgewaslimitedtopurereligion.WearetoldthateveninmattersofreligionHeaccommodatedHimself,intheformatleastofHisteachings,tothetimesinwhichHelived.Thusall"externalauthority"isgraduallyevaporated, andmenare left to the sole authority eachofhisownspirit,whetherunderthenameofreasonorunderthenameoftheHolySpiritintheheart.Aseachman'sspirithas,ofcourse, itsseparaterights,allbasisforobjectivedoctrinethusdepartsfromtheearth.

The attitude of mind which is thus outlined constitutes the mostdangerous, because the most fundamental, of heresies. DistinctiveChristianity, supernatural religion, cannot persist where this blight isoperative. It behooves theChurch, if itwould consult its peace or evenpreserve its very life, toopen its eyes to theworkingof the evil leaven.Norwillitdotoimaginethatweshallhavetofaceinitonlyasporadicortemporarytendencyofthought.ItisforthistendencyofthoughtthatthepowerfulmovementknowninGermanyasRitschlismpracticallystands.Andithasalreadyacquired inAmerica theproportionsofanorganized

propaganda,withitsliteraryorgan,itssummerschools, itsapostlesandits prophets. It is something like this Ritschlite Rationalism thatProfessor George D. Herron teaches in his numerous works, as thecomingformofChristianity.ItissomethinglikeitthatMr.B.FayMillsispropagating in his evangelistic tours. It is something like it that TheKingdom is offering to the churches; and that those whom thatnewspaperhasgatheredtoitssupportarebandedtomakeaforceintheland.Surelythereisclamantneedtoinformourselvesofitsmeaninganditspurposes.

II.RITSCHLITERATIONALISM

"Rationalism" never is the direct product of unbelief. It is the indirectproduct of unbelief, among men who would fain hold their Christianprofessioninthefaceofanonsetofunbelief,whichtheyfeeltooweaktowithstand. Rationalism is, therefore, always a movement within theChristianChurch; and its adherents are characterized by an attempt tosavewhattheyholdtobetheessenceofChristianity,byclearingitfromwhattheydeemtobeaccretions,orbysurrenderingwhattheyfeeltobeno longer defensible features of its current representations. The namehistoricallyrepresentsspecifically that formofChristian thoughtwhich,under the pressure of eighteenth century deism, felt no longer able tomaintain a Christianity that needed to appeal to other evidences of itstruththanthehumanreason;andwhich,therefore,yieldedtotheenemyeveryelementofChristianteachingwhichcouldnotvalidateitselftothelogical understanding on axiomatic grounds. The effect was to reduceChristianitytoa"naturalreligion."

ThemostrecentformofRationalism,theRitschlite,partakes,ofcourse,of thegeneralRationalistic features. In its purely theological aspect, itsmost prominent characteristic is an attempt to clear theology of all"metaphysical" elements.Otherwise expressed, thismeans that nothingwillbeadmittedtobelongtoChristianityexcept factsofexperience;theelaboration of these facts into "dogmas" contains "metaphysical"elements.Forexample, theRitschlitedefinesGodas love.Hemeansbythis that the Christian experiences God as love, and this much hethereforeknows.Beyondthat,hecannotdefineGod;sinceallquestionofwhatGodisinHimself,asdistinguishedfromwhatGodistous,belongs

to the sphere of "metaphysics," and is, therefore, out of the realm ofreligion.Similarly,theRitschlitedefinesChristasLord,anddeclaresthatthesayingofLuther,EristmeinHerr,includesallthatweneedtobelieveconcerningChrist.HemeansbythisthattheChristianexperiencesChristas hismaster, bows before His life and teaching, and therefore knowsHim as Lord. But beyond what he can verify in such experiences, heknows nothing ofHim. For example, he can know, in such experience,nothing of Christ's preexistence, and cannot control anything told usabout itbyanyavailable tests;he canknownothingof Christ's presentactivitiesby such experience; but he can know something of the powerand worth of His historical apparition, in such experience. All that isoutside the reach of such verification belongs to the sphere of"metaphysics,"andis,therefore,outoftherealmofreligion.Theeffortisto save the essence of Christianity from all possible danger from thespeculative side. The means taken to effect this is to yield the wholesphere of "metaphysical" thought to the enemy. The result is thedestructionofthewholesystemofChristiandoctrine.DoctrinecannotbestatedwithoutwhattheRitschlitecalls"metaphysicalelements";atheoryof knowledge underlies, indeed, the Ritschlite construction of"Christianitywithoutmetaphysicsitself."But,howeverinconsistently,theRitschlite contention ultimates in an "undogmatic Christianity."Theology,wearetold,iskillingreligion.

But Christianity as it has come down to us is very far from being anundogmatic Christianity. The history of Christianity is the history ofdoctrine. Ritschlite Rationalism must, therefore, deal with a historicalproblem,aswellaswithaspeculativeandapracticalone.WhatisittodowithahistoricalChristianitywhichisadecidedlydoctrinalChristianity?Its task is obviously to explain theorigin anddevelopment of doctrinalChristianity in such a manner as to evince essential Christianity to beundogmatic. Its task, in a word, is historically to explain doctrinalChristianityascorruptedChristianity;or, inotherwords, to explain theriseanddevelopmentofdoctrineasaseriesofaccretionsfromwithout,overlying and concealingChristianity.Ritschlism, in the very nature ofthecase,definitelybreakswiththewholetraditionofChristiandoctrine,from Justin Martyr down. Adolf Harnack, one of the most learned ofmodernchurchhistorians,hasconsecratedhisgreatstoresofknowledge

andhis greatpowers to theperformance of the task thus laid uponhisschoolofthought.

The characteristic feature of Harnack's reconstruction of the history ofChristiandogma,intheinterestsofRitschliteRationalism,istorepresentall Christian doctrine as the product of Greek thought on Christianground.ThesimplegospelofChristwasthegospeloflove.OnthebasisofthisgospeltheancientworldbuiltuptheCatholicChurch,butindoingsoitbuiltitselfbankrupt.That is, theancientworldtransferreditself totheChurch;and inwhatwecallchurchtheologyweare lookingonlyattheproductofheathenthinkingonthebasisofthegospel.Tomakeourway back to original Christianity, we must shovel off this wholesuperincumbent mass until we arrive at the pure kernel of the gospelitself, hidden beneath. That kernel is simple subjective faith in God asFather,revealedtousassuchbyJesusChrist.

These new teachings have been variously put within the reach of theAmericanchurches.ProfessorMitchell,ofHartfordSeminary,hasgivenus a translation of Harnack's "Outlines of the History of Dogma."Mr.Rutherfurd has published a translation of Moeller's "History of theChristian Church," in which Harnack's views are adopted and ablyreproduced.Williams andNorgate, the great "liberal" publishing-houseof London, are issuing a translation of Harnack's great "History ofDogma." The writings of Edwin Hatch, the Oxford representative ofRitschlism,havehadawidecirculationonthissideofthesea.ButoflateyearssomethingmorehascometobereckonedwithwithintheAmericanchurches than such literary importations. Young American students,visitingGermanuniversities, have returnedhome enthusiastic devoteesofthe"newviews."Theyhavebeencommendedtothembytheimmenselearning of Harnack; by his attractive personality and his clear andwinningmethodsofpresentinghisviews;bythegreatvoguewhichtheyhavewon inGermany;andpossiblybya feelingon theirownpart thatthey offer a mode of dealing with the subject which will lessen thedifficultyof theChristianapologist indefendingthefaith.The less faithyouhavetodefendtheeasieritisapttoseemtodefendit.Atallevents,itis a fact that thehistoricalRationalism of theRitschlite is now also anAmericanmovementandneedstobereckonedwithassuch.Therearein

particular three recentAmerican publications inwhich the influence ofHarnack'srationalizingreconstructionofChristianhistoryisdominating,towhichattentionoughttobecalledinthisconnection:Thefirstoftheseis a very readable "Sketch of the History of the Apostolic Church," byProfessor Oliver J. Thatcher, formerly of the United PresbyterianSeminaryatAllegheny,butnowoftheUniversityofChicago.Anotheristhe very able Inaugural Address, delivered by Professor Arthur C.McGiffert at his induction into the chair of Church History at UnionTheological Seminary, New York, which deals with the subject of"Primitive andCatholicChristianity."The third is a lecture by theRev.Dr. Thomas C. Hall, of Chicago, pronounced before the students ofQueensUniversity,Kingston,Canada,andbearingthetitleof"FaithandReasoninReligion."Anyonewhowilltakethetroubletolookintothesepublicationswillsoonbecomeconvincedofthe importanceofobservingwhat the American churches are now being taught by the pupils ofHarnackastotheoriginofChristianity.

Itwill then, doubtless, repay us to look for amoment into thismatter.Thebestway todo so isdoubtless to analyzebriefly oneof thesethreepublications. We select for the purpose Dr. McGiffert's brief andadmirably clear paper. And in the following pages we shall attempt togiveasclearanaccountof itscontentsas thenecessity forsuccinctnesswillallow.

Dr.McGiffertbeginswithafewremarksonthefunctionofchurchhistoryand thedutyof thehistorianof theChurch.The object of thewhole ofchurch history is, he tells us, to enable us to understand Christianitybetter,andtofitus"todistinguishbetweenitsessentialandnon-essentialelements."7 And the special task of the historian is to "discover by acarefulstudyofChristianityat successivestagesof itscareerwhether ithas undergone any transformations and, if so, what thosetransformations are" (p. 17). It is not the duty of the historian to passjudgment on the value of any assimilations or accretions whichChristianitymaybe found tohavemade.That is the theologian'swork.Thehistorian'sisonlytomakeclearwhatbelongedtotheoriginalformofChristianityandwhathasbeenacquiredbyit,initsprocessofgrowth,inits environment of the world. Dr. McGiffert gives us to understand,

however,that,inhisopinion,thevalueofanelementofoursystemisnotto be determined merely by its origin: whether it belonged to originalChristianityorhasbeenacquiredbyitfromtheworld.Itsrighttoaplacein theChristian system is tobedetermined solelybywhatwedeem itsvitalrelationto,oratleastitsharmonywith,Christianityitself.

He chooses as his subject, the portrayal of "the most vital and far-reaching transformation that Christianity has ever undergone - atransformation,theeffectsofwhichtheentireChristianChurchstillfeels,andwhich has inmy opinion donemore than anything else to concealChristianity'soriginalformandtoobscureitstruecharacter"(p.18).ThisisthetransformationoftheprimitiveintotheCatholicChurch;anditwas"practicallycompletebeforetheendofthesecondcenturyoftheChurch'slife."Hepointsoutthatitwouldbetoomuchtoattempttoexplainsuchamomentous transformation in all its features in the limits of a singlediscourse.Heconfineshimself,therefore,toindicatingandexplainingasfully as the time at his disposal permitted, the change of spirit whichconstitutestheessenceofthetransformation.

Hebeginswithapictureoftheprimitive,thatis,oftheapostolicChurch.Its spirit was "the spirit of religious individualism, based upon the feltpresenceof theHolyGhost" (p. 19).That is to say, itwas theuniversalconviction of the primitive Church that, every Christian had, in theindwellingof theHolySpirit inhim,apersonal sourceof inspirationathis disposal, towhich he could turn in every time of need. There was,therefore,nooccasionforanauthorityforChristianteaching,externaltothe individual's own spirit; and there had arisen no conception,accordingly,asyet,ofa"ruleof faith,"orofa "NewTestamentCanon."TheonlyauthoritythatwasrecognizedwastheHolySpirit;andHewassupposed to speak to every believer as truly asHe spoke to an apostle.TherewasnoinstitutedChurch,andnoexternalbondofChristianunity.Thereweresomecommonformsofworship,andChristiansmettogetherformutual edification; but their only bond of unionwas their commonpossessionoftheSpiritofGodandtheircommonidealandhope.Therewasno intervening class of clerics, standing between theChristian andthesourceofgrace;buteveryChristianenjoyedimmediatecontactwithGodthroughtheSpirit.Suchwas thespiritof theprimitiveChurch-of

theChurchoftheapostlesandoftheChurchofthepost-apostolicage,fortherewasnochangeofspiritonthedeathoftheapostles.TheChurchofthe second half of the second century believed itself as truly andexclusivelyunder the authority of the indwelling Spirit as the apostolicChurchandastheapostlesthemselves.Onhistoricgrounds,wecandrawno distinction between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages on thegroundofsupernaturalendowment.

The change of spirit whichmarks the rise of the Catholic Church tookplace, then, inthesecondcentury.Ingeneral terms, itwas theresultofthesecularizationoftheChurchandoftheeffortoftheChurchtoavoidsuchsecularization.Among theheathenbrought into theChurch in thesecond century, gradually more and more men of education wereincluded.Among thesewere somephilosophical spirits of aPlatonizingtendency,whobroughtintotheChurchwiththemahabitofspeculation.Their speculative theories they represented as Christianity, and theyappealed to the authority of the apostles in their favor. Thus arose thefirst theologizing in the Christian Church; the Gnostics were the firstcreed-builderswithinthe limitsof theChurchand the first inventorsofthe ideaof apostolic authority, and of the consequent conception of anapostolic Christian canon. And it was in conflict with them that theChurch, forherpart, first reached the conceptionof apostolic authorityandofanapostoliccanon,andgraduallydevelopedthefullconceptionofauthoritywhichgaveusfinallythefull-fledgedCatholicChurch.

Thestepsbywhichthistransformationwasmadewerethree:"First,therecognitionoftheteachingoftheApostlesastheexclusivestandardandnormofChristiantruth;second,theconfinementtoaspecificoffice(viz.,the Catholic office of bishop) of the power to determine what is theteaching of the Apostles; and third, the designation of a specificinstitution(viz.,theCatholicChurch)asthesolechannelofdivinegrace"(p.29).The transformationwas, itwill be seen, complete.The spirit offreeindividualismunderthesoleguidanceoftheindwellingSpirit,whichcharacterizedtheprimitiveChurch,passedpermanentlyaway.Thespiritof submission to "external authority" took permanently its place. ThetransformationtoCatholicismmeanssimply, then, that theChurchhademptied itself of its spiritual heritage, that it had denuded itself of its

spiritualpower,andthatithadinventedforitself,andsubjecteditselfto,acompletesystemof"externalauthority."Thefirststepwastorecognizethe exclusive authority of apostolic teaching. ThusChristians laid asidetheirprivilegeofbeingtheconstantorgansoftheinspirationoftheHolyGhost, and framed for themselves a "rule of faith" (Creed) and a NewTestamentScripture(Canon).Thenextstepwastoconfinetoaparticularofficethepowertotransmitandinterpretthatteaching.Thebelieverwasthus permanently denied not only the privilege of receiving divinerevelations, but also the right to interpret for himself the revelationsreceivedandtransmittedbytheapostles.ThelaststepwastoconfinethetransmissionofgraceitselftotheorganizedChurch,sothatoutofittherecouldbeno salvation.Thus thebeliever's last privilegewas taken fromhim; he could no longer possess anything save as through the Church.Whenthislaststepwascompleted,theCatholicChurchwascomplete.

No "transformations" of the Church have taken place since this greattransformation.Changeshaveoccurred,andchangeswhichmayseemtothecasualobserverofmore importance.But, in fact, theChurch is stilllivingintheepochoftheCatholicChurch.TheReformationwas,indeed,an attempt at a real "transformation," and it has wrought a real"transformation"uponasmuchoftheChurchashasacceptedit.Itwasarevivaloftheprimitivespiritofindividualism,andarejectionof"externalauthority."ButtheReformationhasaffectedonlyasmallportionof theChurch; and it was, even for the Protestant Churches, only a partialrevival of the primitive spirit. It "did not repudiate, it retained theCatholicconceptionofanapostolicScripturecanon-aconceptionwhichtheprimitiveChurchhadentirelylacked"(p.42).Thusithasretainedtheessential Catholic idea of an "external authority." But the Reformerssoughttobringthis idea intoharmonywith theprimitive conceptionofthecontinuedactionoftheHolySpiritintheheartsoftruebelievers;andit is by this fact alone that Protestants can be justified in retaining theScriptures as a rule of faith and practice. The true statement of theProtestantposition,therefore,isnot,ThatthewordofGodcontainedintheScriptures of theOld andNewTestaments is the sole and ultimatestandardofChristiantruth.It is,"ThattheSpiritofGodis thesoleandultimate standard for Christian truth - the Spirit of God who spokethroughtheApostlesandwhostillspeakstohispeople"(p.43);itis,That

"theHolySpirit,whichvoices itselfboth in the teachingof theApostlesandintheenlightenedChristianconsciousnessoftruebelievers,"is"theonlysourceandstandardofspiritualtruth"(p.42).

This is, as briefly as possible, the gist of Dr.McGiffert's Address. Twothingsaretobeespeciallynotedinit:First,thewholedevelopmentofaChristian"authority"-therisealikeoftheveryconceptionofauthorityasattributed to the apostles, and of the conception of a New Testamentcanonisassignedtopost-apostolictimes.TheChurchoftheapostles,andthe apostles themselves, knew nothing of an authoritative Christianteaching.ThusallChristiandoctrineisahumanproduct,andofnorealauthorityintheChurch.And,secondly,theChristianScripturesareinnosense the authoritative rule of faith and practice which we have beentaught to believe that they are. The apostles who wrote them did notintend them as such. The Church which received them did not receivethemassuch.TheProtestantChurchescanbejustifiedindeclaringthemsuch,onlyprovided they donotmean to erect themover theChristianspirit-"theChristianconsciousnessoftruebelievers"-butmeanonlytoplacethemsidebysidewithitasco-sourceoftheknowledgeofChristiantruth.Thisis,ofcourse,todeny"authority"totheNewTestamentintoto.If we are to follow Dr. McGiffert, therefore, we are to renounce alldoctrinalChristianityatastroke,andtorejectall"authority"intheNewTestament, on pain of being unprimitive and unapostolic. These thingsare,accordingtohisconception,partsoftheaccretionthathasgathereditselftoChristianityinitspassagethroughtheages.

This, then, is the question which the introduction of the Ritschlitehistorical Rationalism has brought to the American churches. Are weprepared tosurrender thewholebodyofChristiandoctrineasbeingnopartofessentialChristianity,buttheundivinegrowthofagesofhumandevelopment,theproductofthe"transformations"ofChristianity,or,asDr.T.C.Hallphrasesitwithadmirableplainnessofspeech,theproductof the "degradations"ofChristianity?Areweprepared to surrender theNewTestamentcanon,astheinventionofthesecondcenturyChurchtoserve its temporaryneeds in conflictwith heresy?Oncemore,Dr.Hallgives us an admirably plain-spoken account of what, on this view, wasactually done when the canon was made: "The need of an infallible

authoritytointerpretacodegaverisetothefictionofapostolicauthority,atfirstconfinedtowrittenandspokenmessages,andlater imbeddedinanorganization,andinheritedbyitsoffice-holders."Arewepreparedtorepresent the authority of the apostles, as imbedded in their writtenwords and preserved in ourNew Testament, as a "fiction"? This is theteaching of the new historical Rationalism; and it is with this teachingthattheChurchhasnowtoreckon.

Letusnowentera littlemore intodetailas to themeaningof thisnewteaching;andinordertodothis,letusexaminemorefullyoneortwoofthefundamentalpositionsofDr.McGiffert'sAddress.Andfirstofallletuslookamomentat

III.DR.MCGIFFERT'STHEORYOFDEVELOPMENT

Thelearning,theability,andtheskillinthepresentationofitsmaterial,which characterize Dr. McGiffert's Inaugural Address, will occasionsurprise to no one. These things have been confidently expected of theaccomplished annotator of Eusebius. There will be many, doubtless,however, who will be surprised to find the fundamental thought of solearned an address, delivered by a Presbyterian professor, to be thepresentationofChristianity under the formof adevelopment, of a sortnot merely outside the ordinary lines of Protestant thinking, butapparently inconsistent with the most fundamental of Protestantpostulates.

Whenthebodyofrevealedtruthwascommittedintothehandsofmen,itof coursebecamesubject toadulterationwith thenotionsofmen.As itwashandeddownfromagetoage,itinevitablygatheredarounditamassofhumanaccretions,asasnowballgrowsbigasitrollsdownalongslope.Theimportanceof thatcommittalof thedivinerevelationtowriting,bywhich the inspired Scriptures were constituted, becomes thus speciallyapparent. The "word of God written" stands through all ages as achangelesswitnessagainsthumanadditionsto,andcorruptionsof,God'struth. The chief task of historical criticism, in its study of Christianity,becomes also thus very apparent.Dr. JamesM. Ludlow,who deliveredthechargetothenewprofessor,andwhosechargeisprintedalongwiththe Address, does not fail to point this out. Because "what the truth

receivesinthewayofadmixturefromthepassingagesitisapttoretain,"therefore he charges the new professor to remember that "the mostpressingdemanduponhistoricalcriticism"is"toseparatefromessentialChristianitywhattheageshavecontributed"(p.8).

TheReformationwas, inthissense,acriticalmovement.TheweaponitusedinitsconflictwiththepretensionsofRomewashistoricalcriticism.ThetaskitundertookwastotearoffthemedievalandpatristicswathingsinwhichChristianityhadbecomewrapped in thecourseof thecarelessages,andtostandheroncemorebeforemeninhernakedtruth,asshehadbeenpresentedtotheworldbyChristandHisapostles."Thefittestandmost suggestive criticismwe can to-daypass onCatholicism," saysAdolfHarnackjustly,"is toconceive itasChristianity inthegarbof theancientworldwithamedievalovercoat....WhatistheReformationbutthe word of God which was to set the Church free again? All may beexpressedinthesingleformula,theReformationisthereturntothepuregospel;onlywhat is sacred shall be held sacred; the traditions ofmen,thoughtheybemost fairandmostworthy,mustbetakenforwhattheyare-viz.,theordinancesofman."

The principle on which Protestantism proceeded in this great andsalutarytaskhadtwosides,anegativeandapositiveone.Onthenegativeside,ittooktheformthateveryelementofcurrentecclesiasticalteachingorofpopularbelief,which,onbeingtracedbackinhistory,ranoutbeforeChrist's authoritative apostles were reached, was to be accounted aspurious accretion to Christianity and no part of Christianity itself. Onthe positive side, and this is the so-called "formal principle ofProtestantism,"ittooktheformthateverythingentersasanelementintothe Christian system that is taught in theHoly Scriptures, which wereimposedon theChurchas itsauthoritative ruleof faithandpracticebythe apostles, who were themselves appointed by the Lord as Hisauthoritativeagents inestablishingtheChurch,andwereendowedwithall needed graces and accompanied by all needed assistance from theHolySpiritfortheaccomplishingoftheirtask.Thisiswhat ismeantbythat declaration of Chillingworth which has passed into a Protestantproverb: "That the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion ofProtestants."And this iswhat ismeant by theWestminster Confession

when it asserts that "the whole counsel of God, concerning all thingsnecessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is eitherexpressly setdown inScripture, orby goodandnecessaryconsequencemaybededucedfromScripture:untowhichnothingatanytimeistobeadded,whetherbynewrevelationsoftheSpiritortraditionsofmen"(i.6). This is the corner-stone of universal Protestantism; and on itProtestantismstands,orelseitfalls.

This "formal principle" of Protestantism, of course, does not deny thattherehasbeensucha thingasa "developmentofdoctrine." Itdoes notmakeitsappealtotheearlyChurchasthenormofChristiantruth;anditdoes not imagine that the first generation of Christians had alreadysoundedallthedepthsofrevelation.ItmakesitsappealtotheScripturesofGod,whichembodyinwrittenformtheteachingofChristthroughHisapostlesuponwhichtheearliestaswellasthelatestChurchwasbuilded.Protestantismexpectstofind,anddoesfind,aprogressiveunderstandingandrealization of this teaching ofChrist in theChurch.TheReformersknew,aswellastheendofthenineteenthcenturyknows,thatthereisasenseinwhichtheNiceneChristology,theAugustinianAnthropology,theAnselmicSoteriology, theirowndoctrineofJustificationbyFaithalone,werenewintheChurch.They thoughtofnothingso littleasdiscardingthesedoctrinesbecausetheywere"new,"intheonlysenseinwhichtheywere new. They rather held them to constitute the very essence ofChristian truth. They believed in "the development of true Christiandoctrine," and looked upon themselves as raised up by God to be theinstrumentsofanewstepinthisdevelopment.FollowingtheReformers,Protestants universally believe in "the development of true Christiandoctrine";but,asDr.Ludlowpointedlyandtrulyadds,"notthegrowthofits revelation, for that we believe was made complete in the NewTestament,butitsdevelopmentintheconceptionofmen"(p.5).

This "development in the conception of men" Protestants are very farfrom supposing ever to take place, in ever so small a one of its stages,without the illuminating agency of the Holy Spirit. They affirm theactivity of the Spirit of revelation in the Church of God continuouslythroughalltheages.AndtheyattributetoHisbroodingovertheconfusedchaos of human thinking every step that is taken towards a truer or a

fuller apprehension of God's saving truth. But they know how todistinguish between "the inward illumination of the Spirit of God," byvirtueofwhichChristianmenenterprogressivelyintofullerpossessionofthe truth which was once for all delivered unto the saints, and "newrevelations of the Spirit," by virtue of which men may suppose thatadditionsaremadetothesubstanceofthistruth.

DespiteDr.Ludlow'sfaithfulwarningsinthechargewhichhe laiduponhim, Dr. McGiffert appears to have failed to make this distinction. Inopposition to the fundamental Protestant principle, he teaches that thetruesystemofChristianityhasgraduallycomeintoexistenceduringthelasttwomillenniumsthroughaprocessofdevelopment.Heconceivesof"Christianity" (the word has somewhat of the character of an"undistributedmiddle" in his use of it) as having been planted in "thedays of Christ" only in germinal form. From this original germ it hasgrown through the ages, not merely by unfolding explicitly what wasimplicitly contained in it, but also by assimilating andmaking its ownelementsfromwithout,elementsevenoflateandforeignorigin."Thefactthatanyelementofoursystemisof latergrowththanChristianity itselfdoes not necessarily condemn it, nor even the fact that it is of foreigngrowth" (p. 18). For "guarantee of truth" is not given by "generalprevalence"orby "age" (as if the question of its tracing to the apostleswereaquestionofmereage!);butthe"right[ofanyelement]toaplacewithin the Christian system "is vindicated" only by showing its vitalrelation to, or at least its harmony with, Christianity itself" (p. 18).Though present-day Christianity contains elements "of late and foreignorigin," elements which materially modify the forms of expressing thespirit of primitive Christianity, conceptions even which the primitiveChurch(i.e.theChurchoftheapostles)"certainlylacked,"itmaynotbethelesspureChristianityonthataccount.ItmayevenbethemorepureChristianity on this very account: it may "mark a real advance" onprimitiveChristianity.

Forwemustbearconstantlyinmindthattherightofanyelements"toaplacewithintheChristiansystem"isvindicatedsolelybytheirpowertoexpresstheChristianspirit.Thisisthetruetestalikeofelementsoflateand foreign origin and of the elements which entered into primitive

Christianity itself.Whenspeakingof the former,Dr.McGiffertmakes asignificant addition to his sentence so as emphatically to include thelatteralso."Bythedegreetowhichtheygiveexpressiontothatspirit"(i.e."theChristianspirit"),hesays,"is thevalueofsuchelements,andofallelements,tobemeasured.""If theycontributeto itsclear,andjust,andfullexpression,"headds,"theyvindicatetheirrighttoaplacewithintheChristian system; if they hinder that spirit's action, they must becondemned" (p. 42). Thus we learn that there were in primitiveChristianity itself - the Christianity of "the days of Christ" and of Hisapostles - both essential and nonessential elements; elements ofpermanentanduniversalworth,andothersofonlytemporaryandlocalsignificance; and the criterion for distinguishing between them is ourownsubjectivejudgmentoftheirfitnesstoexpress"theChristianspirit"-ofcourse,accordingtoourownconceptionofthatspirit.

Thus Professor McGiffert takes emphatic issue with both sides of thefundamental Protestant principle. As over against its assertion that thewholecounselofGodissetdowninScripture,"untowhichnothingatanytime is to be added," he declares that it is a "pernicious notion thatapostolicauthorityisnecessaryforeveryelementoftheChristiansystem"(p.33);andthatelementsofevenlateandforeignorigincan"vindicatetheirrighttoaplacewithintheChristiansystem""byshowingtheirvitalrelationto,oratleasttheirharmonywith,Christianityitself"(p.18).Thatistosay,thetestofadistinctivelyChristiantruthisnotthatitispartofthatbody of truthwhichwas once for all delivered to the saints, as allProtestantism, with one voice, affirms; but whether it seems to us toharmonizewithwhatwe consider thatChristianity is or ought to be.Asubjectivecriterion thus takes theplaceof theobjective criterionof thewrittenwordofGod.

Accordingly, as over against the fundamental Protestant principle that"theHolyScripturesoftheOldandtheNewTestamentsarethewordofGod, the only rule of faith and obedience" (Larger Catechism, Q. 3),ProfessorMcGiffertdeclaresthattheteachingoftheapostlesisnot"thesole standard of truth" (p. 33). He is willing to allow, indeed, that theteachingoftheapostleswasregardedbytheprimitiveChurch,andmayberightlyregardedbythemodernChurch,as"asourcefromwhich[may]

...begainedaknowledgeofdivinetruth"(p.32).Butthatitis"theonlyrule," or "standard," he will not admit; or even that it is more than a"source" along with others. For he tells us that Protestants can bejustified"inretainingtheScripturesasaruleoffaithandpractice"(p.43)onlyontheconditionthattheyjoinwiththeScripturesforthisfunction"theenlightenedChristianconsciousnessoftruebelievers,"affirmingthetwo to be alike the organs of the Holy Ghost, "the only source andstandardofspiritualtruth"(p.42)."ThetruestatementoftheProtestantposition," he adds, "is not that the Word of God, contained in theScripturesof theOldandNewTestaments,butthattheSpiritofGod isthesoleandultimateauthorityforChristiantruth-theSpiritofGodwhospokethroughtheApostlesandwhostillspeakstohispeople"(p.43).Ifthisbeso,theReformers,thefirstProtestantdivines,andtheReformedConfessions,includingourownStandards,werenotonlyignorantofthe"truestatementoftheProtestantposition,"butinineradicableoppositionto it.When theShorterCatechism (Q.2) asserts that "thewordofGodwhichiscontainedintheScripturesoftheOldandNewTestamentsistheonlyrule"itspeakswiththeintentionandeffectofconfiningthe"wordofGod," which it declares to be "the only rule," to the Scriptures, and oftherebyexcludingnotonlythe"wordofGod"whichtheRomanistaffirmstobepresentedinobjectivetradition,butalsothe"wordofGod"whichthemystic affirms that he enjoys through subjective illumination. And,therefore, the Confession of Faith explicitly explains its assertion that"nothingatanytime is tobeadded" to the "wholecounselofGod""setdowninScripture,"byadding:"whetherbynewrevelationsoftheSpiritortraditionsofmen"(i.6).Atheoryofdevelopmentonamysticalbasisisno less inopencontradiction to the "formal principle ofProtestantism"thanoneonaRomishbasis.

We have spoken only ofDr.McGiffert's formal theory of development,and have pointed out its inconsistency with the "formal principle" ofProtestantism. The material development which, under this formaltheory, he would ascribe to Christianity, he does not draw out in thepresentAddress.TheAddress isconsecrated,nodoubt, tothedepictingofoneofthegreatestchangeswhichChristianityhasundergone;butthischange is not one which appears to Dr. McGiffert to commend itself,according to the tests he lays down, as a proper development of

Christianity. Thematerial changes in Christianitywhich are brought toourattentionbytheAddress,therefore,arenotillustrationsofhistheoryof development, but are instances of the progressive deterioration ofChristianityinitsenvironmentoftheworld.Letus,however,attendforamomenttothem.

IV. DR. MCGIFFERT'S THEORY OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS OFCHRISTIANITY

"The subject of study in Church History, as in all the theologicalsciences," Professor McGiffert tells us in the opening of his InauguralAddress,"isChristianity itself."Thechurchhistorian'saimis, therefore,"to contribute to a clearer and fuller understanding of Christianity." Inthe prosecution of this aim he must learn to distinguish between the"essentialandnon-essentialelements"ofChristianity,"betweenthatinitwhich is of permanent and universalworth, and that which is of onlytemporaryand local significance" (p. 16).Hemust, further,make it hisspecial task "todiscover by a careful study of Christianity at successivestagesofitscareerwhetherithasundergoneanytransformations,and,ifso,whatthosetransformationsare"(p.17).Onewouldthink,aswehavealreadypointedout,thatthepurposeofthisdiscoverywouldbetoobtainknowledge ofwhat belongs really toChristianity, so that the accretionswhichhavegatheredtoitfromwithoutmayberejected,andtheoriginalformof thatdeposit of faithonce for all delivered to the saintsmayberecovered.ButProfessorMcGiffert excludes all passing of judgment onresultsfromthesphereofthehistorianassuch.Thehistorian'sbusinessis merely to present a complete picture of the transformations thatChristianity has undergone. The theologian comes after him, andestimates the value and meaning of the assimilations and accretionswhichthehistorian'slaborhasbroughttolight.ButDr.McGiffert,aswehaveseen,cannotresistthetemptationsofartodesertthisroleofpurehistorianastotellusonwhatsuchanestimationmustturn.Itmustnotturn,hetellsus,onthequestionoftheoriginalityofthiselementorthatintheChristiansystem,butsolelyonitsidealharmonywiththeChristianspirit.Doubtless, the"theologian"whocomesafterhim,however,alongwiththewholebodyofChristianpeople,maybetrustedtodisagreewithhim in this pronouncement. It is the Christianity of Christ and His

apostles alone that they will care to profess; and they will thank thehistorian for tracing out the transformations of Christianity, chieflybecause his work will enable them to recover for their souls theChristianitywhichChristandHisapostlestaught.

Dr.McGiffertdevoteshisInauguralAddresstothediscussionofasingleoneofthese"transformations"ofChristianity,theonewhichhebelievesto be the "most vital and far-reaching transformation that Christianityhas ever undergone," the "transformation of the primitive into theCatholic Church" (p. 18). This transformation, which was "practicallycompletebeforetheendofthesecondcenturyoftheChurch's life,"wasso radical that it has "done more than anything else to concealChristianity'soriginalformandtoobscureitstruecharacter";andithasbeen so powerful and far-reaching in its influence that "the entireChristian Church still feels" the effects of it. In fact, in Dr.McGiffert'sview,itgavetothegreaterportionoftheChurchwhathasprovedtobeitspermanentform.InitthespiritofprimitiveChristianitypermanentlydisappeared(p.28),andthespiritwhichstill rules theCatholicChurchpermanently entered. The Catholic Church is still living in the periodinaugurated then (p. 40), the Greek and Roman Churches being butlocalizationsoftheoneChurchwhichhadexistedinundividedformforsomecenturiesbeforetheirseparation.

Since this great "transformation" of the primitive into the CatholicChurch,therefore, therehavebeenno"transformations"ofChristianity.Therehavebeenchanges.Andtheselaterchangeshaveoftenbeensuchasto"impressthecasualobservermoreforcibly,andseemtohimmoreworthyofnotice," thanthisgreat fundamental transformation itself.Hewill think of "the cessation of persecution with the accession ofConstantine, and the subsequent union of Church and State; thepreaching of Christianity to the barbarians of western and northernEurope; the development of the Greek patriarchate and of the Romanpapacy; the formation of the elaborate liturgies of the eastern andwestern Churches; the rise of saint and image worship, of theconfessional and of themass; the growth ofmonasticism,which beganwith renouncing the world and ended with subjugating it; thedevelopment ofNicene trinitarianism, of theChalcedonianChristology,

of the Augustinian anthropology and of the Anselmic theory of theatonement"(pp.18-19).Andashethinksofthese,hemaythinkthem"ofgreaterhistoricalsignificancethananychangeswhichtookplaceduringthe first twocenturies."Buthewillbemistaken.The transformation oftheprimitiveintotheCatholicChurch,whichtookplaceinthecourseofthesecondcentury,wasafarmorefundamentalchangethananyofthesesubsequentchanges,orthanthemalltakentogether.

Before this great transformation, it was the free spirit of primitiveChristianity that reigned; after it, the Church was a completelysecularizedinstitution.ForthesecularizationoftheChurch"wasnotdue,as has been so widely thought, to the favors shown the Church by theEmperorConstantine,ortotheultimateunionofChurchandState.TheChurch was in principle secularized as completely as it ever was longbeforethebirthofConstantine.TheunionofChurchandStatewasbutaratification of a process already complete, and is itself of minorsignificance" (p.38).Ofall subsequentmovementsonly thatonewhichwe know as the Reformationwas sufficiently radical to promise a new"transformation."ThismovementwasinessencearevivalofthespiritofprimitiveChristianity,anditdidopenanewepochintheChurch,sofaras it produced its effects. But unfortunately Protestantism has affectedonlyapart,andthatthesmallerpart,oftheChurch.TheChurchatlargeis still living in the epoch which was inaugurated by the great"transformation"whichtookplaceinthesecondcentury.

If,then,wespeakofthe"transformations"ofChristianitywemusthaveour eye fixed upon changes which took place before the greattransformation thatgavebirth to theCatholicChurch - changesgreaterandmoreradical thananythathaveoccurredsubsequenttothatevent.InthedaysoftheChurch'sstrenuousyouth,itrapidlypassedthroughaseries of "transformations" of fundamental importance, much, wesuppose, as the stages of babyhood, childhood, boyhood, youth, andmanhoodareallrunthroughinsometwentyrestlessyears,tobefollowedby an extended period of unchangedmanhood for the better part of acentury. IfweunderstandDr.McGiffert, hewould count, including theReformation,somefoursuchtransformationsinall,threeofwhichweresufferedbyChristianityduringthefirsttwocenturiesofitsexistence.In

otherwords, by the time that twohundred years had rolled over it theintroduction of alien ideas had three times fundamentally transformedthe gospel of Christ. In quick succession there were presented to theworldeachlargelyeffacingitspredecessor,firsttheGospelofLove,whichChrist preached; then the Gospel of Holiness, which ruled in theprimitiveChurch;thentheGospelofKnowledge,announcedbytheGreekspirit,notsomuchconvertedby,asconverting,theChurch;andfinally,theGospelofAuthority,theproudself-assertionoftheCatholicChurch.Lastofall,afteragesofsubmission,theprimitivespiritoncemorerisesinwhatwecallProtestantism,andrevoltingagainstauthorityproclaimsanewtheGospelofIndividualisticFreedom.

Let us look a littlemore closely atDr.McGiffert's conceptions of theseseveral"transformations."

1.Christ'sChristianity"was,aboveall,ethical;theSermonontheMountstrikesitskey-note."AccordingtoChrist,"theactiveprincipleofloveforGodandman...constitutedthesumofallreligion"(p.24).Christcame,inotherwords,notteachingadogma,butsettinganexampleofalifeofperfect love; proclaiming the Kingdom of God, founded on thefundamentalprincipleofloveforGodandman;andannouncingthelawoftheKingdominsuchlanguageasthatpreservedforusintheSermonontheMount.ItwasHisexampleofholylovewhichrevealsGodtotheworld as Father; and all the emphasis ofHis teaching was laid on theprincipleoflove.

2.ButChristianityextended;and,asitgrew,itchangeditsenvironmentfromtheJewishtotheGentileworld.Thischangeinducedin it"certainmodifications, which were of permanent significance" (p. 21). Thesemodifications centered in a change of emphasis of fundamentalimportance, by which, "in consequence of the conception of theimmediateandconstantpresenceoftheHolySpirit,andinoppositiontothe moral corruptness of the age, the element of personal holiness orpurity naturally came more and more to the front, and increasinglyobscured the fundamental principle of Christ" (p. 24). This is theChristianity of the primitive Church, or the Church of the apostles,thoughthelatternameisthelessdescriptiveone,inasmuchasthedeathoftheapostlesandthecloseoftheapostolicageintroducednochangeof

spirit,buttheChurchofthefirsthalfofthesecondcenturyremainedinprinciplethesameChurchasthatofthelasthalfofthefirstcentury.

When Dr. McGiffert speaks of the consequent obscuration of "thefundamentalprincipleofChrist"as"increasing,"heseemstorefertotheeffectoftheintroductionintotheChurch,earlyinthesecondcentury,ofthe educated classes of society. Wherever the influence of Stoicismpredominatedamongthese,theyreadilyassimilatedwiththespiritwhichalready characterized the primitive Church. For with the Stoics "theethical element came to the front, and religion lost its independentsignificance,havingnoothervaluethantopromotevirtuebysupplyingitwith a divine basis and sanction." This tendency, we are told, "was inentireharmonywiththatoftheHebrewmindandofearlyChristianityingeneral" (p.25).PrimitiveChristianity, therefore,was simplyanethicalsystem with a changed ethical ideal from that of Christ - laying theemphasisonholinessratherthanonlove.Itwas,inaword,a"SocietyforEthicalCulture,"withabackgroundofmonotheism,andlookingtoJesusasitsfounderandexample."Itistruethat,fromthebeginning,beliefinone God and in Jesus Christ was demanded of all converts, but suchbelief was commonly taken for granted - the formula of baptism itselfimplied it -andall theemphasiswas laidupon theethical element" (p.31).

3. With the introduction of the educated classes into the Church,however, another class of philosophers came in besides the Stoics - aclass which brought in a speculative tendency grounded in Platonism,andwhichbegantolaystressonknowledge.Christianityseemedtothesethinkers only a revelation; and accordingly they busied themselves atoncewith its rational investigation and elucidation.Here appeared thefirstChristiantheologians,andtheygavetheChurch,forthefirsttime,a"theology."IntheirhandsarosethefirstChristiancreeds; throughtheirwork Christianity became for the first time a system of belief. ThetransformationofChristianitywhichtheywroughtdidnotcomewithoutthroes and conflicts. Nevertheless, so far as this it did come; and itscomingismarkedlateronbytheapprovalandadoptionbytheChurchof"thespeculativetheologyofthegreatfathersanddoctors."Inthissense"thespiritofGnosticism...livedonandfinallywonapermanentplace

withintheChurch"(pp.27,28).Hereisatransformationasgreatasitispossible to conceive: the "Society for Ethical Culture" becomes aninstitutionforthepropagationofabodyoftruth.

4.But the temporarydualistic form inwhich the speculative spirit firstenteredtheChurchcouldnot,anddidnot,findacceptance.And"itwasintheefforttorepudiateitthatstepsweretakenwhichresulted"inthatmomentous transformation, to the description of which Dr. McGiffertgives his Address - the transformation into theCatholic Church. TheseeffortstorepudiateGnosticisminvolvedanappeal toauthority,andtheessence of this great transformation consists, therefore, in thesubstitutionoftheideaofexternalauthorityfortheindividualisticspiritofearlierChristianity."ThespiritofCatholicism...meanssubmissiontoan external authority in matters both of faith and of practice, anddependenceuponanexternalsourceforallneededspiritualsupplies"(p.21).

Threestepsarecountedinthistransformation:"First,therecognitionofthe teaching of the Apostles as the exclusive standard and norm ofChristian truth; second, the confinement to a specific office (viz., theCatholicofficeofbishop)ofthepowertodeterminewhatistheteachingof theApostles;and third, thedesignationofa specific institution (viz.,theCatholicChurch)as thesolechannelofdivinegrace" (p.29).Whenthe transformation was complete, therefore, the whole Catholicmachineryof"externalauthority"hadbeeninvented,andthelastvestigeofspiritualfreedomhadbeencrushedout.Butitsearlierstagesincludedtheinventionoftheveryfirstandsimplestformsof"externalauthority"towhichChristians bowed, the first recognition of the authority of theapostlesasteachers,andtheriseoftheveryconceptionofanapostolicalScripturecanon.Thegreatnessofthetransformationthatisassertedcanbeproperlyestimatedonlybyrememberingthatitthusincludes,notonlythecompletionofthefullCatholicsystem,but,attheotherextreme,theveryearliestconceptionofaChristian"externalauthority"atall.Beforethischange,Christianshadnoexternal law;byvirtueof theHolySpiritdwelling inthem,eachwasa lawuntohimself.Thechangeconsisted inthefindingofanexternalChristianauthority.Thiswasfoundfirstintheteaching of the apostles, either as written in their extant books (and

hence arose the idea of a New Testament), or as formulated in clear,succinct statements (and hence arose the idea of arule of faith, and ofcreeds). That it was found afterwards in the bishop, considered as theliving representative of the apostles, and still later in the organizedChurchastheinstituteofsalvation,constitutesonlyaminormatter.Thefinding of an "external authority" at all was the main thing, andconstitutedatremendoustransformation in thespiritand thenatureofChristianity. This great transformation took place in the course of thesecondcentury.BeforethattherewasnoexternalChristianauthorityatall.

5.Itwasonlyafteragesofsubmissiontoexternalauthoritythatapartialrevival of the individualistic spirit of primitiveChristianity arose in theProtestant Reformation. By the Protestants "the Catholic principle wasdefinitely rejected" (p. 40); "but elements of Catholicismwere retainedwhichmateriallymodifiedtheformsofthatspirit's[therevivedspiritofprimitive Christianity] expression, and which have served to make theProtestantadifferentthingfromtheprimitiveChurch"(p.42).InsofarasProtestantismrestoredtotheindividualhisspiritualrights,and"madetheHoly Spirit,which voices itself both in the teaching of theApostlesandintheenlightenedChristianconsciousnessoftruebelievers,theonlysource and standard of spiritual truth," it is a revival of the spirit ofprimitiveChristianity.Butinsofarasitdidnotrepudiatebut"retainedthe Catholic conception of an apostolic Scripture canon - a conceptionwhichtheprimitiveChurchhadentirelylacked,"itremainsinbondagetotheCatholicconceptionof"externalauthority."ThetruestatementoftheProtestantpositionisnot,then,"ThatthewordofGod,containedintheScripturesof theOldandNewTestaments . . . is the sole andultimateauthorityforChristiantruth."ThatisCatholic.Butitis,"ThattheSpiritofGodisthesoleandultimateauthorityforChristiantruth-theSpiritofGodwhospokethroughtheApostlesandwhostillspeakstohispeople"(p.43).Nodoubt thevoiceof theSpiritmustalwaysaccordwith itself,andwemay,therefore,allowthatthegenuineteachingoftheapostlesisalsotrue;forthey,too,hadtheSpirit.ButthetrueProtestantspiritfinds"authority" in the Holy Ghost alone; and He speaks in the hearts ofChristiansto-dayastrulyasHeeverdidtotheapostles.Itcannot,then,comeunderbondagetothe"externalauthority"oftheapostolicteaching.

Inaword,thespecificQuakerpositionistheonlytrueProtestantone.

Now there is much that occurs to us to say of this scheme of the"transformations" of ChristianitywhichDr.McGiffert presents. That inthe course of the ages Christianity did undergo very real"transformations" there is, of course, no reason to deny. And noProtestant will doubt that, of these, the most complete and the mostdestructive to the conceptions of primitive Christianity was that greattransformationwhichgavetheworldtheCatholicChurch,withitsclaimtoalltheauthorityofheavenfortheexecutionofitswill.Butitisanotherquestion whether Dr. McGiffert's characterization of the several"transformations"whichhe thinksChristianityhasundergone-or evenhischaracterizationofthatgreat"transformation"alonewhichproducedtheCatholicChurch-isjustandaccordantwiththefacts.Hadwespaceatourdisposalwethinkwecouldshowthatitisnot,inasingleinstance.ItcanbeshownthatJesusdidmuchmorethanintroduceintotheworlda new ethical ideal, founded on the active principle of love. A wholedogmatic systemunderlies and is presupposed in even the "SermonontheMount";andJesusrepresentedHimselfcontinuouslyasthebearerofa revelation of truth. It can be shown that the primitive Church - theChurch of the apostles - was something far other and more than a"Society for Ethical Culture." A complete system of doctrinal truthwasauthoritatively taught it by the apostles, as the basis of allethicalendeavor. It can be shown that "the Catholic Church" was not theinventorof"externalauthority,"thefirststageinthedevelopmentoftheChurchtoassign"authority"totheteachingoftheapostles,andthefirsttoframetheconceptionofanapostolicScripturecanon.Theauthorityofthe apostolic teaching and of the apostolic canon was fully recognizedfromthebeginning,andconstituted,indeed,theverycorner-stoneofthefabricof theChurch. It canbe shown, finally, thatProtestantism isnotQuakerism; and that the Protestant principle does not coordinate "theteachingoftheApostles"and"theenlightenedChristianconsciousnessoftrue believers," as co-sources of equal rank of the knowledge of God'struthandwill;butappealstotheHolySpiritspeakingintheScripturesastheSupremeJudgeinallmattersofreligioustruth.Buttheseareobviousmatters,andmaybesafelyleftwithoutformalproof.

Itwillbemoreinstructivetopermitourattentiontorestforamomentonsome of the effects of Dr. McGiffert's teachings. Its effect upon ourestimate of and interest in the apostolic writings and teachings - our"NewTestamentScriptures"inaword- is illustratedinanenlighteningmanner by a remark of Dr. McGiffert's own. He is pointing out the"stupendoussignificance"oftheinvention,bythesecondcenturyChurch,oftheconceptionofanapostolicScripturecanon.Heremarksuponwhathejudges"pernicious"initsresults;mainlythis,thatmenareledtothinkthattheymusthaveapostolicauthorityforeveryelementoftheChristiansystem. This he offsets by pointing out an advantage we have receivedfromthechangeofattitudetowardstheapostles."Toitislargelydue,onthe other hand," he says, "much of the knowledge of the apostolic agewhichwe possess, for had the original conception of continuing divinerevelations been retained, there would have seemed little reason forpreservingapostolicwritingsandtraditions"(p.33).Justso.Andifthisconception,whichDr.McGiffert thinks theoriginalone, shouldbenow"revived,"willtherenotseemnowaslittlereasontopreserveandstudytheapostolicwritings?OnDr.McGiffert'snotionofacontinuous,directaccessof everybeliever to the revealingSpirit forall needed truth, ofagrowing revelationwhich has left the Biblical revelation in the rear, sothatitisa"perniciousnotion"thatwemusthaveitsauthorityforalltheelementsofourChristiansystem,why shouldwebotherourselveswiththoseoldandoutwornwritingsof theapostles?Theyareuseless in thepresenceoftheSpiritinourhearts;nay,theymay(possiblyhave)becomeevenNehushtan(IIKingsxviii.4).Sooppositearehisprinciples to thetrue Protestant principle, that the most precious possession ofProtestantism,theBible,couldnotbedeemedotherthanacloguponthefreeoperationoftheSpiritofGod,werehisviewstoprevail.

It is interesting to ask, further, why Dr. McGiffert makes so much of"primitive"and"original"Christianity.Alltheearly"transformations"oforiginalChristianityarerepresentedbyhimasevils,andProtestantismisa good only because it partly restores, and only so far as it restores,"primitive Christianity." But, on his principles, what is "primitiveChristianity"tous?HavewenottheSpiritastrulyasthoseoldbelievers,including the apostles?And are not the revelations of the Spirit to theChurchprogressive,"astruthmaybeneeded,"sothatit"isapernicious

notion that apostolic authority is necessary for every element of theChristiansystem"?WhenweturnoureyesbacklonginglytotheprimitiveChurch,arewenotdesertingtheprincipleofspiritualindependence,andbetrayingacravingforapostolicauthoritylingeringinourbreast?Oughtwe not to go to the Spirit in our hearts instead of to the "primitiveChurch,"ortotheapostles,ortoChristHimself,forourknowledgeofthetruth, as well as for our encouragement in embracing it, and for oursupportandstayinproclaiminganddefendingit?Tolookback,thus,tothepast,isitnottohankeraftertheleeksandonionsofEgypt?

We are told that the whole conception of authority in religion isunprimitiveandtheinventionofthesecondcentury, intheeffortoftheChurchtoconqueritstemporaryheresies.Ifwewishtobe"primitive,"ifwe desire to be followers of the apostles,wemust cast off all "externalauthority,"andespeciallymustwecastoffthefancythattheteachingofthe apostles is authority. Butwhy shouldwewish to be "primitive," ordesire tobe followersof theapostles?Itcanonlybebecause, in feelingafter the authority we have lost, we instinctively look to them asauthoritativeteacherswhomwecantrust.Wecannotquestionthetruthof their teaching (p. 29). But in matters of truth, authority consistsprecisely in the possession of unquestionable truth. How can we fail,then, to recognize and appeal to the authority of this unquestionabletruth taught by the apostles, as the standard to which all so-calledteachings of the Spirit in the heart shall be conformed? According toProfessor McGiffert, however, such an appeal to the authority of theapostlesisitselfunapostolic.Togobacktotheapostlesistorenouncetheauthorityoftheapostles;itistorenounceevery"externalauthority," fortheyknewnothingofan"externalauthority,"andtosubmiteverythingtotheinternalauthorityoftheHolySpirit,whospeaksineveryChristian'sheart.Thisiswhattheapostlesteachus.Isnotthistocutthelimboffonwhichheissitting?Heappealstotheauthorityoftheapostlesinordertodestroy the authority of the apostles. This seems to us amost illogicalproceeding.Itappearstousthatweoughteithertorenounceallappealtoauthority,andcastourselveswhollyontheHolySpiritintheheartasthesolerevealerof truth,orelse,makingourappeal to theauthorityof theapostles,roundlytoaccepttheirauthorityassupreme.

To this, indeed, itmust come.Wecannothave two supremestandards.Either the Holy Spirit in the heart is the norm of truth and thedeliverancesof the apostlesmustbe subjected towhatwe considerHisdeliverances (and then we have Mysticism cooling down intoRationalism),orelsetheapostolicrevelationisthenormoftruth,andthefancieddeliverances of theSpirit in ourheartmustbe subjected to theapostolicdeclarations(andthenwehaveProtestantism).TherecanbenodoubtwhichviewisConfessional.TheWestminsterConfession(i.10),forexample, tells us distinctly that the Supreme Judge is the Holy SpiritspeakinginScriptureandthatallprivatejudgmentsaretobesubjecttoit.Therecanbeas littledoubtwhich is apostolic.TheApostlePaul, forexample,demandsthattherealityofallclaimstobeledbytheSpiritshallbe tested by their recognition of his claim to speak authoritatively theword of God (I Cor. xiv. 37). Nor can there be much doubt which isrational.Isitstillasked:WhatdifferencedoesitmakewhattheApostlePaulsays,ifwehavetherevealingSpiritastrulyashehadit?Thismuch,atanyrate,wemustreply:Ifhiswordswerereallynotauthoritativetheywere not even true, for he asserts them to be authoritative. And if thewordsofPaulandhisfellowapostleswerenottrue,wedonotevenknowwhether there be a Holy Spirit. It is on the authority of the NewTestamentalonethatweknowoftheexistenceofaHolySpirit,orofHisindwellingintheheartsofChristians;thatwearejustifiedininterpretinginwardaspirationasHisleading.Iftheirauthoritycannotbetrustedwehave noHoly Spirit. After all, wemust build on the foundation of theapostlesandprophets,ChristJesusHimselfbeingourchiefcorner-stone,orwebuildonthesand.

SECONDARTICLE

Inthefirstpartofthispaperweundertooktogivesomegeneralaccountof the new historical rationalismwhich is being now introduced to theAmericanchurchesbycertainenthusiasticpupilsofAdolphHarnack;andthen,foritsbetterelucidation,beganasomewhatfullerexpositionofoneortwoofthemorefundamentalpositionsassumedbyDr.A.C.McGiffertin his Inaugural Address, in his advocacy of it.We pointed out in thatsection of our paper Dr. McGiffert's conception of Christianity as adevelopment,andgavesomeaccountof the"transformations"whichhe

conceivesChristianitytohaveundergonesince itsoriginationbyChrist.Themost important of these "transformations" he represents, certainlywiththebestofrightfromhispointofview,tobethatfromtheprimitivetotheCatholicChurch,tothebetterunderstandingofwhichhisAddressisdevoted.For our better estimation of the significance of his teachinghere,weshouldnextconsidermoreclosely:

V.DR.MCGIFFERT'STHEORYOFTHEPRIMITIVECHURCH

OneofthemoststrikingpassagesinDr.McGiffert'sInauguralAddressisthat in which he draws a picture of "primitive Christianity" as it isconceived by him, preliminary to expounding what he calls themomentous"transformationoftheprimitiveintotheCatholicChurch,oftheChurchof theApostles into thatof theoldCatholic fathers" (p. 19).That important changes did take place in the spirit, teaching, andorganizationoftheChurchduringthefirsttwocenturiesof its life is,aswe have said, of course, undoubted. Whether these changes were,however,ofthenaturewhichDr.McGiffertrepresentsthemtohavebeenis a different matter, and depends very largely upon the truth of hispictureof"primitiveChristianity."Wedesirenowtolookforamomentatthispicture.

He sums up his conception of "primitive Christianity" in the briefformula: "The spirit of primitive Christianity is the spirit of religiousindividualism, basedupon the felt presence of theHolyGhost" (p. 19).There are combined in this statement the recognitionof a fundamentaltruthofthefirstimportanceandtheassertionofafundamentalerrorofthe utmost seriousness. The truth is, that all vital Christianity wasconceivedby the apostles and their first converts as the product of theHolySpiritworkingupontheheartsofmen.Theerroris,thattheresultofthisconceptionwas"religiousindividualism"inDr.McGiffert'ssense,that is, in the sense that each individual Christian felt and assertedhimselftobe,byvirtueofhispossessionoftheSpirit,alawuntohimself,independentoftheobjectiverevelationofGod'swillthroughtheapostles,oftheobjectivemeansofgraceprovidedintheordinancesoftheChurch,and of the objective discipline exercised by the organized Christiansocieties; which three things Dr. McGiffert brings together under thesomewhatcontemptuousdesignationof"externalauthority."Thediligent

readerof thosedocumentsof"primitiveChristianity,"whichwecall theNewTestament,willscarcelyneedtobetoldthattheeffectoftheworkoftheHolySpiritupontheheartsofChristiansisrepresentedinthemtobetodrawandtobindChristianstothese"externalauthorities,"nottoarraythemagainstthem.

It is impossible to exaggerate the emphasis which is placed, in theseprimitivedocuments,uponthepresenceoftheHolySpiritintheheartsofbelieversasthe indispensableconditionof theirbecomingor remainingChristians.TheywereChristiansbyvirtueoftheirnewrelationtoChrist.Christwaspreachedtothem,andthatascrucified;thetruthconcerningHim was made known to them, and accepted by them. They wereChristiansbecausetheyacceptedHimastheirProphet,Priest,andKing.ButnomancouldsayJesusisLordbutintheHolySpirit.Itwasonlybythe work of the Holy Spirit, therefore, that Christians were madeChristians,andHeremainedtheimmanentsourceofallspiritual life.ItwasthisfeatureofthenewcovenantwhichhadengrossedtheattentionofJoel when he foresaw the glories that should come. It was this greatpromise that the dying Master had presented as the comfort of Hispeople. It was by the visible and audible descent of the Spirit that theChurchwasconstitutedonthatfirstgreatPentecost.Itwasbyreceivingthe Spirit that men became Christians, in the Spirit that they werebaptizedintoonebody,byHispresencewithinthemthattheyweremadethesonsofGod,andbyHisleadingthattheywereenabledtocherishthefilial spirit.Christianswere taught to look to theSpirit as the sourceofeveryimpulsetogoodandofeverypowertogood.InHimalonewastheinspiration,thestrength,thesphereoftheChristian'swholelife.

ThepresenceoftheSpiritofGodintheapostolicChurchwas,moreover,manifestednotmerelybythespiritualgracesofChristians,ofeveryoneofwhichHewasthesoleauthor,butalsoinagreatvarietyofmiraculousgifts. It is no exaggeration to say that the apostolic Church was amiraculous Church. It is not easy to overestimate the supernaturalcharacterofeitherourLord'sministryortheapostolicChurch.WhentheSonofGod came to earth,HedrewheavenwithHim.The signswhichaccompaniedHisministrywerebutthetrailingcloudofglorywhichHebroughtfromheaven,whichisHishome.Hisowndivinepower,bywhich

Hebegan to foundHisChurch,Hecontinued in theapostleswhomHehadchosentocompletethisgreatwork;althoughtheiruseof it,aswasfitting, appears to have been more sporadic than His own. And theytransmittedit,asapartof theirownmiracle-workingandthecrowningsignof theirdivinecommission, toothers, in the formofwhat theNewTestament calls "spiritual gifts," that is, extraordinary capacitiesproducedintheprimitivecommunionsbydirectgiftof theHolyGhost.Thenumber,variety,anddiffusionofthese"spiritualgifts"are,perhaps,quitecommonlyunderestimated.Theclassicalpassageconcerningthem(ICor.xii.-xiv.)onlybringsbeforeusachancepictureofdivineworshipinanapostolicalchurch;itistheordinarychurchserviceofthetime,andwehavenoreasontosupposethatessentiallythesamesceneswouldnotbe witnessed in any one of the many congregations planted by theapostlesinthelengthandbreadthoftheworld.Theexceptionwouldbeachurch without, not a church with, miraculous gifts. Everywhere theapostolicChurchwasmarkedoutamongmenasitselfagiftfromGod,bymanifestingitspossessionoftheSpiritthroughappropriateworksoftheSpirit:miraclesofhealingsandpower,miraclesofknowledgeandspeech.TheapostolicChurchwascharacteristicallyamiraculousChurch.

In such circumstances, it would seem very difficult to exaggerate thesupernatural claims of the "primitive Church." But Dr. McGiffert hasmanagedtodoso.Howhehasmanagedtodoso,andwithwhatseriousconsequencestothefundamentalbasesofourreligion,itwillnowbeourdutytopointout.

1.Heexaggeratesthesupernaturalcharacterof theapostolicChurch, inthefirstplace,byrepresentingtheenjoymentofthe"spiritualgifts" in itasabsolutelyuniversal.This is theconstantassumptionof theAddress,and is expressed in such statements as this: "It was the universalconviction of the primitive Church that every Christian believer enjoystheimmediatepresenceoftheHolySpirit....ThepresenceoftheSpirit.. . meant the power to work miracles, to speak with tongues, to utterprophecies"(p.19)."Theconsciousnessofthepossessionofsupernaturalgifts"ismade,accordingly,thecharacteristicoftheprimitiveChristian.

But,widespreadasthesupernaturalgiftswereintheapostolicalChurch,theywere not universal. Theywere the characteristic of the apostolical

Church,notof theprimitiveChristian.ThecircumstancesattendingtheconversionoftheSamaritansarerecordedforus,intheeighthchapterofActs, apparently for the very purpose of teaching us this. The firstconverts were all brought into the Church by the apostles, and theprimitiveChristiansthemselveswere,itappears,indangerofsupposingthat the possession of miraculous gifts was the mark of a Christian.Therefore, itwasordered that the conversion of the Samaritans shouldtake place through non-apostolic preaching, that all men might learn(andSimonamongthem)that"itwasthroughthelayingonofthehandsoftheApostlesthattheSpiritwasgiven."Inaword,themiraculousgiftsare,intheNewTestament,madeoneofthe"signsofanApostle."Whereheconveyed them theyexisted;wherehedidnot convey them theydidnotexist.Ineverycasewherethereisrecordofthemtheyareconnectedwith apostles; usually they are conferred by the actual laying on of theapostles'hands.Innorecordedinstancearetheyconferredbythelayingonofthehandsofonenotanapostle.Infine,thesupernaturalgiftsoftheapostolic Church are attestations of the apostles' commission andauthority.Bydetachingthemfromtheapostles,andrepresentingthemasthe possession of the primitive Christian as such, Dr. McGiffertdepreciates the apostles relatively to other Christians, and assimilatesChristiansassuchtotheapostles.HecangainnoauthorityforthisfromtheNewTestamentrecord.

2.TheseriousnessofthiserrorisexhibitedsosoonaswenotethestresswhichDr.McGiffertlays,amongthesupernaturalgifts,onthespecialgiftof revelation as the universal possession of primitive Christians. This,again, is the constant assumption of the Address, and comes toexpressioninsuchstatementsasthis:"Christianbelievershad . . . fromthebeginning...believedthemselvesinimmediatecontactwiththeHolySpiritandhadlookedchieflyanddirectlytohimforrevelationsoftruth,assuchtruthmightbeneeded"(p.33).Accordingly,wearetoldthattheoriginal conception was that of continuing divine revelations; and the"communionwithGodthroughtheHolyGhost,"enjoyedbytheprimitiveChristians, is spoken of as involving the reception of "revelationsimmediately from him" (p. 21); and this is sharply emphasized bycontrasting it with "the submission to an external authority inmattersbothoffaithandofpractice,"whichcharacterizedlatertimes.Inaword,

Dr.McGiffertteachesthattheprimitiveChristianassuch,byvirtueofhiscommunionwithGodthroughtheimmediatepresenceoftheHolySpiritwithin him, needed no source of knowledge of God's truth and willexternal to himself: "The Holy Spirit was in the Church, imparting allneededtruthandlight"(p.29),andspokeastrulytotheotherChristiansastotheapostlesthemselves.

Certainly, however, this is not the state of affairs reflected in thosedocumentsoftheprimitiveChurchgatheredintoourNewTestament.Inthem the gifts of prophecy, interpretation, revelation, do not appear asthe universal possession of Christians as such. They are expresslyconfined to some, to whom the Spirit has imparted them as Hedistributes His gifts severally to whomHe will. In them, the authorityover all Christians of the apostolic declarations of truth and duty isexpresslyandreiteratinglyaffirmed,andisbaseduponthepossessionoftheSpiritbytheapostlesinasenseinwhichHewasnotcommontoallbelievers.Inthem,sofarfromtheapostolicwordbeingsubjectedtothetestoftheSpiritintheheartsofallChristians,itismadethetestoftheirpossessionoftheSpirit.Inaword,inthemthe"externalauthority"oftherevelationof truthanddutythroughtheapostles ismadesupreme;andthe recognitionof it as supreme ismade the test of thepresenceof theSpiritintheheartofothers(ICor.xiv.37).Neglectingthewholebodyofapostolicassertionof authority, and theproof of the acceptanceof thatauthority by the whole body of Christians which pervades the NewTestament,Dr.McGiffertrepresentsthecommongiftoftheHolySpirittoChristians as constituting every Christian a law to himself, and sodepreciates the apostles and the apostolic word relatively to otherChristians, and assimilates Christians as such to the apostles. He canobtainnowarrantforthisfromtheNewTestament.

3. The seriousness of this error is still further increased by thecircumstance that Dr. McGiffert extends what we may call thesupernaturalageofChristianity,orwhatawriterof the sameschool ofthoughtwithhimselfcalls"theSpirit-permeatedcommunity,"farbeyondthelimitsoftheapostolicperiod.Heexpresslytellsusthatnochangeofspirittookplacesynchronously"withthepassageofChristianityfromtheJewishtotheGentileworld,"noryetsynchronously"withthedeathofthe

Apostlesandthecloseoftheapostolicage"(pp.21,22)."TheChurchofthefirsthalfofthesecondcentury,"hetellsus,"believeditselftobejustastrulyundertheimmediatecontroloftheSpiritastheapostolicChurch.Therewasthesameconsciousnessofthepossessionofsupernaturalgifts,especiallyofthegiftofprophecy....Noline,infact,wasdrawnbetweentheir own age and that of the Apostles by the Christians of the earlysecond century. They were conscious of no loss, either of light or ofpower" (p. 22). "Theonly authoritywhichwas recognized,"we are toldagain,"wastheHolySpirit,andhewassupposedtospeaktoChristiansofthesecondcenturyastrulyashehadeverspokenthroughtheApostles"(p. 33).Accordingly,we are told that it is onlyon a priori or dogmaticgrounds, not on historical ones that a line can be drawn between theapostolic and postapostolic ages, so as to "emphasize the supernaturalcharacteroftheformerasdistinguishedfromthelatter"(p.22).

This is again, however, certainly not the impression which thecontemporary recordsmake on the reader. Those records do draw thelineverysharplybetweentheapostlesandanyleaders,howevergreat,ofthesecondcenturyChurch.Totheapostlesalone, theChristiansof thisage conceived, did Jesus give "authority over the gospel," as Barnabasphrases it.8 They alone were conceived of as in such a sense themouthpiecesofChristthatIgnatius,forexample,couldsaythat"theLorddidnothingwithouttheFather,eitherbyHimselforbytheapostles."9Itdoes not mark the personal humility of the men, but the recognizedproprieties of the case, when Polycarp, for instance, wrote to thePhilippians: "These things, brethren,write I unto you . . . because youinvitedme;forneitheramI,norisanyonelikeuntome,abletofollowthewisdomof theblessedandgloriousPaul";10 orwhen Ignatiuswrote tothe Romans: "I do not enjoin you as Peter and Paul did; they wereapostles,Iamaconvict."11Fromthebeginning,therefore,thewritingsoftheapostlesareappealed tobyname,quotedas "Scripture"alongwith,and with equal respect with, the Old Testament, and bowed to withreverenceandsubmission.Nooneapparentlydreamedofclaiming thatequalitywiththeapostleswhichDr.McGiffertascribestoeveryChristian,asachannelofknowledgeconcerningdivinethings;everybodysubmittedtothe"externalauthority"oftheirwritings.

Nor do these records permit us to believe that the supernatural giftsextendedintothesecondcenturyinanunbrokenstream.Whocanfailtofeelthegulfthatyawnsbetweentheclear,detailed,andpreciseallusionsto these gifts that meet us in the New Testament, and the vague andgeneral allusions to them which alone are found in the authenticliterature of the second century? As was long ago pointed outtriumphantly byConyersMiddleton, the early second century is almostbare of allusions to contemporary supernatural gifts. The apostolicalFathers contain no clear and certain allusions to them. And socharacteristic of the age is this sobriety of claim, that the apparentlymiraculous occurrences recorded as attending the martyrdom ofPolycarp,intheletterofthechurchofSmyrna,areanacknowledgedbarto theadmissionof thegenuinenessof thedocument; and it is only onpurifying the record of them, some as interpolations, some asmisinterpretations, that Dr. Lightfoot, for example, thought himselfwarrantedinassigningtoitasearlyadateasA.D.155.Whenreferencestosupernaturalgiftsoccur,asinJustinandIrenaeus,theyarecouchedingeneralterms,andsuggestratherageneralknowledgethatsuchgiftshadbeen common in the Church than specific acquaintance with them asordinaryoccurrencesofthetime.Thewholeevidenceinthematter,inaword, is justwhatweshouldexpect if thesegiftswereconferredby theapostles, and gradually died out with the generation which had beenbroughttoChristbytheirpreaching.Thecopiousstoriesofsupernaturaloccurrences inwritingsof thethirdandlatercenturieshavetheirroots,not in the authentic literature of the second century, but in theapocryphalGospelsandActs.Dr.McGiffertcanobtainnowarrant fromthe contemporary records for his assimilation of the Christians of theearlysecondcenturytotheapostles,andhisconsequentdepreciationoftheapostles,bothintheirpersonalauthorityandintheauthorityoftheirwrittenword,relativelytotheSpirit-ledChristian,assuch.

4. The whole effect, and, we ought, perhaps, also to say the wholepurpose, of the speculatively reconstructed picture of "primitiveChristianity" which Dr. McGiffert gives us, is to destroy the supremeauthorityoftheNewTestamentintheChurchasthesourceandnormoftruth and duty, and to reduce Christianity to a form of mysticalsubjectivism.

Dr. McGiffert admits, indeed, inconsistently with his fundamentalconception but consistently with historical fact, that "from the verybeginning,theJewishScriptures,towhichChristandhisApostleshadsofrequentlyappealed,hadbeenappropriatedbytheChristianChurch"(p.28),althoughnot,possibly,intheirnativesense.Headmits,also,thatthetruthofapostolicteachingwasunquestioned,andthat"theApostleswereuniversally recognized as the divinely commissioned and inspiredfoundersoftheChurch"(p.29);andbecausetheywerethuslookedupon,"their teaching was . . . everywhere regarded as a source from whichmightbegainedaknowledgeofdivinetruth"(p.32).

Buthevery justlypointsout that thus to lookupon the teachingof theapostlesasoneof thesources fromwhichaknowledgeof truthmaybeobtained is a "very different thing from making the teaching of theApostles the sole standard of truth," and "ascribing to their teachingexclusivenormativeauthority"(pp.32-33).Accordingly,heisabletotellus that "the primitive Church had entirely lacked" "the Catholicconception of an apostolic Scripture canon" (p. 42); that the Churchattained the conception of an authoritative "apostolic Scripture canon"onlydeepinthesecondcenturyandasapieceofborrowedgoods fromGnostic heresy; that the early Church needed no New Testament,"especiallysincetheHolySpiritwasintheChurchimpartingallneededtruth and light" (p. 29); andaccordinglythat "the only authoritywhichwas recognized was the Holy Spirit, and he was supposed to speak toChristiansofthesecondcenturyastrulyashehadeverspokenthroughtheApostles"(p.33).

The ideas thusattributed to the "primitiveChurch" are the ideasofDr.McGiffert;and thereforehe tellsus that theProtestantchurchesdonotspeak the truth when they make "the word of God, contained in theScriptures of the Old and New Testaments," "the sole and ultimateauthority forChristiantruth"(p.43),sincetheSpiritofGodis thissoleand ultimate authority - as He speaks still to His people as well asformerlythroughHisapostles(p.43).Hetellsus,therefore,plainly,thatthe Holy Spirit still reveals Himself to the members of the severalchurches "if they keep themselves in touch with him, as truly as tomembersof theprimitiveChurch"(p.39),andthat is,aswehave seen,

"astrulyashehadeverspokenthroughtheApostles"(p.33).

Thus the upshot of Dr. McGiffert's speculative reconstruction of theprimitive Church is to set aside the authority of the New Testamentaltogether, and to enthrone in its place the supreme authority of an"inner light." This is most excellent Quaker teaching, but it is a directonslaught upon the very basis of Reformed, and, indeed, of the wholeProtestant, theology. It seems to be incumbent upon us, therefore, toscrutinize with some care, before we bring these observations on Dr.McGiffert'steachingtoaclose,whathehastosayregardingtheoriginoftheNewTestament.

VI. DR. MCGIFFERT'S THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NEWTESTAMENTCANON

ThetaskofDr.McGiffert'sInauguralAddress,aswehaveseen,istotracethe steps in what he thinks "the most vital and far-reachingtransformation that Christianity has ever undergone" - "thetransformationoftheprimitiveintotheCatholicChurch,oftheChurchoftheApostlesintothatoftheoldCatholicfathers"(pp.18,19).Oneofthestepsinthis"momentoustransformation"-astepwhichisjustlyspokenof as "of stupendous significance," if it can be made good that itconstitutedapartofatransformationwhichtookplaceintheChurchofthe second century - is represented to be no less a one than this: "therecognitionoftheteachingoftheApostlesastheexclusivestandardandnormofChristiantruth"(p.29).Inthiswasincluded,asoneofitschiefelements, what may be called, without exaggerating Dr. McGiffert'sconception, the invention by the second century Church of the NewTestament canon. We must now give some consideration to thisastonishingrepresentation.

According to Dr. McGiffert, the primitive Church "entirely lacked" the"conceptionofanapostolicScripturecanon"(p.42).Itsspiritwasinfactwholly alien to such a conception. Its spirit was "a spirit of religiousindividualism,baseduponthefeltpresenceoftheHolyGhost"(p.19).AsallChristianspossessedtheSpirit,Hewas"theonlyauthoritywhichwasrecognized";andHewassupposedtospeaktoallChristians"astrulyashehadeverspokenthroughtheApostles" (p.33).Theapostleswereno

doubt"reverenced"as"divinelyguidedandinspired"(p.32);they"wereuniversally recognized as the divinely commissioned and inspiredfounders of the Church" (p. 29); and "their teaching was consequentlyeverywhere regarded as a source from which might be gained aknowledgeofdivinetruth"(p.32).Butwewillrememberthatweareveryjustlytoldthat"thatisaverydifferentthingfrommakingtheteachingofthe Apostles the sole standard of truth, a very different thing fromascribingtotheirteachingexclusivenormativeauthority"(pp.32-33).AllChristianswere as truly "in immediate contactwith theHoly Spirit" asthe apostles; to Him directly and not to the apostles they looked "forrevelationsof truth,assuchtruthmightbeneeded"(p.33);andhavingHimalwayswith them,andhaving,moreover,alongwithHim, theOldTestament,they"needednoNewTestament"(p.29).

ButGnosticism arose, and the Church joined in combatwith it. In theeffort to repudiate the spiritofGnosticism itwasthat stepswere takenwhichresultedinthedisappearanceofthatspiritofindividualismwhichwas the spirit of the "Church of the Apostles," and the introduction of"the spirit of Catholicism," "which means submission to an externalauthority inmatters both of faith and of practice" (p. 21). Three stepswere taken towards this consummation. The first of these was "therecognitionoftheteachingoftheApostlesastheexclusivestandardandnorm of Christian truth" (p. 29). And in this step were included theformationofaNewTestamentcanon,andtheformationofanapostolicruleoffaith.

"The Gnostics were the first Christians to have a New Testament." Inseeking to commend their bizarre doctrines, theywere led to appeal totheauthorityoftheapostlestransmittedorallyorinwriting."Hencetheyfelt themselves impelled at an early date to forma canonof their own,whichshouldcontaintheteachingsofChristthroughhisApostles,whichshould,inotherwords,beapostolic"(pp.29-30).ThiswasanewthinginChristendom.Butnoone coulddeny thatwhat the apostles taughtwastrue; the apostles, as well as other Christians, had the Spirit. TheGnostics' appeal to apostolic authority could bemet, therefore, only bydetermining what was truly apostolic. Thus "the Church reached theconception of an authoritative apostolic Scripture canon and of an

authoritative apostolic rule of faith" (p. 29). "Thus itwas led to gatherintoonewhole all thosewritingswhichwere commonly regarded as ofapostolicorigin; in otherwords, to form an authoritative and exclusiveapostolic Scripture canon, which all who wished to be regarded asChristian disciples must acknowledge, and whose teachings they mustaccept.""TheconceptionofanapostolicScripturecanonhadarisen,andthe appeal to that canon had beenwidelymade before the close of thesecondcentury"(p.30).

ThisistheaccountwhichDr.McGiffertgivesofthecreationoftheNewTestamentcanon.Itwillbeseenthatitisverycomprehensive.Itincludesanaccountof theoriginof theascriptionof "authority" to theapostolicteaching; an account of the rise of the very conception of an apostoliccanonofScripture;anaccountofthecollectionintosuchacanonofthewritings "commonly regardedasofapostolic origin"; andanaccountofthe impositionof thisbodyof collectedwritingsupon theChurchas itslawoffaithandconduct.Itincludesanaccount,inaword,ofthewhole"stupendous transformation," from a state of affairs in which everyChristianman,byvirtueoftheHolySpiritdwellinginhim,wasalawtohimself, and knew no external apostolic authority at all; to a state ofaffairs when, "under the stress of conflict, they resigned their loftyprivileges and made the Apostles the sole recipients (under the newdispensation)ofdivinecommunications,andthustheirteachingtheonlysource (the Old Testament, of course, excepted) for a knowledge ofChristian truth, and the sole standard andnormof such truth" (p. 33).Thiswholestupendoustransformationfrombeginningtoendisincludedin the course of the second century, that is, belongs to distinctly post-apostolic times. And it was due to the pressure of the Gnosticcontroversy, and, indeed, was a following by the Church of Gnosticexample. Inaword, theascriptionof any "authority"as teachers to theapostlesatall,andtheveryconceptionandexistenceofaNewTestamentcanon,andmuchmoretheerectionofsuchacanonas,alongwiththeOldTestament, theexclusivestandardof faithandpractice,werenopartofprimitive or apostolical Christianity at all. They were inventions of thesecondcenturyChurch,asexpedientsthebettertomeetitsdifficultiesincontroversy.

WhatistobesaidofthistheoryoftheformationoftheNewTestamentcanon?

1.Thisistobesaid,inthefirstplace:Thatthecausewhichisassignedforthisstupendoustransformationisutterlyinadequatetobearitsweight.

WeareaskedtobelievethataChurchwhichhadhithertoknownnothingofapostolicauthority,andmuchlessofacanonofauthoritativeapostolicwritings, but had depended wholly upon the living voice of the everpresentHolySpiritspeakingtoChristiansassuch,suddenlyinventedthiswholemachineryofexternalauthority,solelyinordertomeettheappealof theGnostics to suchanexternal authority. That is to say, in conflictwith the Gnostic position, the Church deserted its own entrenchedpositionandwentovertotheGnosticposition,horse,foot,anddragoons.TheChurch,wearetold,madeitssoleappealtotheinternalauthorityoftheHolySpirit,speakingintheheartsof livingChristians.TheGnosticsappealedtotheexternalauthorityoftheapostles,andwerethefirsttodoso.Ifthesituationwasinanymeasurelikethis,theChurchwasassuredlyentitledtomeet,andmostcertainlywouldhavemet,thishereticalappealto external authority with the declaration that the Holy Spirit of GodwhichithadwasgreaterthantheapostleswhichtheGnosticsclaimedtohave; and that the living and incorruptible voice of that Spirit in theheartsofChristianswasmoresurethanthedead,corruptiblewordoftheapostles. Yet instead of doing this we are told that the Church weaklysubmittedtotheGnosticimpositionofanexternalauthorityuponit,andmade its sole appeal to it. This construction is an impossible one. ThefactsthattheGnosticsappealedtoapostolicauthority,andespeciallytoabodyofauthoritativeapostolicwritings as against theChurch, and thattheChurchappealedtoapostolicauthorityandtoanapostoliccanonasagainst theGnostics, do not suggest that theGnostics were the first toappeal to apostolic teaching and tomake aNewTestament; but ratherprove that the authority of apostolic teaching and of the apostolicwritingswasalreadythesettledcommongroundonwhichallChristiansofallnamesstood.

This is not to be met by saying that just what we have supposed theChurch would do in the circumstances assumed was done - by theMontanists. The Montanists were not the Church; but from their first

originwere in violent conflictwith theChurch.Nordid theMontanistsrepresentarevivaloftheprimitivespirit.Themainreasonforfancyingsoarisesfromtheexigenciesofthetheoryatpresentunderdiscussion;andtheywerecertainlynotrecognizedasdoingsoby themenof their timebest qualified to judge of their affiliations. They are uniformlyrepresented as smacking more of Phrygia than of Palestine, more ofCybele than of Christ. Nor yet did they essay to do what in thesecircumstancesweshouldhaveexpectedtheChurchtodo;butsomethingvery different indeed. They, too, accepted the external authority ofapostles and canon. They themselves rested in this external authority,anddidnotseektoaddtothedepositoftruthhandeddownbyit.Theyclaimedonlyto"develop"the"practical"sideofChristianity;andthatnotby means of a universal teaching of the Spirit, but by means of thesporadiccontinuanceof the specific prophetic office, and by a series ofrequirements laid by this external authority upon the consciences ofmen.

NoristhecasemetbytheremarkthatthesurrenderoftheChurchtothepointofviewoftheGnosticsinthismatterofexternalauthoritynodoubtdoes presuppose "a partial loss of the original consciousness of theimmediatepresenceoftheHolySpirit"(p.37).Ofcourseitdoes;ifsuchanoriginalconsciousnesseverexistedinthesenseintended.Thepointatissueiswhetheranysuch"originalconsciousness,"inthesenseintended,everexisted.Thepointurgedisthatifthisconsciousnessexisteditcouldnot but have shown itself in the conflict against Gnosticism. The pointyieldedisthatitmustindeedhavealreadybeen"partiallylost."Thepointclaimedisthatthereisnoproof,then,thatiteverexisted,buteveryproofthat the Gnostics and the Church stood on common ground in theircommonappealto"externalauthority."

2. It is to be said, secondly, that the origin of this stupendoustransformationisassignedbythistheorytoamostunlikelysource.

TheGnosticswerenotjustthepeoplewhomwecannaturallysuspectofthe invention of the idea of an external apostolic authority. They areknown in history as men of speculative intellect, pride of knowledge,rationalisticmethods.Theyareknowninhistoryasrejectersofexternalauthorities, not as the creators of them. It is allowed that the Old

Testamenthad from thebeginningbeenacceptedby theChurch as theauthoritative voice of God. The Gnostics repudiated the JewishScriptures.Marcionisrepresentedtous,byeverycontemporarywitness,as a man who discarded part of the New Testament canon which hadcometohishand;andhecertainlymutilatedandcurtailedthebooksofhis "Apostolicum." To such men as these we can scarcely ascribe theinvention of the fiction of an apostolic canon. That they held andappealedtosuchan"externalauthority"canbeaccountedforonlyonthesupposition that this was already the settled position of the Church,whichtheysoughttorationalizeandsotoreform.

3.Itistobesaid,thirdly,thattoassigntheoriginoftheNewTestamentcanon to the Gnostics is to contradict the whole body of historicaltestimonywhichhascomedowntousastotherelationoftheGnosticstotheNewTestamentcanon.

TheFathers, towhose refutationof themweare indebted forwell-nighour whole knowledge of the Gnostics, are unanimous in representingthemasproceedingwiththechurchcanonastheirpointofdeparture,notasfirstsuggestingtotheChurchtheconceptionofacanon.Theydifferedamong themselves, we are told, in their mode of dealing with theChurch'scanon.Some, likeMarcion,usedtheshears,andboldlycutofffrom it all that did not suit their purposes; others, like Valentinus,dependedonartificialexegesistoconformtheteachingoftheapostlestotheirownviews.Forallalike,however,anauthoritativeapostoliccanonispresupposed, and to all alike this presupposed authoritative apostoliccanon constituted an obstacle to their heretical teachings, andaccordinglywouldnothavebeenpresupposedbythemcouldithavebeenavoided.

4. And this leads to saying, fourthly, that this whole theory of theformationoftheNewTestamentcanoninvolvesaseriousarraignmentofthetrustworthiness,or,asweshouldrathersayplainly,thetruthfulness,ofthewholebodyofthegreatChurchFatherswhoornamenttheclosingyearsofthesecondcentury.

Takesuchaman,forinstance,asIrenaeus.Itispositivelyimpossibletobelieve thatanything like theoriginationof,orany essential change in,

theNewTestamentcanonoccurredinhislifetimewithoutcharginghimwith conscious falsehood inhiswitness concerning it. For IrenaeusnotonlytestifiestotheexistenceandestimateasdivinelyauthoritativeoftheNewTestament at the close of his life, but repeatedly asserts that thissameNewTestamenthadenjoyedthissameauthorityfromtheapostles'day.Now,IrenaeuswasalreadyayoungmanwhenMarcionprovidedhisfollowers with his mutilated New Testament. He had himself sat as apupilatthefeetofJohn'spupil,Polycarp,inAsiaMinor.Hehadservedthe church of Lyons as presbyter and bishop. He had kept in fullcommunicationwiththechurchesbothofEphesusandofRome.Andhetells us that so strict had been the Church's watchfulness over its NewTestamentthatnotevenasingle textof ithadbeencorrupted. Itavailsnothing to say that, nevertheless, many texts had been corrupted.Irenaeuscouldbemistakeninsomethings;butinsomethingshecouldnotbemistaken.IfsuchathingastheNewTestamenthadbeeninventedinhisowndayhecouldnothavebeenignorantofit.Herethedilemmaisstringent:eitherIrenaeushasborneconsciouslyfalsewitness,orelsetheChurch in Ephesus, in Rome, and in Gaul, already had in the days ofMarcionthesameNewTestamentwhichitisconfessedthatithadatthecloseofthecentury.Andpracticallythesameargumentmightbeformedon the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Theophilus ofAntioch,or, indeed,thewholebodyofthechurchwritersofthecloseofthesecondcentury.

5.It istobesaid,still further,thatthewholetheoryof theoriginof theNew Testament canon in post-apostolic circles is inconsistent with theacknowledgedpositionoftheChurchduringthisperiod.

It isacknowledgedthatfromthebeginningtheChurchreceivedtheOldTestament at the apostles' hands as thewordofGod (p. 28). From thebeginning, therefore, the Church had an "external authority," andpossessedalreadytheideaofa"canon."Howcouldithelpaddingtothisauthoritativeteachingthewritingsoftheapostles,whom,asisadmitted,it"recognizedasthedivinelycommissionedandinspiredfoundersoftheChurch" (p. 29), and whom it reverenced "as divinely guided andinspired" (p.32)?Thewholedealingof theChurchwith theheresiesofthe day betrays the fact that apostolicity and authority were to it

synonymous terms. Every step which Dr. McGiffert traces in theopposition to these heresies is an outgrowth of this conception, and isrecognized by Dr. McGiffert as an expression of this conception.Apostolicitywasindeedthewar-cryinalltheChurch'sbattles;andyetweareaskedtosupposethatthiswasaborrowedwar-cry-borrowedfromitsenemies!

6.Finally, it istobesaidthatthereisquiteasmuchevidencefromthiswhole period of the Church's possession and high estimate of theNewTestament, as the nature of the literary remains from the time wouldwarrantusinexpecting.

Itisnothingtothepointtosaythatwecannot,withfullhistoricalright,speakofaNewTestament"canon"untildeepinthefourthcentury,sincethiswordwasnotappliedtotheNewTestamentinthissenseuntilthen;orthatwecannot,withfullhistoricalright,speakofa"NewTestament"untillateinthesecondcentury,fornotuntilthenwasthisnameappliedto it.We are not investigating the history of names, but of things. Theterm"instrument"whichTertullianappliestotheNewTestamentisjustasgoodadesignationofthethingastheterm"canon"thatJeromeuses.Andtherewasanearliernameforwhatwecallthe"NewTestament"thanthat now hoary and sacred title. Over against "The Law and theProphets,"whichwasthenamethengiventheOldTestament,menhada"Gospel and Apostles," which was the name they gave the NewTestament.Andastheycommonlycalledtheonehalfofthecanonbriefly"TheLaw,"sotheycalledtheotherhalfforsimilarreasons"TheGospel."ThenamestillremainsinAugustine;itisthecommonnamefortheNewTestamentinthesecondcentury.ItwasclearlyalreadyinuseinthedaysofIgnatius,andoftheauthorsoftheso-calledsecondepistleofClementand the epistle to Diognetus. New Testament books are among the"Oracles" in the days of Papias and of the author of II Clement. ToPolycarp, Ephesians was already along with Psalms in "the sacredletters."ToBarnabas,Matthewwas"Scripture";andindeed,alreadytoITimothyLukewas asmuch "Scripture" asDeuteronomy (I Tim. v. 18),andtoIIPeterPaul'slettersasmuchScriptureas"theotherScriptures"oftheOldTestament.Dr.McGiffertgivessomehint(p.27),indeed,thathemaydenythatITimothywasaletterofPaul's,orevenaproductofthe

first Christian century. Whether he would make II Peter also of post-Gnosticorigin,hedoesnottellus.Buttoomanyadjustmentsofthiskindwillneedtobemadetorenderit"historical"todenythattheChurchhadanauthoritativeNewTestamentfromthebeginningofitslife.

What color of historical ground remains, then, for the asserted"stupendoustransformation"intheChurchduringthesecondcentury,bywhichitacquirednotonlytheactualpossessionbuttheveryconceptionofanapostolicScripturecanon?

Thereis,firstofall,thisfact:thatinthelatterpartofthesecondcenturythe evidence that the Church possessed a New Testament canon firstbecomescopious.ButthisisnotbecausetheChurchthenfirstacquiredacanon;theevidenceisretrospectiveinitscharacterandforce.ItissimplybecauseChristianliteratureofasortwhichcouldbearnaturaltestimonytothefactfirstthenbecomesabundant.Itisagreathistoricalblundertoconfound such an emergence of copious testimony with the historicalemergenceofthethingtestifiedto.

Then,secondly,thereisdoubtlessthisfact:thatinitscontroversieswiththeGnostic sects theChurchwas thrownbackupon itsNewTestamentand its authority as before it had never had occasion to be.When thegospelwaspreachedtoJewsandGentilesthesimplestorywastold;andtherewasnooccasiontoappealtobooks,saveintheformercasetothepropheciesoftheOldTestament.WhenChristianitywasdefendedbeforeJews or beforeGentiles, the common ground of appealwas necessarilyrestricted to the Old Testament and to reason; and any allusion toChristian bookswas necessarily only by theway and purely incidental.Butwhennewgospelswerepreached,thentheappealwasnecessarilytotheauthorityof theauthoritative teachersof the truegospel.There is asense, then, in which it may be said that, in these controversies, theChurch "discovered" its New Testament. It learned its value; itinvestigateditscontentswithnewzealandnewinsight;intheprocessitstrengtheneditssenseofitspreciousnessandauthority.

Harnackinoneplaceusesphraseologyindescribingwhattookplacewiththe New Testament in the second century, which, if we could only beallowed to take it in its strict verbalmeaning, would express the exact

truth.Thetransformation,hetellsus,mustbelookeduponas"achangein interest in the Holy Scriptures brought about by the Gnostic andMontanistic conflict." This is just what happened. But this is not whatHarnack and his followers demand of us to believe to have happened.TheydemandthatweshallbelievethatinthesecontroversiestheChurchcreated these "Holy Scriptures" of the New Testament. They do sowithout historical warrant, and in doing so they destroy the NewTestamentas"HolyScriptures";thatis,theyreduceitsauthorityas"HolyScriptures" to the authority of the second century Church, which theywouldhaveusbelievecreatedit"HolyScripture"initscontroversies,andwhich, indeed, as theywould teach us, even created some of the booksthemselves (e.g. I Timothy) out of which this "Holy Scripture" wasconstituted.

How, then, are we to conceive the formation of the New Testamentcanon?Aftersomuchsaidas tohowwearenot toconceive it, it isbutright that before we bring this paper to a close we should try to placeclearlybeforeustheactualprocessofitsformation.Letusnowessaytodothisinthesimplestandmostprimaryway.

VII.THEFORMATIONOFTHECANONOFTHENEWTESTAMENT

InordertoobtainacorrectunderstandingofwhatiscalledtheformationofthecanonoftheNewTestament,itisnecessarytobeginbyfixingveryfirmly in our minds one fact, which is obvious enough, and to whichattention has been already called, but the importance of which in thisconnectioncannotbeoveremphasized.Thatis,thattheChristianChurchdidnotrequiretoformfor itself the ideaofa"canon,"or,asweshouldmore commonly call it to-day, of a "Bible" - that is, of a collection ofbooks givenofGod tobe the authoritative rule of faith andpractice. Itinherited this idea from the JewishChurch, alongwith the thing itself,theJewishScriptures,orthe"CanonoftheOldTestament."TheChurchdid not grow up by natural law; it was founded. And the authoritativeteacherssent forthbyChrist to foundHisChurch carriedwith themastheirmost precious possession a body of divine Scriptures, which theyimposedontheChurchthattheyfoundedasitscodeoflaw.NoreaderoftheNewTestamentcanneedproofofthis;oneverypageofthatbookisspreadtheevidencethatfromtheverybeginningtheOldTestamentwas

as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. TheChristianChurchthuswasneverwithouta"Bible"ora"canon."

ButtheOldTestamentbookswerenottheonlyoneswhichtheapostles(byChrist'sownappointment theauthoritative foundersof theChurch)imposedupontheinfantchurchesastheirauthoritativeruleoffaithandpractice. Nomore authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenantthan in themselves, the apostles, who had been "made sufficient asministersofanewcovenant"; for (asoneof themselvesargued) "if thatwhichpassethawaywaswithglory,muchmorethatwhichremaineth isin glory." Accordingly, not only was the gospel they delivered, in theirownestimation,itselfadivinerevelation,butitwasalsopreached"intheHolyGhost"(IPet.i.12);notmerelythematterofitbuttheverywordsinwhich itwasclothedwere "of theHolySpirit" (ICor. ii. 13).Theirowncommandswere,therefore,ofdivineauthority(IThess. iv.2),andtheirwritingswerethedepositoryofthesecommands(IIThess.ii.15)."Ifanymanobeyethnot ourwordby this epistle," saysPaul to one church (IIThess. iii. 14), "note thatman, that ye have no companywith him." ToanotherhemakesitthetestofaSpirit-ledmantorecognizethatwhathewaswritingtothemwas"thecommandmentsoftheLord"(ICor.xiv.37).Inevitably, suchwritings,making so awful a claim on their acceptance,werereceivedbythe infantchurchesasofaqualityequal to thatof theold"Bible,"placedalongsideofitsolderbooksasanadditionalpartoftheone law of God, and read as such in their meetings for worship - apracticewhich,moreover,was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27;Col. iv. 16; Rev. i. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliestchurches, the "Scriptures"werenota closedbut an increasing "canon."Suchtheyhadbeenfromthebeginning,astheygraduallygrewinnumberfromMosestoMalachi;andsuchtheyweretocontinueaslongasthereshouldremainamongthechurches"menofGodwhospakeastheyweremovedbytheHolyGhost."

Wesay that this immediateplacingof thenewbooks,given theChurchunder the seal of apostolic authority, among the Scriptures alreadyestablishedassuchwasinevitable.Itisalsohistoricallyevincedfromthevery beginning. Thus, the Apostle Peter, writing in A.D. 68, speaks ofPaul'snumerousletters,notincontrastwiththeScriptures,butasamong

theScriptures,andincontrastwith"theotherScriptures"(IIPet.iii.16),thatis,ofcourse,thoseoftheOldTestament.Inlikemanner,theApostlePaulcombines,asifitwerethemostnaturalthingintheworld,theBookof Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of"Scripture"(ITim.v.18):"FortheScripturesaith,'Thoushaltnotmuzzletheoxwhenhetreadethoutthecorn'[Deut.xxv.4];and,'Thelaborerisworthy of his hire' [Luke x. 7]." The line of such quotations is neverbroken inChristian literature.Polycarp12 inA.D. 115unites thePsalmsandEphesiansinexactlysimilarmanner:"Inthesacredbooks,...asitissaidintheseScriptures,'Beyeangryandsinnot,'and'Letnotthesungodownuponyourwrath."'So,afewyearslater,theso-calledsecondletterofClement,afterquotingIsaiah,adds(chap.2):"AndanotherScripture,however, says, 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners,"' quotingfromMatthew,a bookwhichBarnabas (circa 97-106A.D.) had alreadyadducedasScripture.Afterthissuchquotationsarecommon.

Whatneedsemphasisatpresentaboutthesefactsis thattheyobviouslyare not evidences of a gradually heightening estimate of the NewTestamentbooks,originallyreceivedonalowerlevel,andjustbeginningto be tentatively accounted Scripture. They are conclusive evidences,rather, of the estimation of the New Testament books from the verybeginningasScripture,andoftheirattachmentasScripturetotheotherScripturesalreadyinhand.TheearlyChristiansdidnot,then,firstformarival"canon"of"newbooks"whichcameonlygraduallytobeaccountedasofequaldivinityandauthoritywiththe"oldbooks";theyreceivednewbook after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally "Scripture"with theoldbooks,andadded themonebyone to the collectionofoldbooksasadditionalScriptures,untilatlengththenewbooksthusaddedwere numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of "theScriptures."

Theearliestnamegiven to thisnewsectionofScripturewas framedonthemodelofthenamebywhichwhatweknowastheOldTestamentwasthen known. Just as it was called "The Law and the Prophets and thePsalms" (or "The Hagiographa"), or, more briefly, "The Law and theProphets," or, evenmore briefly still, "The Law," so the enlarged Biblewas called "The Law and the Prophets, with the Gospels and the

Apostles,"13 or, more briefly, "The Law and the Gospel" (so ClaudiusApollinaris,Irenaeus);while thenewbooks separatelywere called "TheGospel and the Apostles," or, most briefly of all, "The Gospel." ThisearliestnameforthenewBible,withallthatitinvolvesastoitsrelationtotheoldandbrieferBible,istraceableasfarbackasIgnatius(A.D.115),whomakesuseofitrepeatedly.14InonepassagehegivesusahintofthecontroversieswhichtheenlargedBibleof theChristiansarousedamongtheJudaizers:"WhenIheardsomesaying,"hewrites,15"'UnlessIfinditin the Old [Books] I will not believe the Gospel,' on my saying, 'It iswritten,' they answered, 'That is the question.' To me, however, JesusChrististheOld[Books];Hiscrossanddeathandresurrection,andthefaithwhichisbyHim,theundefiledOld[Books],bywhichIwish,byyourprayers,tobejustified.Thepriests,indeed,aregood,buttheHighPriestbetter,"etc.HereIgnatiusappeals to the "Gospel"asScripture,and theJudaizers object, receiving from him the answer, in effect, whichAugustineafterwardsformulatedinthewell-knownsayingthattheNewTestament lies hidden in theOld, and theOld Testament is firstmadeclear in the New. What we need now to observe, however, is that toIgnatius the New Testament was not a different book from the OldTestament,butpartoftheonebodyofScripturewithit;anaccretion,sotospeak,whichhadgrownuponit.

Thisisthetestimonyofalltheearlywitnesses,evenofthosewhichspeakforthedistinctivelyJewish-Christianchurches.Forexample,thatcuriousJewish-Christian writing, "The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs"("Benjamin," 11), tellsus,under thecoverofanexpost facto prophecy,that "theworkandword"ofPaul, that is, confessedly, theBookofActsand Paul's epistles, "shall be written in the Holy Books," that is, as isunderstood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. So, even in theTalmud,inasceneintendedtoridiculea"bishop"ofthefirstcentury,heisrepresentedas findingGalatiansby "sinkinghimselfdeeper" into thesame"book"whichcontainedtheLawofMoses("Babl.Shabbath,"116aandb).Thedetailscannotbeenteredintohere.Letitsufficetosaythat,fromtheevidenceof the fragmentswhichalonehavebeenpreservedtousof theChristianwritingsof thatveryearly time, itappearsthat fromthe beginning of the second century (and that is from the end of theapostolic age) a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of "New Books"

(Ignatius), called the "Gospel and Apostles" (Ignatius, Marcion), wasalreadyapartof the"oracles"ofGod(Polycarp,Papias, IIClement),or"Scriptures"(ITimothy,IIPeter,Barnabas,Polycarp,IIClement),orthe"HolyBooks,"or"BibleTheTestamentsoftheTwelvePatriarchs").

Thenumberofbooks included in thisaddedbodyofNewBooks,at theopening of the second century, cannot, of course, be satisfactorilydeterminedbytheevidenceofthesefragmentsalone.Fromthemwemaylearn,however,thatthesectionofitcalledthe"Gospel"includedGospelswrittenby"theapostlesandtheircompanions"(Justin),whichthereisnoreasontodoubtwereour fourGospelsnowreceived.Thesection called"The Apostles" contained the Book of Acts ("The Testaments of theTwelve Patriarchs") and epistles of Paul, John, Peter, and James. Theevidence from various quarters is, indeed, enough to show that thecollection in general use contained all the books which we at presentreceive, with the possible exceptions of Jude, II and III John, andPhilemon; and it is more natural to suppose that failure of very earlyevidence for thesebriefbooklets isdue to their insignificant size ratherthantotheirnon-acceptance.

It istobeborneinmind,however,thattheextentof thecollectionmayhave - and, indeed, is historically shown actually to have - varied indifferent localities.TheBiblewascirculatedonly inhand-copies, slowlyandpainfullymade;andanincompletecopy,obtained,say,atEphesusinA.D.68,wouldbelikelytoremainformanyyearstheBibleofthechurchtowhichitwasconveyed,andmight,indeed,becometheparentofothercopies, incomplete like itself, and thus themeans of providing awholedistrictwithincompleteBibles.Thus,whenweinquireafterthehistoryofthe New Testament canon, we need to distinguish such questions asthese:(1)WhenwastheNewTestamentcanoncompleted?(2)Whendidanyonechurchacquireacompletedcanon?(3)Whendidthecompletedcanon, the completeBible,obtainuniversal circulationandacceptance?(4) On what ground and evidence did the churches with incompleteBiblesaccepttheremainingbookswhentheyweremadeknowntothem?

The canon of the New Testament was completed when the lastauthoritativebookwasgiventoanychurchbytheapostles,andthatwaswhenJohnwrotetheApocalypse,aboutA.D.98.Whetherthechurchof

EphesushadacompletedcanonwhenitreceivedtheApocalypse,ornot,woulddependonwhethertherewasanyepistle,saythatofJude,whichhadnotyetreachedit,withauthenticatingproofofitsapostolicity.Thereis roomforhistorical investigationhere.Certainly thewhole canonwasnot universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The LatinChurchofthesecondandthirdcenturiesdidnotquiteknowwhattodowiththeEpistletotheHebrews.TheSyrianchurchesforsomecenturiesmayhave lacked the lesser of theCatholicEpistlesandRevelation.ButfromthetimeofIrenasusdown,theChurchatlargehadthewholecanonaswenowpossess it.And though a section of theChurchmay not yethave been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book, or of certainbooks,andthoughafterwardsdoubtsmayhaveariseninsectionsof theChurchastotheapostolicityofcertainbooks(e.g.ofRevelation),yet innocasewasitmorethanarespectableminorityoftheChurchwhichwasslowinreceiving,orwhichcameafterwardstodoubt, thecredentialsofany of the books that then, as now, constituted the canon of the NewTestament accepted by the Church at large. And in every case theprincipleonwhichabookwasaccepted,ordoubtsagainst it laidaside,wasthehistoricaltraditionofapostolicity.

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolicauthorshipwhichconstitutedabookaportionof the"canon."Apostolicauthorshipwas, indeed,earlyconfoundedwithcanonicity. ItwasdoubtastotheapostolicauthorshipofHebrews,inthewest,andofJamesandJude, which seems to underlie the slowness of the inclusion of thesebooksinthe"canon"ofcertainchurches.Butfromthebeginningitwasnot so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, butimposition by the apostles as "law." Hence Tertullian's name for the"canon" is "instrumentum," and he speaks of the Old and NewInstrumentaswewouldoftheOldandNewTestament.Thattheapostlesso imposed theOld Testament on the churcheswhich they founded astheir"instrument,"or"law,"or "canon,"canbedeniedbynone.And inimposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolicalauthority, they did not confine themselves to books of their owncomposition. It is theGospelaccordingtoLuke,amanwhowasnotanapostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18, with Deuteronomy, asequally "Scripture" with it, in the first extant quotation of a New

Testament book as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the firstdivisionoftheNewBooks-of"TheGospelandtheApostles"-Justintellsus,were"writtenbytheapostlesandtheircompanions."Theauthorityofthe apostles, as founders of the Church by divine appointment, wasembodied in whatever books they imposed on the Church as law, notmerelyinthosewhichtheythemselveshadwritten.

Theearlychurchesreceived,aswereceive,intotheirNewTestamentallthe books historically evinced to them as given by the apostles to thechurches as their code of law; and wemust not mistake the historicalevidencesoftheslowcirculationandauthenticationof thesebooksoverthewidelyextendedChurchforevidenceofslownessof"canonization"ofbooksbytheauthorityorthetasteoftheChurchitself.

Endnotes:

1. ReprintedfromThePresbyterianQuarterly,ix.1895,pp.36-67and185-210.ThesectionsmarkedL,III.,IV.,V.,VI.,appearedearlierinThePresbyterianJournal,ofPhiladelphia;thesectionmarkedIL,inThePresbyterianMessenger,ofPittsburgh;andthesectionmarkedVII, in The Sunday-School World, of Philadelphia. The sectionmarkedVII. has been copyrighted by theAmerican Sunday-SchoolUnion, and can be had at their house at 1122 Chestnut street,Philadelphia,intractform.

2. TheAcademyforOctober28,1893(aliv.p.368).3. H.P.Liddon,"LifeofEdwardBouveriePusey,"ii.1893,p.489.4. "FarewelltohisFriendsandtotheChurch,"1858,p.56.5. "LifeandLettersofAdolpheMonod,"byoneofhisdaughters,E.T.

London,1885,pp.357-358.6. Ibid.,p.224.7. "PrimitiveandCatholicChristianity,"1893,p.16.8. Ep.8.9. "EpistolaadMagnesios,"7.10. "AdPhilippenses,"3.11. "AdRomanos,"4.12. "EpistolaadPhilippenses,"12.13. So Clement of Alexandria, "Stromata," vi. 11: 88; Tertullian, "De

præscriptionehæreticorum,"36.14. E.g."AdPhilad.,"5;"AdSmyrnæos,"7.15. "AdPhiladelphenses,"8.

MysticismandChristianity


Reprinted fromTheBiblicalReview, ii. 1917, pp. 169-191 (publishedbyTheBiblicalSeminaryinNewYork;copyrighted).

Religion is, shortly, the reaction of the human soul in the presence ofGod.AsGodisasmuchapartoftheenvironmentofmanastheearthonwhichhestands,nomancanescapefromreligionanymorethanhecanescapefromgravitation.ButthougheverymannecessarilyreactstoGod,menreactofcoursediversely,eachaccordingtohisnature,orperhapswewould better say, each according to his temperament. Thus, broadlyspeaking, threemain typesof religion arise, corresponding to the threemainvarietiesoftheactivityofthehumanspirit,intellectual,emotional,andvoluntary.Accordingastheintellect,sensibility,orwill isdominantin him, each man produces for himself a religion prevailingly of theintellect,sensibility,oractivewill;andall thereligionswhichmenhavemadeforthemselvesfindplacessomewhereamongthesethreetypes,asthey produce themselves more or less purely, or variously interminglewithoneanother.

Wesayadvisedly,allthereligionswhichmenhavemadeforthemselves.Forthereisanevenmorefundamentaldivisionamongreligionsthanthatwhich is supplied by these varieties. This is the division betweenman-madeandGod-madereligions.Besidesthereligionswhichmanhasmadefor himself, God has made a religion for man. We call this revealedreligion; and the most fundamental division which separates betweenreligions is that which divides revealed religion from unrevealedreligions.Ofcourse,wedonotmeantodenythatthereisanelementofrevelationinallreligions.Godisaperson,andpersonsareknownonlyastheymakethemselvesknown-revealthemselves.Thetermrevelationisusedinthisdistinction,therefore,inapregnantsense.IntheunrevealedreligionsGodisknownonlyasHehasrevealedHimselfinHisactsofthecreation and government of the world, as every person must reveal

himself inhisacts ifheactsatall. In theonerevealedreligionGodhasrevealedHimself also in acts of special grace, amongwhich is includedtheopenWord.

Thereisanelementinrevealedreligion,therefore,whichisnotfoundinany unrevealed religion. This is the element of authority. Revealedreligion comes to man from without; it is imposed upon him from asourcesuperiortohisownspirit.Theunrevealedreligions,ontheotherhand, flowfromnohighersourcethanthehumanspirit itself.Howevermuchtheymaydifferamongthemselvesintherelativeprominencegivenin each to the functioningof the intellect, sensibility, orwill, theyhavethisfundamentalthingincommon.Theyareall,inotherwords,naturalreligionsincontradistinctiontotheonesupernaturalreligionwhichGodhasmade.

There isa truesense, then, inwhich itmaybesaid that theunrevealedreligionsare"religionsofthespirit"andrevealedreligionisthe"religionof authority." Authority is the correlate of revelation, and whereverrevelation is - and only where revelation is - is there authority. JustbecausewedonotseeinrevelationmanreachinguplamehandstowardGodandfeelingfumblinglyafterHimifhaplyhemayfindHim,butGodgraciouslyreachingstronghandsdowntoman,bringinghimhelpinhisneed,weseeinitagiftfromGod,notacreationofman's.Ontheotherhand, the characteristic of all unrevealed religions is that they aredistinctlyman-made.Theyhavenoauthoritytoappealto,theyrestsolelyon the deliverances of the human spirit. As Rudyard Kipling shrewdlymakeshis"Tommy"declare:

The'eathenin'isblindnessbowsdowntowoodandstone,'Edon'tobeynoordersunlesstheyis'isown.

Naturallyitmakesnodifferenceinthisrespectwhetheritistherational,emotional, or volitional element in the activities of thehuman spirit towhichappealischieflymade.Innocasearethefoundationssunkdeeperthanthehumanspirititself,andnothingappearsinthestructurethatisraisedwhichthehumanspiritdoesnotsupply.Thepreponderanceofoneor another of these activities in the structure does, however, make animmensedifferenceintheaspectofthatstructure.Mysticismisthename

whichisgiventotheparticularoneofthesestructures,thepredominantplaceinwhichistakenbythesensibility.Itischaracteristicofmysticismthat it makes its appeal to the feelings as the sole, or at least as thenormative,sourceofknowledgeofdivinethings.That is tosay, it is thereligious sentiment which constitutes for it the source of religiousknowledge.Ofcoursemysticsdifferwithoneanother intheconsistencywithwhichtheyapplytheirprinciple.Andofcoursetheydifferwithoneanotherintheaccounttheygiveofthisreligioussentimenttowhichtheymaketheirappeal.Thereare, therefore,manyvarietiesofmystics,pureand impure, consistent and inconsistent, naturalistic andsupernaturalistic, pantheistic and theistic - even Christian. What iscommon to themall, andwhatmakes themallmystics, is that they allrest on the religious sentiment as the source of knowledge of divinethings.

The great variety of the accounts which mystics give of the feeling towhich they make their appeal arises from the very nature of the case.Thereisadeeperreasonforamysticbeing"mute"-thatiswhatthenameimports-thanthathewishestomakeamysteryofhisdiscoveries.Heis"mute"because,asamystic,hehasnothingtosay.Whenhesinkswithinhimself he finds feelings, not conceptions; his is an emotional, not aconceptional,religion;andfeelings,emotions, thoughnot inaudible,arenotarticulate.Asamystic,hehasnoconceptional language inwhichtoexpresswhathefeels.Ifheattemptstodescribe ithemustmakeuseoftermsderivedfromthereligiousorphilosophicalthoughtinvogueabouthim,thatistosay,ofnon-mysticallanguage.Hishandsmaybethehandsof Esau, but his voice is the voice of Jacob. The language in which hedescribes the reality which he finds within him does not in the leastindicate, then, what it is; it is merely a concession to the necessity ofcommunicatingwith the external world or with his ownmore externalself.Whathefindswithinhimisjusttohisapprehensionan"unutterableabyss." And Synesius does himself and his fellow mystics no injusticewhen he declares that "the mystic mind says this and that, gyratingaroundtheunutterableabyss."

Onthebrinkofthisabyssthemysticmaystandinawe,and,standinginaweuponitsbrink,hemaydeifyit.ThenhecallsitindifferentlyBrahm

orZeus,Allahor theHolySpirit, accordingasmenabouthim speakofGod.Heexplainsitsmeaning,inotherwords,intermsoftheconceptionof the universe which he has brought with him, or, as it is morefashionable now to phrase it, each in accordance with his own world-view.Thosewhoareheldinthegraspofanaturalisticconceptionof theworld will naturally speak of the religious feeling of which they havebecome acutely conscious as only one of the multitudinous naturalmovementsofthehumansoul,andwillseekmerely,byalogicalanalysisof its presuppositions and implications, to draw out its full meaning.Those who are sunk in a pantheistic world-view will speak of itsmovements as motions of the subliminal consciousness, and willinterpretthemasthesurgingswithinusofthedivinegroundofallthings,inlisteningtowhichtheyconceivethemselvestobesinkingbeneaththewaves that fret the surface of the ocean of being and penetrating to itsprofounder depths. If, on the other hand, the mystic chances to be atheist,hemaylookuponthemovementsofhisreligiousfeelingsaseffectsin his soul wrought by the voluntary actions of the God whom heacknowledges; and if he should happen to be a Christian, he mayinterpret these movements, in accordance with the teachings of theScriptures, as the leadings of the Holy Spirit or as the manifestationswithinhimoftheChristwithinusthehopeofglory.

ThisChristianmysticism, now, obviously differs in no essential respectfromtheparallelphenomenawhichareobservableinotherreligions.Itisonly general mysticism manifesting itself on Christian ground andinterpreting itself accordingly in the forms of Christian thought. It ismysticism which has learned to speak in Christian language. Thephenomenathemselvesareuniversal.Therehasneverbeenanageoftheworld, or a form of religion, in which they have not been in evidence.There are always everywhere some men who stand out among theirfellows as listeners to the inner voice, and who, refusing the warningwhichThoasgives toIphigenia inGoethe'splay,"TherespeaksnoGod:thy heart alone 'tis speaks," respond like Iphigenia with passionateconviction,"'Tisonlythroughourheartsthegodse'erspeak."Butthesecommon phenomena are, naturally, interpreted in each instance,according to the general presuppositions of each several subject orobserverofthem.Thus,forexample,theyaretreatedastheintrusionof

God into the soul (Ribet), or as the involuntary intrusion of theunconscious into consciousness (Hartmann), or as the intrusion of thesubconscious into the consciousness (Du Prel), or as the intrusion offeeling, strong and overmastering, into the operations of the intellect(Goethe).

According to these varying interpretations we get different types ofmysticism,differingfromoneanothernotinintrinsiccharactersomuchasintheexplanationsgivenofthecommonphenomena.Manyattemptshave beenmade to arrange these types in logical schemes which shallembraceallvarietiesandpresenttheminanintelligibleorder.Thus, forexample, from the point of view of the ends sought, R. A. Vaughandistinguishes between theopathic, theosophic, and theurgic mysticism,the first of which is content with feeling, while the second aspires toknowledge,andthethirdseekspower.Thesameclassesmayperhapsbecalled more simply emotional, intellectual, and thelematic mysticism.From the point of view of the inquiry into the sources of religiousknowledge four well-marked varieties present themselves, which havebeengiventhenamesofnaturalistic,supernaturalistic,theosophical,andpantheisticmysticism.

The commonelement in all these varieties ofmysticism is that they allseek all, ormost, or thenormative or at least a substantial part, of theknowledgeofGodinhumanfeelings,whichtheylookuponasthesoleoratleastthemosttrustworthyorthemostdirectsourceoftheknowledgeofGod.Thedifferencesbetweenthemturnonthedivergingconceptionswhichtheyentertainoftheoriginofthereligiousfeelingsthusappealedto.Naturalisticmysticismconceivesthemasmerely"thenaturalreligiousconsciousnessofmen,asexcitedandinfluencedbythecircumstancesofthe individual." Supernaturalistic, as the effects of operations of thedivine Spirit in the heart, the human spiritmoving only as it ismovedupon by the divine. Theosophical mysticism goes a step further andregardsthereligiousfeelingsasthefootprintsofDeitymovinginthesoul,andas,therefore,immediatesourcesofknowledgeofGod,whichistobeobtained by simple quiescence and rapt contemplation of these Hismovements. Pantheistic mysticism advances to the completeidentification of the soul with God, who is therefore to be known by

applyingoneselftothesimpleaxiom:"Knowthyself."

Clearlyitisthetypewhichhasbeencalledsupernaturalisticthathastheclosest affinitywithChristianity.Christianmysticismaccordingly, at itsbest, takes this form and passes insensibly from it into evangelicalChristianity,towhichtheindwellingoftheHolyGhost-theChristwithin-isfundamental,andwhichrejoicesinsuchspiritualexperiencesasaresummedupintheoldcategoriesofregenerationandsanctification-therebegettingof the soul intonewnessof life and the leadingof thenew-createdsoulalongthepathwayofholyliving.Fromtheseexperiences,ofcourse,muchmaybeinferrednotonlyofthemodesofGod'sworkinginthe salvation of men but also of the nature and character of God theworker.

The distinction between mysticism of this type and evangelicalChristianity,fromthepointofviewwhichisnowoccupyingourattention,is nevertheless clear. Evangelical Christianity interprets all religiousexperiencebythenormativerevelationofGodrecordedforusintheHolyScriptures,andguides,directs,andcorrectsitfromtheseScriptures,andthusmolds it into harmony with what God in His revealedWord laysdownasthenormalChristianlife.Themystic,ontheotherhand,tendstosubstitute his religious experience for the objective revelation of Godrecorded in thewrittenWord, as the source fromwhich he derives hisknowledgeofGod,oratleasttosubordinatetheexpresslyrevealedWordasthelessdirectandconvincingsourceofknowledgeofGodtohisownreligiousexperience.Theresultisthattheexternalrevelationisrelativelydepressedinvalue,ifnottotallysetaside.

InthehistoryofChristianthoughtmysticismappearsaccordinglyasthattendencyamongprofessingChristianswhichlookswithin,thatis,tothereligiousfeelings,initssearchforGod.Itsupposesitselftocontemplatewithin the soul themovements of the divine Spirit, and finds in themeither the sole sources of trustworthy knowledge of God, or the mostimmediate and convincing sources of that knowledge, or, at least, acoordinatesourceofitalongsideofthewrittenWord.ThecharacteristicofChristianmysticism,fromthepointofviewofreligiousknowledge,isthereforeitsappealtothe"innerlight,"or"the internalword,"eithertothe exclusion of the external or writtenWord, or as superior to it and

normativeforitsinterpretation,oratleastascoordinateauthoritywithit,this"inner light"or "internalword"being conceivednot as therationalunderstanding but as the immediate deliverance of the religioussentiment.Asamerematteroffact,now,welackallcriteria,apartfromthe written Word, to distinguish between those motions of the heartwhicharecreatedwithinusbytheSpiritofGodandthosewhichariseoutof the natural functioning of the religious consciousness. Thissubstitutionofourreligiousexperience-or"Christianconsciousness,"asitissometimescalled-fortheobjectiveWordasthepropersourceofourreligious knowledge ends therefore either in betraying us into purelyrationalisticmysticism, or is rescued from that by the postulation of arelation of the soul to God which strongly tends toward pantheizingmysticism.

Inpointoffact,mysticismintheChurchisfoundtogravitate,withprettygeneral regularity, either toward rationalism or toward pantheism. Ineffect, indeed, it appears to differ from rationalism chiefly intemperament,ifwemaynotevensayintemperature.ThetwohaveitincommonthattheyappealforknowledgeofGodonlytowhatisinternaltoman;andtowhat,internaltoman,menmaketheiractualappeal,seemstobedeterminedverymuchbytheirtemperaments,or,ashasbeensaid,bytheirtemperatures.Thehumansoul isasmall thingatbest; it isnotdividedintowater-tightcompartments; thestreamsof feelingwhichareflowingupanddowninitandthejudgmentsoftheunderstandingwhichare incessantlybeing framed in it are constantlyactingand reactingononeanother. It isnotalwayseasy for it tobeperfectlyclear,as it turnswithin itselfandgazesupon itscomplexmovements,of thereal source,rational or emotional, of the impressions which it observes to becrystallizingwithin it intoconvictions.Ithasoftenbeenobservedintheprogress of history, accordingly, that men who have deserted theguidance of external revelation have become mystics or rationalistslargelyaccording as their religious lifewaswarmor cold. Inperiods ofreligious fervor or in periods of fervid religious reactions they aremystics; in periods of religious decline they are rationalists. The sameperson,indeed,sometimesvibratesbetweenthetwopointsofviewwiththeutmostfacility.

It is, however, with pantheism that mysticism stands in the closestassociation. It would not be untrue, in fact, to say that as a historicalphenomenonmysticismisjustpantheismreducedtoareligion,thatistosay, with its postulates transformed into ends. Defenses of mysticismagainst the inevitable (and true) charge of pantheizing usually, indeed,stop with the announcement of this damaging fact. "Lasson," remarksDeanIngeasifthatweretheconclusionofthematterinsteadof,asitis,theconfessionof judgment, "sayswell, inhisbookonMeisterEckhart,'Mysticism views everything from the standpoint of teleology, whilepantheism generally stops at causality."' What it is of importance toobserve is that it is precisely what pantheism, being a philosophy,postulates as conditions of being that mysticism, being a religion,proposes as objects of attainment. Mysticism is simply, therefore,pantheismexpressedinthetermsofreligiousaspiration.

This is as true within the Christian Church as without it. All forms ofmysticismhavenodoubtfromtimetotimefoundaplaceforthemselveswithintheChurch.Orperhapsweshouldrathersaythattheyhavealwaysexistedinit,andhavefromtimetotimemanifestedtheirpresencethere.Thismustbesaidevenofnaturalisticmysticism.Therearethosewhocallthemselves Christians who yet conceive of Christianity as merely thenatural religious sentiment excited into action by contact with thereligiousimpulsesetinmotionbyJesusChristandtransmitteddowntheagesbythenaturallawsofmotion,asmotionistransmitted,say,througharowofbilliardballs incontactwithoneanother.Yet itwouldonlybetruetosaythatmysticismasaphenomenoninthehistoryoftheChurchhas commonly arisen in the wake of the dominating influence in thecontemporaryworld of a pantheizing philosophy. It is the product of apantheizingmannerofthinkingimpingingonthereligiousnature,or, ifwe prefer to phrase it from the opposite point of view, of religiousthought seeking to assimilate and to express itself in terms of apantheizingphilosophy.

The fullest stream of mystical thought which has entered the ChurchfindsitsoriginintheNeoplatonicphilosophy.Itistothewritingsof thePseudo-DionysiusthatitsnaturalizationintheEasternChurchisusuallybroadlyascribed.Thesluice-gatesoftheWesternChurchwereopenedfor

it, in the same broad sense, by John Scotus Erigena. It has flowedstronglydown throughall the subsequent centuries,wideninghere andthere into lakelets. The form of mysticism which is most widelydisturbing the modern Protestant churches comes, however, from adifferentsource.IttakesitsoriginfromthemovementinauguratedinthefirstthirdofthenineteenthcenturybyFriedrichSchleiermacher,withtheostensible purpose of rescuing Christianity from the assaults ofrationalism by vindicating for religion its own independent right ofexistence, in a region "beyond reason." The result of this attempt toseparate religion from reason has been, of course, merely to renderreligion unreasonable; even Plotinus warned us long ago that "he whowouldriseabovereasonfallsoutsideofit."Butwhatweareimmediatelyconcerned to observe is the very widespread rejection of all "externalauthority,"whichhasbeenoneoftheresultsof thismovement,andtheconsequent casting of men back upon their "religious experience,"corporate or individual, as their sole trustworthy ground of religiousconvictions.Thisis,ofcourse,only"theinnerlight"ofanearlierformofmysticism under a new and (so it has been hoped) more inoffensivename; and it is naturally, therefore, burdened with all the evils whichinhereinthemysticalattitude.Theseevilsdonotaffectextremeformsofmysticism only; they are intrinsic in the two commonprincipleswhichgive to all its forms their fundamental character - the misprision of"externalauthority,"andtheattempttodiscoverinthemovementsofthesensibilities the ground or normof all the religious truthwhichwill beacknowledged.

"Mystics," says George Tyrrell, "think they touch the divine when theyhave only blurred the human form with a cloud of words." Theastonishingthingaboutthis judgmentisnotthejudgmentitselfbutthesource fromwhich it comes. For Tyrrell himself as a "Modernist" heldwithour"experientialists,"andwhenhecasthiseyeintothefuturecouldsee nothing but mysticism as the last refuge for religion. "Houtin andLoisyareright,"hewrites; "theChristianityof thefuturewill consistofmysticismandcharity,andpossiblytheeucharistinitsprimitiveformastheoutwardbond.Idesirenomore."Theplainfactisthatthis"religiousexperience," to which we are referred for our religious knowledge, canspeaktousonlyinthelanguageofreligiousthought;andwherethereis

noreligiousthoughttogiveitatongueitisdumb.Andaboveall,itmustbepunctuallynoted, it cannot speak to us in aChristian tongueunlessthatChristiantongueis lent itbytheChristianrevelation.Therejectionof"externalauthority"andourrelegationto"religiousexperience"forourreligious knowledge is nothingmore nor less, then, than the definitiveabolition of Christianity and the substitution for it of natural religion.Tyrrell perfectly understood this, and that is what he means when hespeaks of the Christianity of the future as reduced to "mysticism andcharity." All the puzzling facts of Christianity (this is his view) - theincarnation and resurrection of the Son of God and all the puzzlingdoctrinesofChristianity - the atonement inChrist's blood, the renewalthroughtheSpirit,theresurrectionofthebody-all,allwillbegone.Forall this rests on "external authority."Andmenwill content themselves,willbe compelled to content themselves,with themotionsof their ownreligioussensibilities-and(letushope)withcharity.

ThereisnothingmoreimportantintheageinwhichwelivethantobearconstantlyinmindthatalltheChristianityofChristianityrestspreciselyon "external authority." Religion, of course, we can have without"external authority," for man is a religious animal and will functionreligiouslyalwaysandeverywhere.ButChristianity,no.Christianityrestson"externalauthority,"andthatfortheverygoodreasonthatitisnottheproductofman'sreligioussentimentbutisagiftfromGod.Toaskustosetaside"externalauthority"and throwourselvesbackonwhatwecanfindwithin us alone - call it by whatever name you choose, "religiousexperience," "the Christian consciousness," "the inner light," "theimmanent Divine" - is to ask us to discard Christianity and revert tonatural religion. Natural religion is of course good - in its own properplaceandforitsownproperpurposes.Nobodydoubts-ornobodyoughttodoubt-thatmenarebynaturereligiousandwillhaveareligioninanyevent.Thesensusdivinitatisimplantedinus-toemployCalvin'sphrases-functionsinevitablyasasemenreligionis.

OfcourseChristianitydoesnotabolishorsupersedethisnaturalreligion;itvitalizesit,andconfirmsit,andfillsitwithrichercontent.Butitdoesso much more than this that, great as this is, it is pardonable that itshould now and then be overlooked. It supplements it, and, in

supplementingit, ittransformsit,andmakes it,with itssupplements,areligion fitted for and adequate to the needs of sinful man. There isnothing"soteriological"innaturalreligion.Itgrowsoutoftherecognizedrelations of creature and Maker; it is the creature's response to theperception of its Lord, in feelings of dependence and responsibility. Itknowsnothingofsalvation.Whenthecreaturehasbecomeasinner,andtherelationspropertoitascreaturetoitsLordhavebeensupersededbyrelationspropertothecriminalto its judge,naturalreligionisdumb.Itfails just because it is natural religion and is unequal to unnaturalconditions.Ofcoursewedonotsaythatitissuspended;wesayonlythatit has become inadequate. It requires to be supplemented by elementswhicharepropertotherelationoftheoffendingcreaturetotheoffendedLord. This is what Christianity brings, and it is because this is whatChristianitybringsthatitsosupplementsandtransformsnaturalreligionastomakeitareligionforsinners.Itdoesnotsupersedenaturalreligion;ittakesitupinitsentiretyuntoitself,expandingitanddevelopingitonnewsidestomeetnewneedsandsupplementingitwhereitisinsufficientforthesenewneeds.

We have touched here the elements of truth in George Tyrrell'scontention, otherwise bizarre enough, that Christianity builds not onJudaismbutonpaganism.Theantithesisisunfortunate.Althoughinverydifferentsenses,ChristianitybuildsbothonJudaismandonpaganism;itisthecompletionofthesupernaturalreligionbeguninJudaism,anditisthesupernaturalsupplementtothenaturalreligionwhichliesbeneathallthe horrible perversions of paganism. Tyrrell, viewing everything fromthepointofviewofhisCatholicismanddealinginhistoricalasmuchasin theological judgments, puts his contention in this form: "ThatCatholicism is Christianized paganism or world-religion and not theChristianized Judaism of the New Testament." The idea he wishes toexpress is that Catholicism is the only tenable form of Christianitybecause it alone is founded, not on Judaism, but on "world-religion."Whatisworthyofournoticeisthathesays"world-religion,"not"world-religions."He is thinkingnot of the infinite varietyofpagan religions -manyof themgrossenough,noneof themworthyofhumanity ("man'sworst crimes are his religions," says Dr. Faunce somewhere, moststrikingly) - but of the underlying religion which sustains and gives

whatevervaluetheypossesstothemall.

Now mysticism is just this world-religion; that is to say, it is theexpressionoftheineradicablereligiosityofthehumanrace.Sofarasitisthis,andnothingbutthis,itisvalidreligion,andeternalreligion.Nomancan do without it, not even the Christian man. But it is not adequatereligion for sinners. And when it pushes itself forward as an adequatereligionforsinnersitpressesbeyonditsmarkandbecomes,inthepoet'sphrase, "procuress to the lords of hell." As vitalized and informed,supplemented and transformed by Christianity, as supplying toChristianity the natural foundation for its supernatural structure, it isvalidreligion.AsasubstituteforChristianityitisnotmerelyareturntothebeggarlyelementsoftheworld,butinevitablyrotsdowntosomethingfarworse.Confininghimselftowhathecanfindinhimself,mannaturallycannot rise above himself, and unfortunately the self above which hecannotriseisasinfulself.

The pride which is inherent in the self-poised, self-contained attitudewhich will acknowledge no truth that is not found within oneself isalready an unlovely trait, and a dangerous one as well, since pride isunhappily a thing which grows by what it feeds on. The history ofmysticism only too clearly shows that he who begins by seeking Godwithin himself may end by confusing himself with God. We mayconceivably think that Mr. G. K. Chesterton might have chosen hislanguagewith a littlemore delicacy of feeling, butwhat he says in thefollowingtellingwaymuchneeds tobesaid in thisgeneration inwordswhichwill command a hearing.Hehad seen some such observation asthatwhichwehavequotedfromTyrrell,totheeffectthattheChristianityofthefutureistobeameremysticism.Thisisthewayhedealswithit:

OnlytheotherdayIsawinanexcellentweeklypaperofPuritantonethisremark, thatChristianitywhen stripped of its armor of dogma (aswhoshouldspeakofamanstrippedofhisarmorofbones)turnedouttobenothingbuttheQuakerdoctrineoftheInnerLight.Now,ifIweretosaythatChristianitycameintotheworldspeciallytodestroythedoctrineoftheInnerLight,thatwouldbeanexaggeration.Butitwouldbeverymuchnearer the truth. . . .Ofall theconceivable formsofenlightenment, theworst iswhat thesepeople call the InnerLight.Ofallhorrible religions

themosthorrible is theworshipof theGodwithin.Anyonewhoknowsanybodyknowshowitwouldwork;anyonewhoknowsanyonefromthcHigher Thought Center knows how it does work. That Jones shouldworshiptheGodwithinhimturnsoutultimatelytomeanthatJonesshallworshipJones.LetJonesworshipthesunormoon,anythingratherthantheInnerLight;letJonesworshipcatsorcrocodiles,ifhecanfindanyinhisstreet,butnottheGodwithin.Christianitycameintotheworldfirstlyinordertoassertwithviolencethatamanhadnotonlyto lookinward,but to look outward, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm adivinecompanyandadivinecaptain.Theonly funofbeingaChristianwas that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitelyrecognizedanouterlight,fairasthesun,clearasthemoon,terribleasanarmywithbanners.

Certainly,valuableastheinnerlightis-adequateasitmightbeformenwhowerenotsinners-thereisnofatewhichcouldbemoreterribleforasinnerthantobeleftalonewithit.Andwemustnotblinkthefactthatitis just that, in the full terribleness of its meaning, which mysticismmeans.AboveallotherelementsofChristianity,ChristandwhatChriststands for, with the cross at the center, come to us solely by "externalauthority."No"externalauthority,"noChrist,andnocrossofChrist.ForChristishistory,andChrist'scrossishistory,andmysticismwhichlivessolelyonwhat iswithincanhavenothing todowithhistory;mysticismwhichseekssolelyeternalveritiescanhavenothingtodowithtimeandthat which has occurred in time. Accordingly a whole series of recentmysticaldevotionalwriterssublimate theentirebodyof thosehistoricalfacts,whichwedonotsaymerelylieatthebasisofChristianity-wesayrather,whichconstitutetheverysubstanceofChristianity - intoameresetof symbols,adramatizationofpsychological experiences succeedingoneanother inthesoul.ChristHimselfbecomesbutanexternalsignofan inwardgrace.Readbut thewritingsofJohnCordelier.Noteven themostreluctantmystic,however,canaltogetherescapesomesuchprocessofeliminationoftheexternalChrist;byvirtueoftheveryfactthathewillnothaveanythinginhisreligionwhichhedoesnotfindwithinhimselfhemustsoonerorlater"passbeyondChrist."

WedonotlikeWilhelmHerrmann'srationalismanybetterthanwelike

mysticism, and we would as soon have no Christ at all as the ChristHerrmanngivesus.ButHerrmanntellstheexacttruthwhenheexplainsin well-chosen words that "the piety of the mystic is such that at thehighest point towhich it leads Christmust vanish from the soul alongwith all else that is external." "When he has found God," he explainsagain,"themystichasleftChristbehind."Atthebest,Christcanbetothemystic but the model mystic, not Himself the Way as He declared ofHimself,butonlyatraveleralongwithusuponthecommonway.SoMissUnderhillelaboratelydepictsHim,butnotshealone.Soderblomsaysofvon Hugel that Jesus is to him "merely a high point in the religiousdevelopmenttowhichmanmustaspire.""Hehasnoeye,"headds,"forthe unique personal power which His figure exercises on man." Thisapplies to the whole class. Butmuchmore than this needs to be said.Christmaybethemystic'sbrother.Hemaypossiblyevenbehisexemplarand leader, although He is not always recognized as such. What Hecannotbyanypossibilitybe ishisSaviour. IsnotGodwithinhim?AndhashenotmerelytosinkwithinhimselftosinkhimselfintoGod?Hehasnoneedof"salvation"andallowsnoplaceforit.

Wehearmuchoftherevoltofmysticismagainsttheforensictheoryoftheatonementandimputedrighteousness.Thisisamereeuphemismforitsrevoltagainstall"atonement"andall"justification."ThewholeexternalsideoftheChristiansalvationsimplyfallsaway.InthesameeuphemisticlanguageMissUnderhilldeclaresthat"nothingdoneforus,orexhibitedtous,canhavethesignificanceof thatwhichisdoneinus."Shemeansthat it has no significance for us at all. Even a William Law can say:"ChristgivenforusisneithermorenorlessthanChristgivenintous.Heis innoothersense our full, perfect, and sufficientAtonement, than asHisnatureandspiritarebornandformedinus."Thecrossandall thatthecrossstands forareabolished; itbecomesatbestbuta symbolofageneral law - per aspera ad astra. "There is but one salvation for allmankind,"saysLaw,"andthewaytoitisone;andthatisthedesireofthesoulturnedtoGod.ThisdesirebringsthesoultoGodandGodintothesoul:ituniteswithGod,itcooperateswithGod,andisonelifewithGod."IfChristisstillspokenof,andHisdeathandresurrectionandascension,andallthecurrentsofreligiousfeelingstillturntoHim,thatisbecauseChristians must so speak and feel. The same experiences may be had

underotherskiesandwillunderthemexpressthemselvesinothertermsappropriate to the traditions of those other times and places. ThatChristian mysticism is Christ mysticism, seeking and finding ChristwithinandreferringallitsecstasiestoHim,isthusonlyanaccident.Andeven the functions of this Christ within us, which alone it knows, aredegraded far below those of the Christ within us of the Christianrevelation.

ThegreatthingabouttheindwellingChristoftheChristianrevelationisthat He comes to us in His Spirit with creative power. Veni, creatorSpiritus,wesing,andwelooktobenewcreatures,createdinChristJesusinto newness of life. Themysticwill allow, not a resurrection from thedead, but only an awakening from sleep. Christ enters the heart not toproduce something new but to arouse what was dormant, what hasbelongedtomanasmanfromthebeginningandonlyneedstobesettowork."IfChristwastoraiseanewlifelikeHisownineveryman,"writesLaw,"theneverymanmusthavehadoriginallyintheinmostspiritofhislifeaseedofChrist,orChristasaseedofheaven,lyingthereinastateofinsensibility,outofwhichitcouldnotarisebutbythemediatorialpowerof Christ." He cannot conceive of Christ bringing anything new; whatChristseemstobringhereallyfindsalreadythere."TheWordofGod,"hesays,"is thehiddentreasureofeveryhumansoul, immuredunderfleshandblood,tillasaday-staritarisesinourheartsandchangesthesonofan earthlyAdam into a son ofGod."Nothing is brought to us;what isalready inus isonly"broughtout,"andwhat isalready inus - ineveryman-is"theWordofGod."ThisisChristmysticism;thatistosay,itisthemysticism inwhich the divinitywhich is in everymanbynature iscalledChrist-ratherthan,say,BrahmorAllah,orwhatnot.

EveninsuchamovementasthatrepresentedbyBishopChandler'sCultof the Passing Moment, the disintegrating operation of mysticism onhistoricalChristianity -which isall theChristianity there is - is seen atwork.BishopChandlerhimself,weare thankful to say, exalts the crossandthinksof itasacreativeinfluence inthe livesofmen.Butthisonlyexemplifiesthewantof logicalconsistency,whichindeedis theboastoftheschoolwhichherepresents.Ifouroneruleoflifeistobethespiritualimprovement of the impressions of the moment, and we are to follow

these blindly whithersoever they lead with no steadying, not to sayguidance,derivedfromthegreatRevelationofthepast,therecanbebutone issue. We are simply substituting our own passing impulses,interpreted as inspirations, for the one final revelation of God as theguide of life; that God has spoken once for all for the guidance of Hispeople is forgotten;Hisgreat corporateprovision forHispeople is castaside;andweareadriftuponthebillowsofmerelysubjectivefeeling.

We see that it is notmerely Christ andHis cross, then, whichmay beneglected,asexternal thingsbelongingto timeandspace.GodHimself,speaking in His Word, may be forgotten - in "the cult of the passingmoment."Weare reminded that therehavebeenmysticswhohavenotscrupled openly to contrast even the God without them with the Godwithin, and to speak in such fashion as to be understood (ormisunderstood) as counseling divesting ourselves of God Himself andturningonlytotheinwardlyshininglight.Nodoubttheydidnotmeanallthattheirwordsmaybepressedintoseemingtosay.Nevertheless,theirwords may stand for us as a kind of symbol of the whole mysticalconception,with the exaggerated valuewhich it sets upon the personalfeelingsanditscontemptforallthatisexternaltotheindividual'sspirit,even though it must be allowed that this excludes all that makesChristianity the religion of salvation for a lostworld - the cross, ChristHimself, and theGodandFatherof ourLord andSaviour JesusChristwhoinHislovegaveHisSontodieforsinners.

The issuewhichmysticismcreates is thus just the issueofChristianity.The question which it raises is, whether we need, whether we have, aprovision in thebloodofChrist foroursins;orwhetherwe,eachofus,possesswithinourselvesallthatcanberequiredfortimeandforeternity.Bothofthesethingscannotbetrue,andobviouslytertiumnondatur.Wemaybemystics, orwemay beChristians.We cannot be both. And thepretensionofbeingbothusuallymerelyveilsdefectionfromChristianity.Mysticism baptized with the name of Christianity is not thereby madeChristianity.Arosebyanyothernamewillsmellassweet.Butitdoesnotfollow that whatever we choose to call a rose will possess the rose'sfragrance.

LISTOFOTHERSTUDIESINTHEOLOGY

1.APOLOGETICSAGNOSTICISM. (Article in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ofReligiousKnowledge,"1:pp.87-88.FunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1911.)ATHEISM.(Articlein"TheNewSchaff-HerzogEncyclopediaofReligiousKnowledge,"1:pp.346-347.FunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1911.)CHRISTIANEVIDENCES:HOWAFFECTEDBYRECENTCRITICISMS.(TheHomileticReview,16:August,1888,pp.107-112.)

2.EXEGETICALTHEOLOGY

THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. (ThePresbyterianReview,3:April,1882,pp.325-356.)THE PROLEGOMENA TO TISCHENDORF'S NEW TESTAMENT: AREVIEW.(TheExpositor,3dseries,1:1885,pp.142-150.)INTRODUCTION TO ACTS AND THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. ("TheTempleBible."J.B.LippincottCompany,Philadelphia,1902.)SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BOOK OF ACTS. (The BibleStudent,5:January,February,March,1902,pp.13-21,72-80,130-136.)SYLLABUS ON THE SPECIAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CATHOLICEPISTLES.(W.W.Waters,Publisher,Pittsburgh,1883.)SYNOPSIS OF ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Appendix to"SyllabusontheSpecialIntroductiontotheCatholicEpistles,"pp.197-211.)ON THE POST-EXILIAN PORTION OF OUR LORD'S GENEALOGY.(ThePresbyterianReview,2:April,1881,pp.388-397.)MESSIANICPSALMSOFTHENEWTESTAMENT. (TheExpositor, 3d

series,2:1885,pp.301-309.)THESCENESOFTHEBAPTIST'SWORK. (TheExpositor,3dseries, 1:1885,pp.267-282.)THEREADINGS[EllhnavANDEllhnista>v,ACTSXI.20.(JournaloftheSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureandExegesis,1883,pp.113-127.)SOME DIFFICULT PASSAGES IN THE FIRST CHAPTER OF IICORINTHIANS. (Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature andExegesis,December,1886,pp.27-39.)THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. (Journal of theSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureandExegesis,1884,pp.50-64.)SOMEEXEGETICALNOTESONITIMOTHY.(ThePresbyterianReview,8:July,October,1887,pp.500-508,702-710.)JAMES.(Articlein"ADictionaryoftheBible,"byJohnD.Davis,2ded.,pp.337-338.TheWestminsterPress,Philadelphia,1903.)338.TheWestminsterPress,Philadelphia,1903.)JUDE. (Article in"ADictionaryof theBible,"byJohnD.Davis,2ded.,pp.406-407.TheWestminsterPress,Philadelphia,1903.)PETER.(Articlein"ADictionaryoftheBible,"byJohnD.Davis,2ded.,pp.569-571.TheWestminsterPress,Philadelphia,1903.)AMAZEMENT. (Article in "A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels,"editedbyJamesHastings,1:pp.4748.CharlesScribner'sSons,NewYork,1908.)ASTONISHMENT. (Article in "ADictionaryofChrist and theGospels,"editedbyJamesHastings, 1:p. 131.CharlesScribner'sSons,NewYork,1908.)CHILDREN.(Articlein"ADictionaryofChristandtheGospels,"editedbyJamesHastings,1:pp.301-305.CharlesScribner'sSons,NewYork,1908.)RENEWAL. (Article in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ofReligiousKnowledge,"9:pp.487-488.FunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,

1911.)CHRIST'S "LITTLE ONES." (The Bible Student and Teacher, 1:September,1904,pp.515-525.)ST. PAUL'S USE OF THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE. (TheExpositor,5thseries,1:1895,pp.226-236.)THE CENTURY'S PROGRESS IN BIBLICAL KNOWLEDGE. (TheHomileticReview,39:March,1900,pp.195-202.)REVIEWOFFIVEEDITIONSOFTHEDIDACHE.(TheAndoverReview,4:December,1885,pp.593-599.)TEXT,SOURCES,ANDCONTENTSOF"THETWOWAYS"ORFIRSTSECTIONOFTHEDIDACHE.(TheBibliothecaSacra,43:January,1886,pp.100-161.)TEXTUALCRITICISMOF"THETWOWAYS."(TheExpositor,3dseries,3:February,1886,pp.156-159.)NOTESONTHEDIDACHE.(JournaloftheSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureandExegesis,June,1886,pp.86-98.)THE DIDACHE AND ITS KINDRED FORMS, WITH ESPECIALREFERENCETOTHEPAPEROFDR.MCGIFFERT. (TheAndoverReview, 6: July, 1886, pp.81-97.) SOME RECENT APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. (The SouthernPresbyterianReview,35:October,1884,pp.711-759.

3.SYSTEMATICTHEOLOGY

THE RIGHT OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. (The Presbyterian andReformed Review, 7: July, 1896, pp. 412-458. Also published in bookformbyT.&T.Clark,Edinburgh,1897.)THE INDISPENSABLENESS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY TO THEPREACHER.(TheHomileticReview,33:February,1897,pp.99-105.)RECENTRECONSTRUCTIONSOFTHEOLOGY,FROMTHEPOINTOFVIEWOF

SYSTEMATICTHEOLOGY.(TheHomileticReview,35:March,1898,pp.201-208.)ANTITRINITARIANISM. (Article in "The New Schaff-HerzogEncyclopedia of Religious Knowledge," 1: pp. 203-205. Funk andWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1911.)PROFESSOR HENRY PRESERVED SMITH ON INSPIRATION. (ThePresbyterianandReformedReview,5:October,1894,pp.600-653.)GOD'S PROVIDENCEOVERALL. (The King's Own, 6: July, 1895, pp.671-675.) THEPRESENTDAYCONCEPTOFEVOLUTION. (PublishedbytheCollegePrintingOffice,Emporia,Kansas,n.d.)REPENTANCE AND ORIGINAL SIN. (The Union SeminaryMagazine,10:February,1899,pp.169-174.)THEFOUNDATIONSOFTHESABBATHINTHEWORDOFGOD.(Anaddress delivered at the Fourteenth International Lord's Day CongressheldinOakland,California,July27-August1,1915,publishedin"SundaytheWorld'sRestDay,"pp.63-81.Doubleday,Page & Company, New York, 1916. Also published in The FreePresbyterianMagazine,Glasgow, January, February,March, 1918, pp. 316-319, 350-354,378-383.)BAPTISM.(Articlein"TheNewSchaff-HerzogEncyclopediaofReligiousKnowledge,"1:pp.446-450.FunkandWagnallsCompany,NewYork,1911.)HOW SHALL WE BAPTIZE? (The Methodist Quarterly Review, 60:October,1911,pp.641-660.)CHRISTIANBAPTISM.(PamphletpublishedbythePresbyterianBoardofPublicationandSabbathSchoolWork,Philadelphia,1920.)

4.HISTORICALTHEOLOGY

THE BIBLE THE BOOK OFMANKIND. (A paper read at theWorld'sBibleConference,heldatthePanama-PacificExposition,SanFrancisco,California,August 1-4, 1915.Publishedas "CentennialPamphletNo. 1,"bytheAmericanBibleSociety,NewYork,1915.)DARWIN'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY AND AGAINSTRELIGION.(TheHomileticReview,17:January,1889,pp.9-16.)AFRICA AND THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIAN LATINLITERATURE.(TheAmericanJournalofTheology,January,1907,pp.95-110.)THE POSTURE OF THE RECIPIENTS AT THE LORD'S SUPPER: AFOOTNOTETOTHEHISTORYOFREFORMEDUSAGES. (Journal ofthePresbyterianHistoricalSociety,11:June,1922,pp.217-234.)THE RELATION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN PRINCIPLE TO THEHISTORICEPISCOPATE.(MethodistReview,71:November,1889,pp.845-850.)HOW PRINCETON SEMINARY GOT TO WORK. (Journal of thePresbyterianHistoricalSociety,9:June,1918,pp.256-266.)THE EXPANSION OF THE SEMINARY, A HISTORICAL SKETCH.(PamphletpublishedatPrinceton,1914.)

5.MISCELLANEA

SPIRITUAL CULTURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. (ThePrincetonTheologicalReview,2:January,1904,pp.65-87.)THE RELIGIOUS LIFE OF THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS. (An addressdeliveredat theAutumnConferenceatPrincetonTheologicalSeminary,October4,1911.PublishedasapamphletatPrinceton,1911.)TRUE CHURCH UNITY: WHAT IT IS. (The Homiletic Review, 20:December,1890,pp.483-489.)THE PROPOSED UNION WITH THE CUMBERLANDPRESBYTERIANS.(ThePrincetonTheologicalReview,2:April,1904,pp.295-316.)PRESBYTERIANDEACONESSES. (The PresbyterianReview, 10: April,1889,pp.

283-293.)SOMEPERILSOFMISSIONARYLIFE.(ThePresbyterianQuarterly,13:July,1899,pp.385-404.)KIKUYU, CLERICAL VERACITY AND MIRACLES. (The PrincetonTheologicalReview,12:October,1914,pp.529-585.)SANCTIFYINGTHEPELAGIANS.(ThePrincetonTheologicalReview,1:July,1903,pp.457-462.)DREAM. (Article in "ADictionaryofChristand theGospels,"editedbyJamesHastings,1:pp.491198.CharlesScribner'sSons,NewYork,1908.)"EDITORIALNOTES"andreviewsofcurrenttheologicalliteratureundertheheading,"CURRENTBIBLICALTHOUGHT," inTheBibleStudent, 1:-viii. 1900-1903.

CharlesDarwin'sReligiousLife:ASketchinSpiritualBiography1


Therewasagreatdealofdiscussioninthenewspapers,aboutthetimeofMr.Darwin'sdeath,concerninghisreligiousopinions,provoked,inpart,bythepublicationofaletterwrittenbyhimin1879toaJenastudent,inreplytoinquiriesastohisviewswithreferencetoarevelationandafuturelife;2inpartbyareportpublishedbyDrs.AvelingandBüchnerofaninterviewwhichtheyhadhadwithhimduringthelastyearofhislife.3Ofcoursetheappearanceoftheelaborate"LifeandLetters"byhisson4hasnowputanendtoallpossibledoubtastososimpleamatter.Mr.Darwindescribeshimselfaslivinggenerally,andmoreandmoreashegrewolder,inastateofmindwhich,withmuchfluctuationofjudgmentfromacoldtheismdownthescale,neverreaching,however,adogmaticatheism,wouldbebestdescribedasagnosticism.5Butthe"LifeandLetters"doesfarmoreforusthanmerelydeterminethisfact."Inthethreehugevolumeswhichareputforthtoembalmthephilosopher'sname,"asBlackwoodsomewhatflippantlyexpressesit,"heisobservedlikeoneofhisownspecimensunderthemicroscope,andeverypeculiarityrecorded,foralltheworldasifaphilosopherwereasimportantasamollusc,thoughwecanscarcelyhopethatasonofDarwin'swouldcommithimselftosucharevolutionaryview."6Theresultofthisexcessivelyminutedescription,andallthemorebecauseitissolackinginproportionandperspective,isthatweareputinpossessionofabundantmaterialfortracingtheevolutionofhislifeandopinionswithanaccuracyandfullnessofdetailseldom

equaledintheliteratureofbiography.Forexample,althoughthebookwasnotwritteninordertodepictMr.Darwin's"inwardlife,"itisquitepossibletoarrangeoutofthefactsitgivesafairlycompletehistoryofhisspiritualchanges.Andthisprovesunexpectedlyinteresting.SuchmenasBunyanandAugustineandSt.Paulhimselfhaveopenedtoustheirspiritualgrowthfromdarknessintolight,andmadeusfamiliarwitheveryphaseofthestrugglebywhichaspiritmovesupwardtothehopeofglory.SuchawriterasRousseauliftsforusacorneroftheveilthathidesfromviewthedepthsofanessentiallyevilnature.Butwehavelackedanycompleterecordoftheexperiencesofanessentiallynoblesoulaboutwhichtheshadesofdoubtareslowlygathering.ThisitisthatMr.Darwin's"Life"givesus.

Noonewhoreadsthe"LifeandLetters"willthinkofdoubtingtheunusualsweetnessofMr.Darwin'scharacter.Inhisschool-daysheispaintedbyhisfellowstudentsas"cheerful,good-tempered,andcommunicative."7Atcollege,weseehim,throughhiscompanions'eyes,as"themostgenial,warmhearted,generous,andaffectionateoffriends,"withsympathiesalivefor"allthatwasgoodandtrue,"and"acordialhatredforeverythingfalse,orvile,orcruel,ormean,ordishonorable"-inaword,asone"pre-eminentlygood,andjust,andlovable."8Aco-laborerwithhiminthehighstudiesofhismaturelifesumsuphisimpressionsofhiswholecharacterinequallystrikingwords:"ThosewhoknewCharlesDarwin,"hesays,"mostintimatelyareunanimousintheirappreciationoftheunsurpassednobilityandbeautyofhiswholecharacter.Inhimtherewasno'otherside.'NotonlywashethePhilosopherwhohaswroughtagreaterrevolutioninhumanthoughtwithinaquarterofacenturythananymanofourtime-orperhapsofanytime-...butasaManheexemplifiedinhisownlifethat

truereligion,whichisdeeper,wider,andloftierthananyTheology.ForthisnotonlyinspiredhimwiththedevotiontoTruthwhichwasthemaster-passionofhisgreatnature;butmadehimthemostadmirablehusband,brother,andfather;thekindestfriend,neighbour,andmaster;thegenuinelover,notonlyofhisfellow-man,butofeverycreature."9Mr.Darwinhimselfdoubtedwhetherthereligioussentimentwaseverstronglydevelopedinhim,10butthisopinionwaswritteninhislateryears,andthecontextshowsthatthereisanemphasisupontheword"sentiment."Therewas,ontheotherhand,atrulyreligiouscoloringthrownoverallhisearlieryears,andthefruitsofreligionneverlefthislife.But,nevertheless,theregraduallyfadedoutfromhisthoughtallpurelyreligiousconcepts,andtheregraduallydiedoutofhisheartallthehigherreligioussentiments,togetherwithalltheaccompanyingconsolations,hopes,andaspirations.Onthequietstageofthisamiablelifethereisplayedoutbeforeoureyesthetragedyofthedeathofreligionoutofahumansoul.Thespectacleisnonethelessinstructivethatitisofferedinthecaseofonebeforewhomwegladlydoffourhatsintrueandadmiringreverence.

Thefirstclearglimpsewhichwegetofthefuturephilosopher,asachild,isaveryattractiveone.Heseemstohavebeensweet-tempered,simple-hearted,conscientious,notwithouthischildishfaults,butwithafullsupplyofchildishvirtues.Hereisaprettypicture.Beingsent,atabouttheageofnineyears,toMr.Butler'sschool,situatedaboutamilefromhishome,heoftenranhome"inthelongerintervalsbetweenthecallingsoverandbeforelockingupatnight....Irememberintheearlypartofmyschoollife,"hewrites,"thatIoftenhadtorunveryquicklytobeintime,andfrombeingafleetrunnerwasgenerallysuccessful;butwhenindoubtIprayedearnestlytoGodtohelpme,andIwellrememberthatIattributedmy

successtotheprayersandnottomyquickrunning,andmarvelledhowgenerallyIwasaided."11Thus,heavenlayabouthiminhisinfancy.Buthedoesnotseemtohavebeenadiligentstudent,andhisschool-lifewasnotaltogetherprofitable;hissubsequentstayatEdinburghwasnomoreso;andbeforehereachedtheageoftwentyitseemedclearthathisheartwasnotintheprofessionofmedicinetowhichhehadbeendestined.Inthesecircumstances,hisfather,whowasanominalmemberoftheChurchofEngland,tookastepwhichseemedfromhispointofview,nodoubt,quitenatural;andproposedthathissonshouldbecomeaclergyman.12"Hewasveryproperlyvehement,"thesonwrites,"againstmyturningintoanidlesportingman"-asifthiswasasufficientreasonforthecontemplatedstep.Thesonhimselfwas,however,moreconscientious."Iaskedforsometimetoconsider,"hewrites,"asfromwhatlittleIhadheardorthoughtonthesubjectIhadscruplesaboutdeclaringmybeliefinallthedogmasoftheChurchofEngland;thoughotherwiseIlikedthethoughtofbeingacountryclergyman.AccordinglyIreadwithcare'PearsonontheCreed,'andafewotherbooksondivinity;andasIdidnotthenintheleastdoubtthestrictandliteraltruthofeverywordintheBible,13IsoonpersuadedmyselfthatourCreedmustbefullyaccepted."14

ThisstepledtoresidenceatCambridge,where,however,againthetimewasmostlywasted.Theinfluencesunderwhichhetherefell,moreover,werenotaltogethercalculatedtoquickenhisreverenceforthehighcallingtowhichhehaddevotedhimself."Thewayinwhichtheservicewasconductedinchapelshowsthatthedean,atleast,wasnotoverzealous.Ihaveheardmyfathertell[itisMr.FrancisDarwinwhoiswriting]howateveningchapeltheDeanusedtoreadalternateversesofthePsalms,withoutmakingevenapretenceofwaitingforthe

congregationtotaketheirshare.AndwhentheLessonwasalengthyone,hewouldriseandgoonwiththeCanticlesafterthescholarhadreadfifteenortwentyverses."15NorwerehisassociatesatCambridgealwaysallthatcouldbedesired:fromhispassionforsporthe"gotintoasportingset,includingsomedissipatedlow-mindedyoungmen,"withwhomhespentdaysandeveningsofwhich(hesays)heshouldhavefeltashamed.16Fortunately,hehadothercompanionsalso,ofahigherstamp,17andamongthempreeminentlyProfessorHenslow,whounitedinhisownpersonthewidestscientificlearningandthedeepestpiety,andwithwhomhehappilybecamequiteintimate,gainingfromhim,ashesays,"morethanIcanexpress."18Bestofall,Henslowwasaccustomedtolethislightshine,andtalkedfreely"onallsubjects,includinghisdeepsenseofreligion."19Accordingly,aswearenotsurprisedtolearn,itwaswithhimthatMr.Darwinwishedtoreaddivinity.20Notthathewasevennowreadytoenterwithspirituponhispreparationforhisfuturework.AtouchinglettertohisfriendFox,writtenin1829,ontheoccasionofthedeathofthelatter'ssister,showsthathisheartatthistimeknewsomewhatoftheconsolationsofChristianity."Ifeelmostsincerelyanddeeplyforyou,"hewrites,"andallyourfamily;butatthesametime,asfarasanyonecan,byhisowngoodprinciplesandreligion,besupportedundersuchamisfortune,you,Iamassured,willknowwheretolookforsuchsupport.AndaftersopureandholyacomfortastheBibleaffords,Iamequallyassuredhowuselessthesympathyofallfriendsmustappear,althoughitbeasheartfeltandsincere,asIhopeyoubelievemecapableoffeeling."21ButhestillhadconscientiousscruplesabouttakingOrders.Afellowstudentwrites(1829):"WehadanearnestconversationaboutgoingintoHolyOrders;andIrememberhisaskingme,withreferencetothequestionputbytheBishopintheordinationservice,'Doyoutrustthat

youareinwardlymovedbytheHolySpirit,etc.,'whetherIcouldanswerintheaffirmative,andonmysayingIcouldnot,hesaid,'NeithercanI,andthereforeIcannottakeOrders."'22Andcertainlythelinesofhisintellectualinterestwerecastelsewhere.Onlyunderthepressureofhisapproachingexaminationswasheledtoanythinglikeprofessionalstudy.Onsuchoccasions,however,heshowedthathismindwasopentoimpression."InordertopasstheB.A.examination,"hewrites,"itwasalsonecessarytogetupPaley's'EvidencesofChristianity,'andhis'MoralPhilosophy.'Thiswasdoneinathoroughmanner,andIamconvincedthatIcouldhavewrittenoutthewholeofthe'Evidences'withperfectcorrectness,butnotofcourseintheclearlanguageofPaley.Thelogicofthisbookand,asImayadd,ofhis'NaturalTheology,'gavemeasmuchdelightasdidEuclid.Thecarefulstudyoftheseworks,withoutattemptingtolearnanypartbyrote,wastheonlypartoftheacademicalcoursewhich,asIthenfeltandasIstillbelieve,wasoftheleastusetomeintheeducationofmymind.IdidnotatthattimetroublemyselfaboutPaley'spremises;andtakingtheseontrust,Iwascharmedandconvincedbythelonglineofargumentation."23Despitesuchoccasionalpleasureinhiswork,when,onleavingCambridge,theofferofaplaceintheBeagleexpeditioncame,andhisfatherobjectedtohistakingitthathisproperclericalstudieswouldbeinterrupted,JosiahWedgwoodwasabletoargue:"IfIsawCharlesnowabsorbedinprofessionalstudies,Ishouldprobablythinkitwouldnotbeadvisabletointerruptthem;butthisisnot,and,Ithink,willnotbethecasewithhim.Hispresentpursuitofknowledgeisinthesametrackashewouldhavetofollowintheexpedition."24Bythisrepresentation,hisfather'sconsentwasobtained,although,withthatlong-sightedwisdomwhichhissonalwaysregardedashisdistinguishingcharacteristic,he"considereditasagainchanginghisprofession."25Andso,indeed,itproved.Mr.

Darwin'sestimateofthesacrednessofaclergyman'sofficeimprovedsomewhatabovewhatitwaswhenhewasreadytoundertakeit,ifhecouldsigntheCreed,becausethelifeofacountryclergymanofferedadvantagesinasportingway.26Hewritesin1835tohisfriendFox,almostsadly:"Idarehardlylookforwardtothefuture,forIdonotknowwhatwillbecomeofme.Yoursituationisaboveenvy:Idonotventureeventoframesuchhappyvisions.Toapersonfittotaketheoffice,thelifeofaclergymanisatypeofallthatisrespectableandhappy."27Butthough,perhapsbecause,hisfeelingtowardtheclericalofficehadgrowntobesohigh,henolongerthoughtofenteringit.HewritesinhisAutobiographythatthisintentionwasnever"formallygivenup,butdiedanaturaldeathwhen,onleavingCambridge,IjoinedtheBeagleasnaturalist."28

ThelettertoFoxwhichhasjustbeenquotedisasufficientindicationthatitwasnothisChristianfaith,butonlyhisintentionoftakingOrdersthatwasdyingoutduringthecourseofhisfiveyears'cruise.Otherlikeindicationsarenotlacking.29Weare,therefore,notsurprisedtoread:"WhilstonboardtheBeagleIwasquiteorthodox,andIrememberbeingheartilylaughedatbysomeoftheofficers(thoughthemselvesorthodox)forquotingtheBibleasanunanswerableauthorityonsomepointofmorality."30Nevertheless,hisdefectionfromChristianitywasduringtheseyearssilentlyand,asitwere,negativelypreparingintheeverincreasingcompletenessofhisabsorptioninscientificpursuits,bywhichhewasleftlittletimefororinterestinotherthings.AndonhisreturntoEngland,theworkingupoftheimmensemassofmaterialwhichhehadcollectedduringhisvoyageclaimedhisattentionevenmoreexclusivelythanitscollectionhaddone.Thushewasgivenoccasiontooccupyhimselfsowhollywithsciencethattherewasnotonlynotimelefttothinkofhisformerintentionofentering

theministry-therewaslittletimelefttorememberthattherewasasoulwithinhimorafuturelifebeyondthegrave.ReadersofthesadaccountwhichMr.Darwinappendedattheveryendofhislife31(1881)tohisautobiographicalnotes,ofhowatabouttheageofthirtyorthereaboutshishigheraesthetictastesbegantoshowatrophy,sothathelosthisloveforpoetry,art,music,andhismindmoreandmorebegantotakeuponitthecharacterofakindofmachineforgrindinggenerallawsoutoflargecollectionsoffacts,willnotbeabletoresistthesuspicionthatthisexclusivedirectiontoonetypeofthinkingwasreally,ashehimselfbelieved,injurioustohisintellectaswellasenfeeblingtohisemotionalnature,andlayattherootofhissubsequentdriftawayfromreligion.

Itwasanominousconjunction,thatsimultaneouslywiththeearlyprogressofthis"curiousandlamentablelossofthehigheraesthetictastes,"amorepositiveinfluencewasenteringhismindwhichwasdestinedmostseriouslytomodifyhisthoughtondivinethings."InJuly[1837],"hetellsus,"Iopenedmyfirstnote-bookforfactsinrelationtotheOriginofSpecies,aboutwhichIhadlongreflected."32Thechangethatwaspassingoverhisviewsastothemannerinwhichspeciesoriginateisillustratedbyhisbiographerbythequotationofapassagefromhismanuscript"Journal,"writtenin1834,inwhichhefreelyspeaksof"creation,"whichwasomittedfromtheprinted"Journal,"theproofsofwhichwerecompletedin1837-afactwhich"harmonizeswiththechangeweknowtohavebeenproceedinginhisviews."33WeraisenoquestionastothecompatibilityoftheDarwinianformofthehypothesisofevolutionwithChristianity;Mr.Darwinhimselfsaysthat"science"(andinspeakingof"science"hehas"evolution"inmind)"hasnothingtodowithChrist,exceptinsofarasthehabitofscientificresearchmakesamancautiousinadmitting

evidence."34ButifweconfineourselvestoMr.Darwin'sownpersonalreligioushistory,itisveryclearthat,whetheronaccountofapeculiarityofconstitutionorbyanillogicaltrainofreasoningorotherwise,ashewroughtouthistheoryofevolution,hegaveuphisChristianfaith-nay,thathisdoctrineofevolutiondirectlyexpelledhisChristianbelief.Howitoperatedinsodoingitisnotdifficultdimlytotrace.Hewasthoroughlypersuaded(likeMr.Huxley35)that,initsplainmeaning,Genesisteachescreationbyimmediate,separate,andsuddenfiatsofGodforeachseveralspecies.Andashemoreandmoreconvincedhimselfthatspecies,onthecontrary,originatedaccordingtonaturallaw,andthroughalongcourseofgradualmodification,hefeltevermoreandmorethatGenesis"mustgo."ButGenesisisanintegralpartoftheOldTestament,andwiththetruthandauthorityoftheOldTestamentthetruthandauthorityofChristianityitselfisinseparablyboundup.Thus,thedoctrineofevolutiononceheartilyadoptedbyhimgraduallyunderminedhisfaith,untilhecastoffthewholeofChristianityasanunproveddelusion.Theprocesswasneitherrapidnorunopposed.Hespeaksofhisunwillingnesstogiveuphisbeliefandoftheslowrateatwhichunbeliefcreptoverhim,althoughitbecameatlastcomplete.36Drs.BüchnerandAvelingreporthimasassigningtheageoffortyyears(1849)asthedateofthecompletionoftheprocess.37Ofcourse,otherargumentscamegraduallytothesupportoftheoriginaldisturbingcause,tostrengthenhiminhisnewposition,untilhisformeracceptanceofChristianitybecamealmostincredibletohim.AdeeplyinterestingaccountisgivenofthewholeprocessintheAutobiography.38"Duringthesetwoyears,"hesays-meaningtheyearswhenhistheoryofevolutionwastakingshapeinhismind-"Iwasledtothinkmuchaboutreligion....Ihadgraduallycomebythistime,i.e.1836to1839,toseethattheOldTestamentwasnomoretobe

trustedthanthesacredbooksoftheHindoos.Thequestionthencontinuallyrosebeforemymindandwouldnotbebanished,-isitcrediblethatifGodwerenowtomakearevelationtotheHindoos,hewouldpermitittobeconnectedwiththebeliefinVishnu,Siva,etc.,asChristianityisconnectedwiththeOldTestament?Thisappearedtometobeutterlyincredible."Hereistherootofthewholematter.HisdoctrineofevolutionhadantiquatedforhimtheOldTestamentrecord;butChristianityistoointimatelyconnectedwiththeOldTestamenttostandasdivineiftheOldTestamentbefabulous.Certainly,ifthepremisesaresound,theconclusionisinevitable.OnlybothconclusionandpremisesmustshatterthemselvesagainstthefactofthesupernaturaloriginofChristianity.Oncetheconclusionwasreached,however,bolsteringarguments,pressingdirectlyagainstChristianity,didnotfailtomaketheirappearance:thedifficultyofprovingmiracles,theirantecedentincredibility,thecredulityoftheageinwhichtheyprofesstohavebeenwrought,theunhistoricalcharacteroftheGospels,theirdiscrepancies,man'spronenesstoreligiousenthusiasm39-arguments,allofthem,drawnfromasphereinwhichMr.Darwinwasnotamaster,andallofthem,inreality,afterthoughtscalledintosupportthedoubtswhichwerealreadydominatinghim.Howimpervioustoevidenceheatlastbecameisnaivelyillustratedbythewordswithwhichhecloseshisaccountofhowhelosthisfaith.Hesayshefeelssurethathegaveuphisbeliefunwillingly:"ForIcanwellrememberoftenandofteninventingday-dreamsofoldlettersbetweendistinguishedRomans,andmanuscriptsbeingdiscoveredatPompeiiorelsewhere,whichconfirmedinthemoststrikingmannerallthatwaswrittenintheGospels.ButIfounditmoreandmoredifficult,withfreescopegiventomyimagination,toinventevidencewhichwouldsufficetoconvinceme."40Whenamanhasreachedastageinwhichnoconceivablehistorical

evidencecouldconvincehimoftheactualoccurrenceofahistoricalfact,wemayceasetowonderthatthealmostinconceivablerichnessoftheactualhistoricalevidenceofChristianitywasinsufficienttoretainhisconviction.Heceasestobeajudgeofthevalueofevidence;andthathehasresisteditisnoproofthatitisresistible;itisonlyanevidenceofsuchindurationofbelievingtissueonhispartthatitisnolongercapableofrespondingtothestrongestreagents.

Here,then,approximatelyattheageofforty,wehavereachedtheendofonegreatstageofMr.Darwin'sspiritualdevelopment.HewasnolongeraChristian;henolongerbelievedinarevelation.Weseetheeffectinthechangedtoneofhisspeech.Mr.J.BrodieInnisreportshimassayingthathedidnotattackMoses,andthathecouldnotrememberthathehadeverpublishedaworddirectly41againstreligionortheclergy.42ButinhisprivatelettersofthislaterperiodhecertainlyspeakswithscantrespectofGenesis43andtheclergy,44ifnotalsoofreligion,45andheevengraduallygrewsomewhatirreverentinhisuseofthenameofGod.Weseetheeffectstillmoresadlyinhislossoftheconsolationsofreligion.Itispainfultocomparehistouching,ifsomewhatformalandshallow,letterofcondolencetohisfriendFox,writtenin1829,whichwehavealreadyquoted,withthehopelessgriefoflaterlettersofsimilarorigin.Helostadaughterwhomhetenderlylovedin1851,andhis"onlyconsolation"was"thatshepassedashort,thoughjoyouslife."46WhenFoxlostachildin1853,hisonlyappealistothesofteninginfluenceofthepassageoftime."Asyoumustknow,"hewriteshim,"fromyourownmostpainfulexperience,timesoftensanddeadens,inamannertrulywonderful,one'sfeelingsandregrets.Atfirstitisindeedbitter.IcanonlyhopethatyourhealthandthatofpoorMrs.Foxmaybepreserved,andthattimemaydoitsworksoftly,andbring

youalltogether,onceagain,asthehappyfamily,which,asIcanwellbelieve,yousolatelyformed."47Whatacontrastwith"thepureandholycomfortaffordedbytheBible"!Alreadyhewaslearningthegriefofthosewho"sorrowastherestwhohavenohope."WhetherhishabitualneglectoftheSundayrestandoftheordinancesofreligionwasanothereffectofthesamechangeitisimpossibletosay,inourignoranceofhishabitsprevioustothelossofhisChristianfaith.ButthroughoutthewholeperiodofhislifeatDown,wearetold,"week-daysandSundayspassedbyalike,eachwiththeirstatedintervalsofworkandrest,"whilehisvisitstothechurchwereconfinedtoafewrareoccasionsofweddingsandfunerals.48

ButthelossofChristianitydidnotnecessarilymeanthelossofreligion,and,asamatteroffact,inyieldinguprevealed,Mr.Darwinretainedastrongholduponnaturalreligion.TherewereyetGod,thesoul,thefuturelife.Thetheorywhichhehadelaboratedasasufficientaccountofthedifferencesthatexistbetweentheseveralkindsoforganicbeings,includingman,was,however,destinedtoworkhavocinhismindwitheventhesimplesttenetsofnaturalreligion.Againweraisenoquestionastowhetherthisdriftwasinevitable;itisenoughforourpresentpurposethatinMr.Darwin'scaseitwasactual.49Tounderstandhowthiswasso,itisonlynecessaryforustorememberthathehadlaidholdupon"naturalselection"astheveracausaandsufficientaccountofallorganicforms.Hisconceptionwasthateveryformmayvaryindefinitelyinalldirections,andthateveryvariationwhichisagaintoitinadaptationtoitssurroundingsisnecessarilypreservedbythatveryfactthroughthesimplereactionofthesurroundingsuponthestruggleforexistence.Anydivineguidanceofthedirectionofthevariationseemedtohimasmuchopposedtotheonepremiseofthetheoryasanydivineinterferencewiththe

workingofnaturalselectionseemedtobeopposedtotheother;andheincludedallorganicphenomena,aswellmentalandmoralasphysical,inthescopeofthisnaturalprocess.ThustohimGodbecameanincreasinglyunnecessaryandthereforeanincreasinglyincrediblehypothecation.

Theseriousnessofthisdriftofthoughtmakesitworthwhiletoillustrateitsomewhatindetail.Duringthewholetimeoccupiedincollectingmaterialforandinwritingthe"OriginofSpecies"Mr.Darwinwasatheist,50or,asheexpresseditononeoccasion:"Manyyearsago,whenIwascollectingfactsforthe'Origin,'mybeliefinwhatiscalledapersonalGodwasasfirmasthatofDr.Puseyhimself."51Therateatwhichthisfirmbeliefpassedawaywasslowenoughfortheprocesstooccupyseveralyears.Hetellsusthathisthoughtonsuchsubjectswasneverprofoundorlong-continued.52Thiswascertainlynotthefault,however,ofhisfriends,forfromthefirstpublicationofhisdevelopmenthypothesistheypliedhimwithproblemsthatforcedhimtofacethegreatquestionsoftherelationofhisviewstobeliefinGodandHismodesofactivity.WegetthefirstglimpseofthisinhiscorrespondencewithSirCharlesLyell.Thatgreatgeologisthadsuggestedthatwemust"assumeaprimevalcreativepower"actingthroughoutthewholecourseofdevelopment,thoughnotuniformly,inordertoaccountforthesupervening,say,ofmanattheendoftheseries.TothisMr.Darwinreplieswithadecidednegative."Wemust,underpresentknowledge,"hewrote,"assumethecreationofoneorofafewformsinthesamemannerasphilosophersassumetheexistenceofapowerofattractionwithoutanyexplanation.ButIentirelyreject,asinmyjudgmentquiteunnecessary,anysubsequentaddition'ofnewpowersandattributesandforces,'orofany'principleofimprovement,'exceptinsofaraseverycharacterwhichisnaturallyselectedorpreservedisinsome

wayanadvantageorimprovement;otherwiseitwouldnothavebeenselected.IfIwereconvincedthatIrequiredsuchadditionstothetheoryofnaturalselection,Iwouldrejectitasrubbish....IfIunderstandyou,theturning-pointinourdifferencemustbe,thatyouthinkitimpossiblethattheintellectualpowersofaspeciesshouldbemuchimprovedbythecontinuednaturalselectionofthemostintellectualindividuals.Toshowhowmindsgraduate,justreflecthowimpossibleeveryonehasyetfoundit,todefinethedifferenceinmindofmanandtheloweranimals;thelatterseemtohavetheverysameattributesinamuchlowerstageofperfectionthanthelowestsavage.IwouldgiveabsolutelynothingforthetheoryofNaturalSelection,ifitrequiresmiraculousadditionsatanyonestageofdescent.IthinkEmbryology,Homology,Classification,etc.,showusthatallvertebratahavedescendedfromoneparent;howthatparentappearedweknownot.Ifyouadmitineversolittleadegree,theexplanationwhichIhavegivenofEmbryology,HomologyandClassification,youwillfinditdifficulttosay:thusfartheexplanationholdsgood,butnofurther;herewemustcallin'theadditionofnewcreativeforces.'"53Afewdayslaterhewroteagain:"Ihavereflectedagooddealonwhatyousayonthenecessityofcontinuedinterventionofcreativepower.Icannotseethisnecessity;anditsadmission,Ithink,wouldmakethetheoryofNaturalSelectionvalueless.GrantasimpleArchetypalcreature,liketheMudfishorLepidosiren,withthefivesensesandsomevestigeofmind,andIbelievenaturalselectionwillaccountfortheproductionofeveryvertebrateanimal."54

LetusweighwellthemeaningtoMr.Darwin'sownthoughtofthesestrongassertionsofthecompetencyofnaturalselectionto"account"foreverydistinguishingcharacteristicoflivingforms.Itmeanttohim,first,theassimilationofthehumanmind,initsessence,withtheintelligenceofthebrutes;andthismeantthe

eliminationofwhatweordinarilymeanby"thesoul."Heonlyneededtohavegiven"thefivesensesandsomevestigeofmind,"suchasexists,forinstance,inthemud-fish,toenablehimbynaturalselectionalone,withtheexclusionofall"newpowersandattributesandforces,"toaccountforthementalpowerofNewton,thehighimaginingsofMilton,thedevoutaspirationsofaBernard.Howearlyheconsciouslyformulatedtheextremeformofthisconclusionitisdifficulttosay;butwefindhimin1871thankingMr.Tylorforgivinghimnewstandinggroundforit:"Itiswonderfulhowyoutraceanimismfromthelowerracesuptothereligiousbeliefofthehighestraces.Itwillmakemeforthefuturelookatreligion-abeliefinthesoul,etc.-fromanewpointofview."55Accordingly,thenewviewwasincorporatedinthe"DescentofMan,"publishedthatsameyear.56AndDr.RobertLewinsseemsquiteaccuratelytosumuptheultimateopinionwhichheattainedonthissubjectinthefollowingwords:

BeforeconcludingImay,withoutviolationofanyconfidence,mentionthat,bothvivavoceandinwriting,Mr.DarwinwasmuchlessreticenttomyselfthaninthislettertoJena.For,inananswertothedirectquestionIfeltmyselfjustified,someyearssince,inaddressingtothatimmortalexpertinBiology,astothebearingofhisresearchesontheexistenceofan"Anima,"or"Soul"inMan,hedistinctlystatedthat,inhisopinion,avitalor"spiritual"principle,apartfrominherentsomaticenergy,hadnomorelocusstandiinthehumanthanintheotherracesoftheAnimalKingdom-aconclusionthatseemsamerecorollaryof,orindeedapositiontantamountwith,hisessentialdoctrineofhumanandbestialidentityofNatureandgenesis.57

Itwasbutacorollarytolossofbeliefinasoul,secondly,tolosebeliefalsoinimmortality.Ifweareonewiththebrutesin

origin,whynotalsoindestiny?Mr.Darwinthoughtit"base"inhisopponentsto"draginimmortality,"inobjectiontohistheories;58butinhisownmindhewasallowinghistheoriestopushimmortalityout.Hisfinalpositionastothefutureofmanhegivesinaninterestingpassageintheautobiographicalnotes,writtenin1876.Hespeaksthereofimmortalityasa"strongandalmostinstinctivebelief,"butalsoofthe"intolerableness"ofthethoughtthatthemoreperfectraceofthefutureyearsshallbeannihilatedbythegradualcoolingofthesun,patheticallyadding:"Tothosewhofullyadmittheimmortalityofthehumansoul,thedestructionofourworldwillnotappearsodreadful."59Accordingly,whenwritingtotheJenastudentin1879,aftersayingthathedidnotbelievethat"thereeverhadbeenanyrevelation,"headds:"Asforafuturelife,everymanmustjudgeforhimselfbetweenconflictingvagueprobabilities."60Thirdly,hissettledconvictionofthesufficiencyofnaturalselectiontoaccountforalldifferentiationsinorganicformsdeeplyaffectedMr.Darwin'sideaofGodandofHisrelationtotheworld.Hisnotionatthistime(1859),whiletheistic,appearstohavebeensomewhatcrasslydeistic.Heseemsnevertohavebeenablefullytograsptheconceptionofdivineimmanence;butfromtheopeningofhisfirstnotebookonSpecies61totheendofhisdayshegiveseverrepeatedreasontothereadertofearthatthesoleconceptionsofGodinHisrelationtotheuniversewhichwerepossibletohimwereeitherthatGodshoulddoallthingswithoutsecondcauses,or,havingordainedsecondcauses,shouldsitoutsideandbeyondthemandleavethemtodoallthingswithoutHim.Beginningwiththisdeisticconception,whichpushedGodoutofHisworks,itisperhapsnotstrangethathecouldneverbesurethathesawHiminHisworks;andwhenhecouldtraceeffectstoa"naturalcause"orgroupabodyofphenomenaundera"naturallaw,"thisseemedtohimequivalenttodisprovingthe

connectionofGodwiththem.62Theresultwasthatthetheisticproofsgraduallygrewmoreandmoremeaninglesstohim,until,atlast,nooneofthemcarriedconvictiontohismind.SirCharlesLyellwasnotleftaloneinhiseffortstoclarifyMr.Darwin'sthinkingonsuchsubjects;soonDr.AsaGraytookhisplacebyhissideandbecameatoncethechiefforceintheendeavor.Nevertheless,Mr.DarwinoutlinesalreadyinalettertoLyellin186063theargumentsbywhichhestooduntotheend."Imustsayonemoreword,"hewrites,"aboutourquasi-theologicalcontroversyaboutnaturalselection....DoyouconsiderthatthesuccessivevariationsinthesizeofthecropofthePouterPigeon,whichmanhasaccumulatedtopleasehiscaprice,havebeendueto'thecreativeandsustainingpowersofBrahma?'InthesensethatanomnipotentandomniscientDeitymustorderandknoweverything,thismustbeadmitted;yet,inhonesttruth,Icanhardlyadmitit.Itseemspreposterousthatamakerofauniverseshouldcareaboutthecropofapigeonsolely64topleaseman'ssillyfancies.ButifyouagreewithmeinthinkingsuchaninterpositionoftheDeityuncalledfor,Icanseenoreasonwhateverforbelievinginsuchinterpositionsinthecaseofnaturalbeings,inwhichstrangeandadmirablepeculiaritieshavebeennaturallyselectedforthecreature'sownbenefit.ImagineaPouterinastateofnaturewadingintothewater,andthen,beingbuoyedupbyitsinflatedcrop,sailingaboutinsearchoffood.Whatadmirationthiswouldhaveexcited-adaptationtothelawsofhydrostaticpressure,etc.ForthelifeofmeIcannotseeanydifficultyinnaturalselectionproducingthemostexquisitestructure,ifsuchstructurecanbearrivedatbygradation,andIknowfromexperiencehowharditistonameanystructuretowardswhichatleastsomegradationsarenotknown....P.S.-TheconclusionatwhichIhavecome,asIhavetoldAsaGray,isthatsuchaquestion,asistouchedoninthisnote,isbeyondthehumanintellect,like'predestination

andfreewill,'orthe'originofevil.'"Thereismuchconfusedthoughtinthisletter;butitconcernsusnowonlytonotethatMr.Darwin'sdifficultyarisesontheonesidefromhisinabilitytoconceiveofGodasimmanentintheuniverseandhisconsequenttotalmisapprehensionofthenatureofdivineprovidence,andontheotherfromaverycrudenotionoffinalcausewhichpositsasingleextrinsicendasthesolepurposeoftheCreator.Noonewouldholdtoadoctrineofdivine"interpositions"suchasappearstohimhereastheonlyalternativetodivineabsence.Andnoonewouldholdtoateleologyoftherawsortwhichheherehasinmind-ateleologywhichfindstheendforwhichathingexistsinthemisuseorabuseofitbyanoutsideselectingagent.Mr.Darwinhimselffeltanaturalmentalinabilityfordealingwithsuchthemes,andaccordinglywaveredlongastotheattitudeheoughttoassumetowardtheevidencesofGod'shandinnature.ThushewroteinMay,1860,toDr.Gray:"Withrespecttothetheologicalviewofthequestion.Thisisalwayspainfultome.Iambewildered.Ihadnointentiontowriteatheistically.ButIownthatIcannotseeasplainlyasothersdo,andasIshouldwishtodo,evidenceofdesignandbeneficenceonallsidesofus.Thereseemstometoomuchmiseryintheworld.IcannotpersuademyselfthatabeneficentandomnipotentGodwouldhavedesignedlycreatedtheIchneumonidaewiththeexpressintentionoftheirfeedingwithinthelivingbodiesofCaterpillars,orthatacatshouldplaywithmice.Notbelievingthis,Iseenonecessityinthebeliefthattheeyewasexpresslydesigned.Ontheotherhand,Icannotanyhowbecontentedtoviewthiswonderfuluniverse,andespeciallythenatureofman,andtoconcludethateverythingistheresultofbruteforce.Iaminclinedtolookateverythingasresultingfromdesignedlaws,withthedetails,whethergoodorbad,lefttotheworkingoutofwhatwemaycallchance.Notthatthisnotionatallsatisfiesme.Ifeelmostdeeplythatthe

wholesubjectistooprofoundforthehumanintellect.AdogmightaswellspeculateonthemindofNewton.Leteachmanhopeandbelievewhathecan.CertainlyIagreewithyouthatmyviewsarenotatallnecessarilyatheistical.Thelightningkillsaman,whetheragoodoneorbadone,owingtotheexcessivelycomplexactionofnaturallaws.Achild(whomayturnoutanidiot)isbornbytheactionofevenmorecomplexlaws,andIcanseenoreasonwhyaman,orotheranimal,maynothavebeenaboriginallyproducedbyotherlaws,andthatalltheselawsmayhavebeenexpresslydesignedbyanomniscientCreator,whoforesaweveryfutureeventandconsequence.ButthemoreIthinkthemorebewilderedIbecome;asindeedIhaveprobablyshownbythisletter."65Thereasoningofthisextract,whichsupposesthatthefactthataresultissecuredbyappropriateconditionsfurnishesgroundforregardingitasundesigned,islesssuitabletoagravethinkerthantoaredoubtablechampionlikeMr.AllanQuartermain,whoactuallymakesuseofit."Atlasthewasdraggedforthuninjured,thoughinaverypiousandprayerfulframeofmind,"heismadetosayofanegrowhomhehadsavedbykillinganattackingbuffalo;"his'spirithadcertainlylookedthatway,'hesaid,orhewouldnowhavebeendead.AsIneverliketointerferewithtruepiety,Ididnotventuretosuggestthathisspirithaddeignedtomakeuseofmyeight-boreinhisinterest."66Dr.Grayappearstohaveralliedhiscorrespondentinhisreply,onhisnotionofanomniscientandomnipotentCreator,foreseeingallfutureeventsandconsequences,andyetnotresponsiblefortheresultsofthelawswhichHeordains.Atallevents,Mr.DarwinwriteshimagaininJulyofthesameyear:"Onewordmoreon'designedlaws'and'undesignedresults.'IseeabirdwhichIwantforfood,takemygunandkillit-Idothisdesignedly.Aninnocentandgoodmanstandsunderatreeandiskilledbyaflashoflightning.Doyoubelieve

(andIreallyshouldliketohear)thatGoddesignedlykilledthisman?Manyormostpeopledobelievethis;Ican'tanddon't.Ifyoubelieveso,doyoubelievethatwhenaswallowsnapsupagnatthatGoddesignedthatthatparticularswallowshouldsnapupthatparticulargnatatthatparticularinstant?Ibelievethatthemanandthegnatareinthesamepredicament.Ifthedeathofneithermannorgnataredesigned,Iseenogoodreasontobelievethattheirfirstbirthorproductionshouldbenecessarilydesigned."67WereadsuchwordswithalmostasmuchbewildermentasMr.Darwinsayshewrotethemwith.Itisalmostincrediblethatheshouldhavesoinextricablyconfusedthetwosensesoftheword"design"-soastoconfoundthequestionofintentionalactionwiththatoftheevidencesofcontrivance,thequestionoftheexistenceofageneralplaninGod'smind,inaccordancewithwhichallthingscometopass,withthatoftheexistenceofmarksofHishandincreationarisingfromintelligentadaptationofmeanstoends.Itisequallyincrediblethatheshouldpresentthecaseofaparticularswallowsnappingupaparticulargnatataparticulartimeas(tousehisownwords)"aposer,"whenhecouldscarcelyhavealreadyforgottenthatallChristians,atleast,havelongsincelearnedtounderstandthatthecareofGodextendsaseasilytotheinfinitelylittleastotheinfinitelygreat;thattheveryhairsofourheadarenumbered,andnotonesparrowfallstothegroundunnotedbyourHeavenlyFather.Yetthisseemstohimsoself-evidentlyunbelievable,thatherestshiscaseagainstGod'sdirectionofthelineofdevelopment-forthisisreallywhatheisarguingagainsthere-onitsobviousincredibility.

Andhefounditimpossibletoshakehimselffreefromhisconfusion.InNovemberofthesameyearhewroteagaintoDr.Gray:"IgrievetosaythatIcannothonestlygoasfarasyoudoaboutDesign.IamconsciousthatIaminanutterlyhopeless

muddle.Icannotthinkthattheworld,asweseeit,istheresultofchance;andyetIcannotlookateachseparatethingastheresultofDesign.Totakeacrucialexample,youleadmetoinfer...thatyoubelieve'thatvariationhasbeenledalongcertainbeneficentlines.'Icannotbelievethis;andIthinkyouwouldhavetobelieve,thatthetailoftheFantailwasledtovaryinthenumberanddirectionofitsfeathersinordertogratifythecapriceofafewmen.YetiftheFantailhadbeenawildbird,andhaduseditsabnormaltailforsomespecialend,astosailbeforethewind,unlikeotherbirds,everyonewouldhavesaid,'Whatabeautifulanddesignedadaptation.'Again,IsayIam,andshalleverremain,inahopelessmuddle."68Thereaderisapttoaskinwonderifwewouldnotberightinthinkingthefantail'staila"beautifulanddesignedadaptation,"underthecircumstancessupposed.Mr.Darwinactuallyfallshereintotheincredibleconfusionofadducingaperversionbymanofthelawsofnature,bywhichananimalisunfittedforitsenvironment,asanargumentagainstthedesignedusefulnessoftheselawsinfittinganimalstotheirenvironment.WemightaswellarguethatJael'snailwasnotdesignedlymadebecauseitwascapableofbeingadaptedtosofearfulause;thatthestylesofCaesar'sassassinscouldnothavebeenmanufacturedwithausefulintention.Nevertheless,inJune,1861,Mr.DarwinwritesagaintoDr.Gray:"Ihavebeenledtothinkmoreonthissubjectoflate,andgrievetosaythatIcometodiffermorefromyou.Itisnotthatdesignedvariationmakes,asitseemstome,mydeityof'NaturalSelection'superfluous,butratherfromstudying,lately,domesticvariation,andseeingwhatanenormousfieldofundesignedvariabilitythereisreadyfornaturalselectiontoappropriateforanypurposeusefultoeachcreature."69AndamonthlaterhewritestoMissJuliaWedgwood:"OwingtoseveralcorrespondentsIhavebeenledlatelytothink,orrathertotrytothinkoversomeofthechiefpointsdiscussedbyyou.

Buttheresulthasbeenwithmeamaze-somethinglikethinkingontheoriginofevil,towhichyouallude.Themindrefusestolookatthisuniverse,beingwhatitis,withouthavingbeendesigned;yet,whereonewouldmostexpectdesign,viz.inthestructureofasentientbeing,themoreIthinkonthesubject,thelessIcanseeproofofdesign.AsaGrayandsomeotherslookateachvariation,oratleastateachbeneficialvariation(whichA.Graywouldcomparewiththerain-drops70whichdonotfallonthesea,butontothelandtofertilizeit)ashavingbeenprovidentiallydesigned.YetwhenIaskhimwhetherhelooksateachvariationoftherock-pigeon,bywhichmanhasmadebyaccumulationapouterorfantailpigeon,asprovidentiallydesignedforman'samusement,hedoesnotknowwhattoanswer;andifhe,oranyone,admits[that]thesevariationsareaccidental,asfaraspurposeisconcerned(ofcoursenotaccidentalastotheircauseororigin),thenIcanseenoreasonwhyheshouldranktheaccumulatedvariationsbywhichthebeautifullyadaptedwoodpeckerhasbeenformed,asprovidentiallydesigned.Foritwouldbeeasytoimaginethelargecropofthepouter,ortailofthefantail,asofsomeusetobirds,inastateofnature,havingpeculiarhabitsoflife.Thesearetheconsiderationswhichperplexmeaboutdesign;butwhetheryouwillcaretohearthem,Iknownot."71ThemostcarelessreaderofthislettercannotfailrenewedlytofeelthatwhilewhatwasontrialbeforeMr.Darwin'sthoughtwasnottheargument"fromdesign"somuchasgeneralprovidence,yethefallshereagainintotheconfusionofconfininghisviewofGod'spossiblepurposeindirectinganycourseofeventstothemostproximateresult,asifitweretheindicationsofdesigninagivenorganismwhichhewasinvestigating.If,however,itistheexistenceofageneralandall-comprehendingplaninGod'smind,fortheworkingoutofwhichHedirectsandgovernsallthings,thatweareinquiringinto,theeverrecurringargument

fromthepouterandfantailpigeonsisirrelevant,proceedingasitdoesontheunexpressedpremisethatGod'sdirectionoftheirvariationscanbevindicatedonlyifthesevariationscanbeshowntobebeneficialtothepigeonsthemselvesandthatinastateofnature.ItisapparentlyanunthoughtthoughtwithMr.Darwinthattheabundanceofvariationscapableofmisdirectiononman'spartforhispleasureorprofit,whileofabsolutelynousetothebirdinastateofnature,andliabletoabuseforthebirdandformanintheartificialstateofdomestication,mayyetbealinkinagreatchainwhichinallitslinksispreordainedforgoodends-whethermorally,mentally,orevenphysically,whetherinthisworldorinthenext.Thisnarrownessofview,whichconfinedhisoutlooktotheimmediateproximateresult,playedsointothehandsofhisconfusionofthoughtabouttheword"design"asfromtheoutsetfatallytohandicaphisprogresstoareasonedconclusion.

ThehistoryofhisyieldingupChristianity,because,ashesaid,"itisnotsupportedbyevidence"72-thatis,becauseitsappropriateevidence,beinghistorical,isofakindwhichlayoutsideofhisknowledgeorpowersofestimation-wasthereforeparalleledbyhisgradualyieldingupofhisreasonedbeliefinGod,becausealltheevidencesofHisactivitiesarenotcapableofbeinglookedatintheprocessofadissectionunderthesimplemicroscope.WehaveseenhimatlastreachingapositioninwhichnoevidencewhichhecouldevenimaginewouldsufficetoprovethehistoricaltruthofChristianitytohim.Hewasfastdriftingintoasimilarpositionaboutdesign.HewritestoDr.Gray,apparentlyinSeptember,1861:"YourquestionwhatwouldconvincemeofDesignisaposer.IfIsawanangelcomedowntoteachusgood,andIwasconvincedfromothersseeinghimthatIwasnotmad,Ishouldbelieveindesign.IfIcouldbeconvincedthoroughlythatlifeandmindwasinan

unknownwayafunctionofotherimponderableforce,Ishouldbeconvinced.Ifmanwasmadeofbrassorironandnowayconnectedwithanyotherorganismwhichhadeverlived,Ishouldperhapsbeconvinced.Butthisischildishwriting."73IAndsoindeeditis,andinasenseinwhichMr.Darwinscarcelyintended.Butsuchwordsteachusveryclearlywheretherealdifficultylayinhisownmind.Lifeandmindwithhimwerefunctionsofmatter;andhecouldnotseethatanyotherconcauseinbringingnewbirthsintotheworld,couldbewitnessedtobythenatureoftheresults,thanthenaturalforcesemployedinthenaturalprocessofreproduction.Hebelievedfirmlythatindiscriminatevariation,reacteduponthroughnaturallawsbythestruggleforexistence,wasthesufficientaccountofeverydiscriminationinorganicnature-wastheveracausaofallformswhichlifetook;andbelievingthis,hecouldseenoneedofGod'sadditionalactivitytoproducetheverysameeffects,andcouldallownoevidenceofitsworking."Ihavelately,"hecontinuesinthelettertoDr.Grayjustquoted,"beencorrespondingwithLyell,who,Ithink,adoptsyourideaofthestreamofvariationhavingbeenledordesigned.Ihaveaskedhim(andhesayshewillhereafterreflectandanswerme)whetherhebelievesthattheshapeofmynosewasdesigned.IfhedoesIhavenothingmoretosay.Ifnot,seeingwhatFanciershavedonebyselectingindividualdifferencesinthenasalbonesofpigeons,Imustthinkthatitisillogicaltosupposethatthevariations,whichnaturalselectionpreservesforthegoodofanybeing,havebeendesigned.ButIknowthatIaminthesamesortofmuddle(asIhavesaidbefore)asalltheworldseemstobeinwithrespecttofreewill,yetwitheverythingsupposedtohavebeenforeseenorpre-ordained."74Andagain,afewmonthslater,stilllaboringunderthesameconfusion,hewritestothesamecorrespondent:"Ifanythingisdesigned,certainlymanmustbe:one's'innerconsciousness'(thoughafalseguide)

tellsoneso;yetIcannotadmitthatmen'srudimentarymammae...weredesigned.IfIwastosayIbelievedthis,IshouldbelieveitinthesameincrediblemannerastheorthodoxbelievetheTrinityinUnity.Yousaythatyouareinahaze;Iaminthickmud;...yetIcannotkeepoutofthequestion."75OnewonderswhetherMr.Darwin,inexaminingadoor-knockercarvedintheshapeofaface,wouldsaythathebelievedthehandlewas"designed,"butcouldnotadmitthatthecarvedfacewas"designed."Nevertheless,anincisedoutlineonabitofoldbone,thoughwithoutobvioususe,oracarelesschipontheedgeofaflint,thoughwithoutpossibleuse,wouldatoncebejudgedbyhimtobe"designed"-thatis,tobeevidence,ifnotofobviouscontrivance,yetcertainlyofintentionalactivity.Whyhecouldnotmakeasimilardistinctioninnaturalproductsremainsastandingmatterofsurprise.

Theyearsranon,however,andhiseyeswerestillholden;heneveradvancedbeyondeventheillustrationshehadgraspedatfromthefirsttosupporthisposition.In1867his"VariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication"appeared,andonFebruary8thofthatyearhewrotetoSirJosephHooker:"Ifinishmybook...byasingleparagraph,answering,orratherthrowingdoubt,insofarassolittlespacepermits,onAsaGray'sdoctrinethateachvariationhasbeenspeciallyorderedorledalongabeneficialline.Itisfoolishtotouchsuchsubjects,buttherehavebeensomanyallusionstowhatIthinkaboutthepartwhichGodhasplayedintheformationoforganicbeings,thatIthoughtitshabbytoevadethequestion."76InwritinghisAutobiographyin1876,helooksbackuponthis"argument"withpride,asonewhich"hasnever,asfarasIcansee,beenanswered."77Ithasaclaim,therefore,tobeconsideredsomethinglikeaclassicinthepresentdiscussion,andalthoughitdoesnotadvanceonestepeitherinforceorformbeyondthe

earlierletterstoDr.GrayandSirLyell,wefeelconstrainedtotranscribeithereinfull:"AnOmniscientCreator,"itruns,"musthaveforeseeneveryconsequencewhichresultsfromthelawsimposedbyHim.ButcanitbereasonablymaintainedthattheCreatorintentionallyordered,ifweusethewordsintheordinarysense,thatcertainfragmentsofrockshouldassumecertainshapessothatthebuildermighterecthisedifice?Ifthevariouslawswhichhavedeterminedtheshapeofeachfragmentwerenotpredeterminedforthebuilder'ssake,canitwithanygreaterprobabilitybemaintainedthatHespeciallyordainedforthesakeofthebreedereachoftheinnumerablevariationsinourdomesticanimalsandplants;-manyofthesevariationsbeingofnoservicetoman,andnotbeneficial,farmoreofteninjurious,tothecreaturesthemselves?DidHeordainthatthecropandtail-feathersofthepigeonshouldvaryinorderthatthefanciermightmakehisgrotesquepouterandfantailbreeds?DidHecausetheframeandmentalqualitiesofthedogtovaryinorderthatabreedmightbeformedofindomitableferocity,withjawsfittedtopindownthebullforman'sbrutalsport?Butifwegiveuptheprincipleinonecase-ifwedonotadmitthatthevariationsoftheprimevaldogwereintentionallyguidedinorderthatthegreyhound,forinstance,thatperfectimageofsymmetryandvigor,mightbeformed-noshadowofreasoncanbeassignedforthebeliefthatvariations,alikeinnatureandtheresultofthesamegenerallaws,whichhavebeenthegroundworkthroughnaturalselectionoftheformationofthemostperfectlyadaptedanimalsintheworld,manincluded,wereintentionallyandspeciallyguided.Howevermuchwemaywishit,wecanhardlyfollowProfessorAsaGrayinhisbelief'thatvariationhasbeenledalongcertainbeneficiallines,'likeastream'alongdefiniteandusefullinesofirrigation.'Ifweassumethateachparticularvariationwasfromthebeginningofalltimepreordained,theplasticityoforganization,whichleads

tomanyinjuriousdeviationsofstructure,aswellasthatredundantpowerofreproductionwhichinevitablyleadstoastruggleforexistence,and,asaconsequence,tothenaturalselectionorsurvivalofthefittest,mustappeartoussuperfluouslawsofnature.Ontheotherhand,anomnipotentandomniscientCreatorordainseverythingandforeseeseverything.Thuswearebroughtfacetofacewithadifficultyasinsolubleasisthatoffreewillandpredestination."78WereadwithanamazementwhichisakintoamusementthestringofquerieswithwhichMr.Darwinhereplieshisreaders,asifnoanswerwerepossibletoconceptionbuttheonewhichwoulddrive"theomnipotentandomniscientCreator"intoimpotencyandignorance,ifnotintonon-existence.Anargumentwhichhasneverbeenanswered!Whyshoulditbeanswered?Isitnotcompetenttoanymantostringlikequestionstogetheradinfinitumwithanairofvictory?"DidtheomnipotentandomniscientCreatorintentionallyorderthatbeetlesshouldvarytosoextremeanextentinformandcolorationsolelyinorderthatMr.Darwinmightinhisenthusiasticyoutharrangethemartisticallyinhiscabinet?DidhecausetheblackthorntogrowofsuchstrongandclosefiberinorderthatPatmightcuthisshillalahfromitandbreakhisneighbor'shead?DidMr.Darwinhimselfwriteandprintthesewordsinorderthathisfellowsmightwonderwhyandhowhewasinsuchamuddle?"Butthereisreallynoendtoit,unlesswearereadytoconfessthatanobjectmaybeputtoausewhichwasnot"theendofitsbeing";thattheremaybeintentionspossiblebeyondtheobviousproximateone;andthatthereisadistinctionbetweenanintentionalactionandacontrivance.ThefallacyofMr.Darwin'sreasoninghereoughtnottohavebeenhiddenfromhim,ashetellsusrepeatedlythatheearlylearnedthedangerofreasoningbyexclusion;andyetthatisexactlytheprocessemployedhere.

Dr.Graydidnotdelaylongtopointoutsomeoftheconfusionunderwhichhisfriendwaslaboring.79AndMr.Wallaceshortlyafterwardshowedthattherewasnomoredifficultyintracingthedivinehandinnaturalproduction,throughtheagencyofnaturalselection,thanthereisintracingthehandofmanintheformationoftheracesofdomesticatedanimals,throughartificialselection.Inneithercasedoesthereconfronttheoutwardeyeotherthanaseriesofformsproducedbynaturallaw;andintheonecaseaslittleastheotheristheselectingconcauseoftheoutsideagentexcludedbytheunbrokentraceablenessoftheprocessofdescent.80ButMr.Darwinwasimmovable.Oneoftheoddcircumstancesofthecasewasthathestillfeltabletoexpresspleasureinbeingspokenofasonewhosegreatservicetonaturalsciencelay"inbringingbacktoitTeleology."81Yetthisdidnotmeanthathehimselfbelievedinteleology;andinhisAutobiographywrittenin1876hesetsasidethewholeteleologicalargumentasinvalid.82

Norwasthesettingasideofteleologymerelythediscreditingofonetheisticproofinordertoclearthewayforothers.ThestrongacidofMr.Darwin'stheoryoftheoriginofmanateintotheveryheartoftheotherproofsassurely,thoughnotbythesamechannel,asithadeatenintothefabricoftheargumentfromdesign.Wehavealreadyseenhimspeakingofthedemandofthemindforasufficientcausefortheuniverseanditscontentsaspossessinggreatweightwithhim;andherealizedtheargumentativevalueofthehumanconviction,arisingfromthefeelingsofdependenceandresponsibility,thatthereisOneaboveusonwhomwedependandtowhomweareresponsible.Butboththeseargumentswere,inhisjudgment,directlyaffectedbyhisviewoftheoriginofman'smentalandmoralnature,asadevelopment,bymeansoftheinterworkingofnaturallawsalone,fromthegermofintelligencefoundin

brutes.WehaveseenhowuncompromisinglyhedeniedtoLyelltheneedorproprietyofpostulatinganyadditionalpowersoranydirectingenergyfortheproductionofman'smentalandmoralnature.InthesamespirithewritescomplaininglytoMr.Wallacein1869:"Icanseenonecessityforcallinginanadditionalandproximatecauseinregardtoman."83Thisbeingso,hefeltthathecouldscarcelytrustman'sintuitionsorconvictions.Andthushewasableattheendofhislife(1881)toacknowledgehis"inwardconviction...thattheUniverseisnottheresultofchance,"andatoncetoadd:"Butthenwithmethehorriddoubtalwaysariseswhethertheconvictionsofman'smind,whichhasbeendevelopedfromthemindoftheloweranimals,areofanyvalueoratalltrustworthy.Wouldanyonetrustintheconvictionsofamonkey'smind,ifthereareanyconvictionsinsuchamind?"84ItisillustrativeofMr.Darwin'sstrangeconfusionofthoughtonmetaphysicalsubjectsthathedoesnotappeartoperceivethatthisdoubt,ifvalidatall,oughttoaffectnotonlythereligiousconvictionsofmen,butalltheirconvictions;andthatit,therefore,underminestheverytheoryofman'sorigin,becauseofwhichitariseswithinhim.Thereisnotawhitmorereasontobelievethattheprocessesofphysicalresearchandthelogicallawsbymeansofwhichinferencesaredrawnandinductionsattainedaretrustworthy,thanthatthesehigherconvictions,basedonthesamementallaws,aretrustworthy;andtheoriginofman'smindfromabrutishsource,iffataltotrustinonementalprocess,isfataltotrustinalltheothers,throwingus,astheresultofsuchaplea,intosheerintellectualsuicide.

IndiscussingthesehumanconvictionsMr.Darwindrawsasharpdistinctionbetweenthosewhichappearedtohimtorestonfeelingandthatwhichspringsfromtheinstinctivecausaljudgmentanddemandsasufficientcausefortheuniverse,and

which,ashejudgedittobe"connectedwithreasonandnotwiththefeelings,""impressedhimashavingmuchmoreweight."TotheargumentfromourGodwardemotionsheallowsbutlittlevalue,althoughhelooksbackwithregretuponthetimewhenthegrandeurofaBrazilianforeststirredhisheartwithfeelingsnotonlyofwonderandadmirationbutalsoofdevotion,andfilledandelevatedhismind.85Hesadlyconfessesthatthegrandestsceneswouldnolongerawakensuchconvictionsandfeelingswithinhim,andacknowledgesthatheisbecomelikeamanwhoiscolor-blindandwhosefailuretoseeisofnovalueasevidenceagainsttheuniversalbeliefofmen.Buthemakesthisremarkonlyimmediatelytoendeavortorobitofitsforce.Heurgesthatallmenofallracesdonothavethisinwardconviction"oftheexistenceofoneGod";86andthenattemptstoconfoundtheconvictionwhichaccompaniestheemotionswhichhehasdescribed,ormoreproperlywhichquickensthem,andtotherealityandabidingnessofwhichtheyareundyingwitnesses,withtheemotionsthemselves,asifall"themovingexperiencesofthesoulinthepresenceofthesublimeraspectsofnature"wereresolvable"intomoodsoffeelings."87Hedoesmore;heattemptstoresolveallsuchmoodsoffeelingessentiallyintotheone"senseofsublimity";andthenassumesthatthissensemustbeitselfresolvableintostillsimplerconstituents,bywhichitmaybeprovedtobeacompositeofbestialelements;andtowitnesstonothingbeyondourbrutishorigin.88"Thestateofmind,"hewrites,"whichgrandscenesformerlyexcitedinme,andwhichwasintimatelyconnectedwithabeliefinGod,didnotessentiallydifferfromthatwhichisoftencalledthesenseofsublimity;andhoweverdifficultitmaybetoexplainthegenesisofthissense,itcanhardlybeadvancedasanargumentfortheexistenceofGod,anymorethanthepowerfulthoughvagueandsimilarfeelingsexcitedbymusic."89Hereisreasoning!Isit

thenafairconclusionthatbecausethe"senseofsublimity"nomorethanothersimilarfeelingsisitselfaproofofdivineexistence,thereforethefirmconvictionoftheexistenceofGod,whichis"intimatelyconnectedwith"afeelingsimilartosublimity,isalsowithoutevidentialvalue?ItisasifoneshouldreasonthatbecausethesenseofresentmentwhichisintimatelyconnectedwiththeslapthatIfeeltinglinguponmycheekdoesnotessentiallydifferfromthatwhichisoftencalledthesenseofindignation,whichdoesnotanymorethanotherlikefeelingsalwaysimplytheexistenceofhumanobjects,thereforethetinglingslapisnoevidencethatamantogiveitreallyexists!HowstrongaholdthisoddillusionofreasoninghaduponMr.Darwin'smindisillustratedbyanalmostcontemporarylettertoMr.E.Gurney,discussingtheoriginofcapacityforenjoymentofmusic,whichhecloseswiththefollowingwords:"Yoursimileofarchitectureseemstomeparticularlygood;forinthiscasetheappreciationalmostmustbeindividual,thoughpossiblythesenseofsublimityexcitedbyagrandcathedralmayhavesomeconnectionwiththevaguefeelingsofterrorandsuperstitioninoursavageancestors,whentheyenteredagreatcavernorgloomyforest.Iwish,"headds,semi-pathetically,"someonecouldanalysethefeelingofsublimity."90HeseemstothinkthattoanalyzethisfeelingwouldbetantamounttolettingourconvictionofGod'sexistenceescapeinavapor.

HeascribedmuchmoreweighttotheconvictionoftheexistenceofGod,whicharisesfromourcausaljudgment,anditwaschieflyunderpressureofthisinstinctofthehumanmind,bywhichweareforcedtoassignacompetentcauseforallbecoming,thathewascontinuallybeingcompelled"tolooktoaFirstCausehavinganintelligentmindinsomedegreeanalogoustothatofman,"andso"todeservetobecalledaTheist."Butasoften"thehorriddoubt...ariseswhetherthe

convictionsofman'smind,"anymorethanthoseofamonkey'smindfromsomethingsimilartowhichithasbeendeveloped,"areofanyvalueoratalltrustworthy."91Thegrowthofsuchdoubtsinhismindisnottraceableinfulldetail;butsomerecordofitisleftinthelettersthathavebeenpreservedforus.Forexample,in1860hewrotetoDr.Gray:"Icannotanyhowbecontentedtoviewthiswonderfuluniverse,andespeciallythenatureofman,andtoconcludethateverythingistheresultofbruteforce."92Again,"Icannotthinkthattheworld,asweseeit,istheresultofchance."93Again,in1861,hewritestoMissWedgwood:"Themindrefusestolookatthisuniverse,beingwhatitis,withouthavingbeendesigned."94Atthistimehedeservedtobecalledatheist.In1873hewrites,inreplytoaquerybyaDutchstudent:"Imaysaythattheimpossibilityofconceivingthatthisgrandandwondrousuniverse,withourconsciousselves,arosethroughchance,seemstomethechiefargumentfortheexistenceofaGod";butimmediatelyadds:"Butwhetherthisisanargumentofrealvalue,Ihaveneverbeenabletodecide."95Andin1876,afterspeakingof"theextremedifficultyorratherimpossibilityofconceivingthisimmenseandwonderfuluniverse,includingmanwithhiscapacityoflookingfarbackwardsandfarintofuturity,astheresultofblindchanceornecessity,"heimmediatelyadds:"Butthenarisesthedoubt,canthemindofman,whichhas,asIfullybelieve,beendevelopedfromamindaslowasthatpossessedbythelowestanimals,betrustedwhenitdrawssuchgrandconclusions?"96Nearlythesamewords,aswehaveseen,wererepeatedin1881.97Andheappearstohavehadthisbranchofthesubjectinhismindratherthanteleology,when,in1882,heshookhisheadvaguelywhentheDukeofArgyllurgedthatitwasimpossibletolookuponthecontrivancesofnaturewithoutseeingthattheyweretheeffectandexpressionofmind;andlookinghardathim,said:"Well,thatoftencomesovermewith

overwhelmingforce;butatothertimesitseemstogoaway."98

What,then,becameofhisinstinctivecausaljudgmentamidthesecrowdingdoubts?Itwasscarcelyeradicated.HecouldwritetoMr.Grahamaslateas1881:"Youhaveexpressedmyinwardconviction...thattheUniverseisnottheresultofchance."99But"inwardconviction"withMr.Darwindidnotmean"reasonedopinion"whichistobeheldanddefended,but"naturalandinstinctivefeeling"whichistobecorrected.Andhecertainlyallowedhiscausaljudgmentgraduallytofallmoreandmoreintoabeyance.InhislettertotheDutchstudent,in1873,heknewhowtoaddtohisavowalthathefelttheimpossibilityofconceivingofthisgranduniverseascauseless,thefurtheravowal,"Iamawarethatifweadmitafirstcause,themindstillcravestoknowwhenceitcame,andhowitarose,"100andthustodowhathecouldtothrowdoubtonthetheisticinference.Andhealsoknewhowtospeakasiftheagnosticinferencewerereasonableandphilosophical,everywheremaintaininghisrighttoassumelivingformstobeginwith,asaphilosopherassumesgravitation,101bywhich,asheiscarefultoexplain,hedoesnotmeanthattheseforms(orthisform)havebeen"created"intheusualsenseofthatword,but"onlythatweknownothingasyet[of]howlifeoriginates";102andwritingaslateas1878:"Astotheeternityofmatter,Ihavenevertroubledmyselfaboutsuchinsolublequestions."103Nevertheless,itisperfectlycertainthatneitherMr.Darwinnoranyoneelsecanrejectbothcreationandnon-creation,bothafirstcauseandtheeternityofmatter.AsProfessorFlinttrulypointsout,"wemaybelieveeitherinaself-existentGodorinaself-existentworld,andmustbelieveinoneortheother;wecannotbelieveinaninfiniteregressofcauses."104WhenMr.Darwinthrewdoubtonthephilosophicalconsistencyoftheassumptionofafirstcause,hewasboundto

investigatethehypothesisoftheeternityofmatter;anduntilthislattertaskwascompletedhewasboundtokeepsilenceonasubjectonwhichhehadsolittlerighttospeak.WherehispredilectionwouldcarryhimisplainfromthepleasurewithwhichhereadofDr.Bastian'sArchebiosisin1872,wishingthathecould"livetosee"it"provedtrue."105WeareregretfullyforcedtorecognizeinhiswholecourseofargumentadesiretoeliminatetheproofsofGod'sactivityintheworld;"hedidnotliketoretainGodinhisknowledge."

Furtherevidenceofthistrendmaybeobservedinthetoneoftheadditiontotheautobiographicalnoteswhichhemade,withespecialreferencetohisreligiousbeliefs,in1876,andinwhichhe,somewhatstrangely,includedafullantitheisticargument,developedinsoorderlyamannerthatitmaystandforusasacompleteexhibitofhisattitudetowardtheproblemofdivineexistence.Inthisremarkabledocument106hefirstdiscussestheargumentfromdesign,concludingthatthe"oldargumentfromdesigninNature,asgivenbyPaley,whichformerlyseemedtomesoconclusive,"fails"nowthatthelawofnaturalselectionhasbeendiscovered."Headdsthat"thereseemstobenomoredesigninthevariabilityoforganicbeings,andintheactionofnaturalselection,thaninthecoursewhichthewindblows,"andrefersthereadertothe"argument"givenattheendof"VariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication,"asonewhichhasneverbeenanswered.Havingsetthismoredetailedteleologyaside,henextexaminesthebroaderformoftheargumentfromdesign,whichrestsonthegeneralbeneficentarrangementoftheworld,andconcludesthatthegreatfactofsufferingisopposedtothetheisticinference,whiletheprevailinghappiness,inconjunctionwith"thepresenceofmuchsuffering,agreeswellwiththeviewthatallorganicbeingshavebeendevelopedthroughvariationandnaturalselection."

Nexthediscussesthe"mostusualargument"ofthepresentday"fortheexistenceofanintelligentGod,"that"drawnfromthedeepinwardconvictionandfeelingswhichareexperiencedbymostpersons."HespeakssadlyofhisownformerfirmconvictionoftheexistenceofGod,anddescribeshowfeelingsofdevotionwelledupwithinhiminthepresenceofgrandscenery;buthesetstheargumentsummarilyasideasinvalid.Finally,headducesthedemandsofthecausaljudgment,inapassagewhichhasalreadybeenquoted,butdiscardsit,too,withanexpressionofdoubtastothetrustworthinessofsuchgrandconclusionswhendrawnbyabrute-bredmindlikeman's.Hisconclusionisformulatedhelplessness:"Themysteryofthebeginningofallthingsisinsolublebyus;andIforonemustbecontenttoremainanAgnostic."Itwasoutofsuchareasonedpositionthathewrotein1879:"InmymostextremefluctuationsIhaveneverbeenanAtheistinthesenseofdenyingtheexistenceofGod.Ithinkthatgenerally(andmoreandmoreasIgrowolder),butnotalways,thatanAgnosticwouldbethemorecorrectdescriptionofmystateofmind."107NorcanwehelpcarryingoverthelightthusgainedtoaidusinexplainingthewordswrittentoJenathesameyear:Mr.Darwin"considersthatthetheoryofEvolutionisquitecompatiblewiththebeliefinaGod;butthatyoumustrememberthatdifferentpersonshavedifferentdefinitionsofwhattheymeanbyGod."108ItwouldbeaninterestingquestionwhatconceptionMr.Darwin,whobeganwithadeisticconception,hadcometowhenhereachedtheagnosticstageandspokefamiliarlyof"whatiscalledapersonalGod."109

Bysuchstagesasthesedidthisgreatmandriftfromhisearlytrustintoaninextinguishabledoubtwhethersuchamindasman'scanbetrustedinitsgrandconclusions;andbysuchreasoningasthisdidhesupporthissuicidalresults.Nomore

painfulspectaclecanbefoundinallbiographicalliterature;nomorestartlingdiscoveryoftheprocessbywhichevengreatandgoodmencancomegraduallytoastateofmindinwhich,despitetheirmorenobleinstincts,theycanbut

Judgeallnaturefromherfeetofclay,WithoutthewilltolifttheireyestoseeHerGodlikehead,crownedwithspiritualfire,Andtouchingotherworlds.

Theprocessthatwehavebeenobserving,ashas110beentrulysaid,isnotthatofanejectmentofreverenceandfaithfromthesystem(as,say,inthecaseofMr.Froude),orofanencystingofthem(as,say,withMr.J.S.Mill),butsimplyofanatrophyofthem,astheydissolvepainlesslyaway.InMr.Darwin'scasethisatrophywasaccompaniedbyasimilardeadeningofhishigheremotionalnature,bywhichhelosthispowerofenjoyingpoetry,music,andtoalargeextentscenery,andstoodlikesomegreattreeoftheforestwithbroad-reachingboughs,beneathwhichmenmayrestandrefreshthemselves,butwithdecayalreadymarkingitasitsown,asevidencedbythedeadnessofitsupperbranches.Hewasamandeadatthetop.

Itismoredifficulttotracethecourseofhispersonalreligiouslifeduringthislong-continuedatrophyingofhisreligiousconceptions.Hewasnotpermittedtoenteruponthisdevelopmentwithoutawordoffaithfuladmonition.Whenthe"OriginofSpecies"waspublishedin1859,hisoldfriendandpreceptor,ProfessorA.Sedgwick,appearstohaveforeseenthepossibledriftageofhisthought,andwrotehimthefollowingtouchingwords:"Ihavebeenlecturingthreedaysaweek(formerlyIgavesixaweek)withoutmuchfatigue,butIfindbythelossofactivityandmemory,andofallproductivepowers,

thatmybodilyframeissinkingslowlytowardstheearth.ButIhavevisionsofthefuture.Theyareasmuchapartofmyselfasmystomachandmyheart,andthesevisionsaretohavetheirantitypeinsolidfruitionofwhatisbestandgreatest.Butononeconditiononly-thatIhumblyacceptGod'srevelationofHimselfbothinHisworksandinHisword,anddomybesttoactinconformitywiththatknowledgewhichHeonlycangiveme,andHeonlycansustainmeindoing.IfyouandIdoallthis,weshallmeetinheaven."111TheappealhadcometoolatetoaidhisoldpupiltoconservehisChristianfaith;itwasalreadylongsincehehadbelievedthatGodhadeverspokeninwordandhewasfastdriftingtoapositionfromwhichhecouldwithdifficultybelievethatHehadspokeninHisworks.ItisnotapleasantletterthathewrotetoMrs.Boolein1866,inreplytosomeveryrespectfullyframedinquiriesastotherelationofhistheorytothepossibilityofbeliefininspirationandapersonalandgoodGodwhoexercisesmoralinfluenceonman,towhichheisfreetoyield.Thewayinwhichheavoidsreplyingtothesequestionsalmostseemstobeirritable,112andispossiblyanindextohisfeelingstowardthemattersinvolved.Nevertheless,hissympathywithsufferingandhiswillingnesstolendhishelptowardtheelevationofhisfellowmenremained;heevenaidedtheworkofChristianmissionsbycontributionsinmoney,113althoughhenolongersharedthehopesbywhichthosewerenervedwhocarriedthecivilizingmessagetotheirdegradedfellowbeings.Why,indeed,heshouldhavetrustedthenobleimpulsesofhisconscience,andbeenwillingtoactuponthem,whenhejudgedthatthebrutishoriginofman'swholementalnaturevitiatedallitsgrandconclusions,itmightpuzzleabettermetaphysicianthanhelaidclaimtobesatisfactorilytoexplain;buthishigherlifeseemstohavetakenthisdirection,anditischaracteristicofhimtoclosethelettertotheDutchstudent,writtenin1873,withsuchwordsasthese:"Thesafest

conclusionseemstobethatthewholesubjectisbeyondthescopeofman'sintellect;butmancandohisduty."114Butwhenthereisnoonetoshowusanytruth,whoistheretoshowusduty?Ifourconscienceisbutthechancegrowthofthebrutemind,hemmedinbyitsenvironmentandsqueezedintoanewformbythepressureofafierceandunmoralstruggleforexistence,whatmoralimperativehasitsuchasdeservesthehighnameof"duty"?115Certainlytheargumentisasvalidhereasthere.Butbythepowerofsodivineaninconsistency,Mr.Darwinwasenabledascitizen,friend,husband,andfathertodohisduty.Hehadnosharpsenseofsin;116butsofarasdutylaybeforehimheretainedatenderconscience.Andthus,asheapproachedtheendofhislongandlaboriouslife,hefeltabletosay:"Ifeelnoremorsefromhavingcommittedanygreatsin,buthaveoftenandoftenregrettedthatIhavenotdonemoredirectgoodtomyfellowcreatures";117andagain,astheendcameon,welearnthat"heseemedtorecognizetheapproachofdeath,andsaid,'Iamnottheleastafraidtodie."'118AndthushewentoutintothedarkwithoutGodinallhisthoughts;withnohopeforimmortality;andwithnokeennessofregretforallthehighandnobleaspirationsandalltheelevatingimaginingswhichhehadlostoutoflife.

Thatwemayappreciatehowsadasightwehavebeforeus,letuslookbackfromtheendtothebeginning.Westandatthedeathbedofamanwhom,incommonwithalltheworld,wemostdeeplyhonor.Hehasmadehimselfanamewhichwilllivethroughmanygenerations;andwithalhasmadehimselfbelovedbyallwhocameintoclosecontactwithhim.True,tender-hearted,andsympathetic,hehasintheretirementofinvalidismlivedalifewhichhasmovedtheworld.ButishisdeathjustthedeathweshouldexpectfromonewhohadoncegivenhimselftobeanambassadoroftheLord?Whenweturn

fromwhathehasdonetowhathehasbecome,canwesaythat,intheveryquintessenceofliving,hehasfulfilledthepromiseofthatlong-agoingenuousyouthwhosufferedsomethinglikeremorsewhenhebeatapuppy,andasherantoschool"prayedearnestlytoGodtohelphim"?Letuslookuponhiminthelightofacontrast.TherewasanotherCharles,livingintheworldwithhim,butafewyearshissenior,whosechildhood,too,wasblessedwithavividsenseofthenearnessofheaven.He,too,hasleftussomeequallysimple-heartedandtouchingautobiographicalnotes;andfromthemwelearnthathis,too,wasaprayingchildhood."AsfarbackasIcanremember,"hewrites,"IhadthehabitofthankingGodforeverythingIreceived,andaskingHimforeverythingIwanted.IfIlostabook,oranyofmyplaythings,IprayedthatImightfindit.Iprayedwalkingalongthestreets,inschoolandoutofschool,whetherplayingorstudying.Ididnotdothisinobediencetoanyprescribedrule.Itseemednatural.IthoughtofGodasaneverywhere-presentBeing,fullofkindnessandlove,whowouldnotbeoffendedifchildrentalkedtoHim.IknewHecaredforsparrows."119ThusCharlesHodgeandCharlesDarwinbegantheirlivesonasomewhatsimilarplane.Andbothwriteintheiroldageoftheirchildhood'sprayerswithsomethinglikeasmile.Buthowdifferentthequalityofthesesmiles!CharlesDarwin'ssmileisalmostasneer:"Whenindoubt,"hewrites,"IprayedearnestlytoGodtohelpme,andIwellrememberthatIattributedmysuccesstotheprayersandnottomyquickrunning,andmarvelledhowgenerallyIwasaided."120CharlesHodge'ssmileisthepleasantsmileofonewholooksbackonsmallbeginningsfromawell-wonheight."Therewaslittlemoreinmyprayersandpraises,"hewrites,"thanintheworshiprenderedbythefowlsoftheair.Thismildformofnaturalreligiondidnotamounttomuch."121HisprayingchildhoodwasCharlesDarwin'shighestreligiousattainment;hispraying

childhoodwastoCharlesHodgebuttheinconsiderableseedoutofwhichweremarvelouslytounfoldallthegracesofatrulydevoutlife.Startingfromacommoncenter,thesetwogreatmen,withmuchofnaturalendowmentincommon,trodoppositepaths;andwhentheshadesofdeathgatheredaroundthem,onecouldbutfacethedepthsofdarknessinhisgreatnessofsoulwithoutfear,andyieldlikeamantotheinevitablelotofall;theother,bathedinalightnotoftheearth,roseinspirituponhisdeadselftohigherthings,repeatingtohislovedonesabouthimthecomfortingwordsofasublimehope:"Whyshouldyougrieve?TobeabsentfromthebodyistobewiththeLord,tobewiththeLordistoseetheLord,toseetheLordistobelikeHim."122Theoneconceivedthathehadreachedtheendoflife,andlookedbackuponthelittlespacethathadbeenallottedtohimwithoutremorse,indeed,butnotwithoutasenseofitsincompleteness;theothercontemplatedallthathehadbeenenabledtodothroughthemanyyearsofrichfruitagewhichhadfallentohim,asbutchildhood'spreparationforthetruelifewhichindeathwasbutdawninguponhim.123

Endnotes:

1. ReprintedfromThePresbyterianReview,ix.1888,pp.569-601.

2. FirstpublishedintheDeutscheRundschau,thenintheSeparat-AusgabeofProfessorHaeckel'spaper:"DieNaturanschauungvonDarwin,GoetheundLamarck,"p.60,note17.AfterwardalsoinEnglishjournals:seeTheAcademy,Nos.545,546,547,548(xxii.1882).

3. TheNationalReformerforOctober29th,1882.4. "TheLifeandLettersofCharlesDarwin,includingan

autobiographicalchapter."Editedbyhisson,Francis

Darwin.Inthreevolumes.London:JohnMurray,1888.Sevenththousand,revised.Allreferencesinthepresentpaperaretothisedition.

5. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.304:writtenin1879.6. Blackwood'sEdinburghMagazine,cxliii.1888,p.105.7. Rev.JohnYardley,intheModernReview,July,1882,p.

504.8. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.166.9. Dr.W.B.Carpenter,intheModernReview,July,1882,pp.

523,524.10. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.311(1876).11. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.31.12. Ibid.,i.p.45.13. AninterestingindicationthatinMr.Darwin'smature

judgmenttheBibledoesteachthedoctrinesoftheCreed.14. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.45.15. Ibid.,i.p.165.16. Ibid.,i.p.48.17. Ibid.,i.p.49.18. Ibid.,i.p.188.19. Ibid.,i.p.188.20. Ibid.,i.pp.171.21. Ibid.,i.p.177f.22. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.171.23. Ibid.,i.p.47.24. Ibid.,i.p.199.25. Ibid.,i.p.197.26. Ibid.,i.p.45.27. Ibid.,i.p.262.28. Ibid.,i.p.45.29. Cf.hiswordsofappreciationofmissionarywork,ibid.,i.p.

264.Seealsoi.p.246.30. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.307f.

31. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.100ff.32. Ibid.,i.p.68.33. Ibid.,ii.p.1.34. Ibid.,i.p.307.35. Ibid.,ii.p.181.36. Ibid.,i.pp.308f.37. NationalReformer,xl.1882,p.292.38. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.307-309.39. Seetheminfull,"LifeandLetters,"i.p.308.Itis

interestingtoobservethattheyallcirclearoundmiracles,evincingthatMr.Darwinfounddifficultyinpersuadinghimselfthatthesemiraclesdidnottakeplace.

40. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.308,309.41. Notetheword"directly."42. "LifeandLetters,"ii.pp.288f.43. Ibid.,ii.p.152.44. Ibid.,i.p.340.45. Ibid.,ii.p.143.46. Ibid.,i.p.380.47. Ibid.,i.p.388;cf.iii,p.39,note$,writtenin1863.48. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.127,128.49. Inthecaseofmanyothersithasnotprovedinevitable,as

e.g.inthecaseofDr.W.B.Carpenter,whoseopinionisworthquotinghere,becausehisgeneralconceptionoftherelationofGodtotheuniverseseemstobeverysimilartowhatMr.Darwin'soriginallywas."Tomyself,"hewrites,inaninterestingpaperon"TheDoctrineofEvolutioninitsRelationstoTheism"(ModernReview,October,1882,p.685),"theconceptionofacontinuityofactionwhichrequirednodeparturetomeetspecialcontingencies,becausetheplanwasall-perfectinthebeginning,isafathigherandnobleronethanthatofasuccessionofinterruptions....Andindescribingtheprocessofevolution

intheordinarylanguageofScience,asdueto'secondarycauses,'wenomoredispensewithaFirstCause,thanwedowhenwespeakofthosePhysicalForces,which,fromtheTheisticpointofview,aresomanydiversemodesofmanifestationofoneandthesamePower.NordoweintheleastsetasidetheideaofanoriginalDesign,whenweregardtheseadaptationswhicharecommonlyattributedtospecialexertionsofcontrivingpowerandwisdom,astheoutcomeofanall-comprehensiveIntelligencewhichforesawthattheproductwouldbe'good,'beforecallingintoexistencethegermfromwhichitwouldbeevolved."

50. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.313.51. Ibid.,iii.p.236(1878).52. Seee.g.i.pp.305,306(1871).53. Ibid.,ii.pp.210f.,writtenOctober11th,1859.54. Ibid.,ii.p.174.55. Ibid.,iii.p.151.56. "TheDescentofMan,"i.pp.62ff.57. JournalofScience,xix.1882,pp.751f.58. "LifeandLetters,"ii.p.228.59. Ibid.,i.p.312.60. Ibid.,i.p.307.61. Ibid.,ii.p.9(1837).62. WehaveseenthatDr.W.B.Carpenterrefusestobeheldin

Mr.Darwin'slogic,althoughwithhimholdingtoasomewhatdeisticconceptionofthedivinerelationtotheprocessofdevelopment."AttachwhatweightwemaytothephysicalcauseswhichhavebroughtaboutthisEvolution,"heinsists,"IcannotseehowitispossibletoconceiveofanybutaMoralCausefortheendowmentsthatmadetheprimordialgermsusceptibleoftheiraction"(loc.cit.,p.680)."Andintheso-calledlawsofOrganicEvolution,Iseenothingbuttheorderlyandcontinuousworking-outofthe

originalIntelligentDesign"(p.681).Dr.W.H.Dallingeralsobeginswithasimilarconception(comparingGod'srelationtotheuniversetotherelationtohisworkofamachinistwhoconstructsacalculatingmachinetothrownumbersofoneorderforagiventimeandthenintroducesuddenlyanewseries,"byprevisedandpreordainedarrangement"),andyetrefusestheconclusion."Evolution,"heargues,"likegravitation,isonlyamethod;andtheself-adjustmentsdemonstratedinthe'originofspecies'onlymakeit,toreason,theclearer,thatvariationandsurvivalisamethodthattookitsorigininmind.Itistruethattheeggofamoth,andtheeyeofadog-fish,andtheforearmofatigermustbewhattheyaretoaccomplishtheendoftheirbeing.Butthatonlyshows,asweshadeourmentaleyes,andgazebacktothebeginning,themagnificenceofthedesignthatwasinvolvedinnature'sbeginning,soastobeevolved,bythedesignedrhythmofnature'smethods."SeethewholepassageinhiseloquentFernleylecturefor1887,on"TheCreator,andwhatwemayKnowoftheMethodofCreation"(London:T.Woolmer,1887),pp.61f.

63. "LifeandLetters,"ii.pp.303,304.64. Howmuchoftheargumentdependsonthisword!65. "LifeandLetters,"ii.pp.311,312.66. Dr.Flintseriouslyrefutesthisstrangereasoning,whichhe

justlyspeaksofas"irrational,"andonlyexplicablein"saneminds"fromtheexigenciesofforegoneconclusions,inhis"Theism,"lecturevi.(ed.3,pp.189f.).

67. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.314,315.68. Ibid.,ii.pp.353,354.69. "LifeandLetters,"ii.p.373.70. Mr.FrancisDarwinindicatesinanotethatDr.Gray's

metaphoroccursintheessay"DarwinandhisReviewers"("Darwiniana,"p.157):"Thewholeanimatelifeofacountry

dependsabsolutelyuponthevegetation,thevegetationupontherain.Themoistureisfurnishedbytheocean,israisedbythesun'sheatfromtheocean'ssurface,andiswaftedinlandbythewinds.Butwhatmultitudesofrain-dropsfallbackintotheocean-areasmuchwithoutafinalcauseastheincipientvarietieswhichcometonothing!Doesitthereforefollowthattherainswhicharebestoweduponthesoilwithsuchruleandaverageregularitywerenotdesignedtosupportvegetableandanimallife?"

71. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.313,314.72. NationalReformer,October29th,1882.73. "LifeandLetters,"ii.p.377.74. Ibid.,ii.p.378.75. Ibid.,ii.p.382.76. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.62.77. Ibid.,i.p.309.78. "VariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication,"

authorizededition,ii.1868,pp.515f.79. WithreferencetothefirstsimileoftheextractDr.Gray

pointedlyurged:"ButinMr.Darwin'sparallel,tomeetthecaseofnatureaccordingtohisownviewofit,notonlythefragmentsofrock(answeringtovariation)shouldfall,buttheedifice(answeringtonaturalselection)shouldrise,irrespectiveofwillorchoice!"Mr.Darwin("LifeandLetters,"iii.p.84)callsthis"agoodslap,"butthinksitdoesnotessentiallymeetthepoint.Mr.F.Darwin(loc.cit.)answersitlamelybyobservingthataccordingtohisfather'sparallelnaturalselectionshouldbethearchitect,nottheedifice.Doarchitectsgetalongwithout"willorchoice"?

80. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.116.81. Ibid.,iii.p.189:"WhatyousayaboutTeleologypleasesme

especially,andIdonotthinkthatanyoneelsehasevernoticedthepart."ThiswaswrittenJune5th,1874.Seeiii.p.

255,andii.p.201.82. Ibid.,i.pp.309,310.83. Ibid.,iii.p.116.84. Ibid.,i.p.316.85. ThisparagraphisareportofwhatMr.Darwinsays,writing

inhisAutobiographyin1876:see"LifeandLetters,"i.pp.311,312.

86. Mr,Darwinwritesmoreguardedlyherethaninhis"DescentofMan,"i.1871,p.63,wherehedeclares,chieflyonSirJohnLubbock'sauthority,thatthereare"numerousraces"whohavenoideaof"oneormoregods,andwhohavenowordsintheirlanguagestoexpresssuchanidea."ProfessorFlint,inhis"AntitheisticTheories,"lecturevii.,withitsappropriateappendixes,hassiftedthisquestionoffact,withtheresultofshowingthevirtualuniversalityofreligion.

87. SeethiscriticismproperlypressedbyDr.NoahPorter,inNewEnglanderandYaleReview,forMarch,1888,p.207.

88. Theelementswhichinhisviewunitetoformareligiousemotionareenumeratedforusinthe"DescentofMan,"i.p.65:"Thefeelingofreligiousdevotionisahighlycomplexone,consistingoflove,completesubmissiontoanexaltedandmysterioussuperior,astrongsenseofdependence,fear,reverence,gratitude,hopeforthefuture,andperhapsotherelements."How,inthesecircumstances,hecanspeakofhisstateofmind,involving"feelingsofwonder,admiration,anddevotion"("LifeandLetters,"i.p.311),asonewhich"didnotessentiallydifferfromthatwhichisoftencalledthesenseofsublimity,"issomewhatmysterious.Butwemustrememberthateventhiscomplexofemotionswas,inMr.Darwin'sview,distantlyapproachedbycertainmentalstatesofdogsandmonkeys.Nevertheless,thewholedriftofthepassageinthe"Descent

ofMan"istocredittheresultsofman'sreasoningfacultiesasheprogressedmoreandmoreinthepowertousethem;whilethedriftofthepresentpassageistodiscreditthem.

89. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.312.90. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.186,writtenJuly8th,1876.91. Ibid.,i.p.316:writtenin1881.92. Ibid.,ii.p.312.93. Ibid.,ii.p.353.94. Ibid.,i.pp.313f.95. Ibid.,i.p.306.96. Ibid.,i.pp.312f.97. Ibid.,i.p.316.98. Ibid.,i.p.316.99. Ibid.,i.p.316.100. "LifeandLetters,"i.pp.306,307.101. E.g.ii.p.210.102. Ibid.,ii.p.251.103. Ibid.,iii.p.236.104. "Theism,"ed.3,p.120.Seealsonotexxii.p.390:"Creation

istheonlytheoryoftheoriginoftheuniverse.Evolutionassumeseitherthecreationortheself-existenceoftheuniverse.Theevolutionistmustchoosebetweencreationandnon-creation.Theyareopposites.Thereisnointermediateterm.Theattempttointroduceone-theUnknowable-canleadtonoresult;forunlesstheUnknowableiscapableofcreating,itcanaccountfortheoriginofnothing."Thewholenoteshouldberead.

105. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.169.106. Ibid.,i.pp.307-313.107. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.304.108. Ibid.,i.p.307.109. Ibid.,iii.p.236(1878).110. F.W.H.Myers,intheFortnightlyReview,January,1888,

p.103.111. "LifeandLetters,"ii.p.250.112. "LifeandLetters,"iii.pp.63,64.113. Ibid.,iii,pp.127,128.114. Ibid.,i.p.307.115. WhatMr.Darwinactuallytaughtastothemoralsensemay

beconvenientlyreadinthethirdchapterofthe"DescentofMan.""Thissense,"hesays,"asMackintoshremarks,'hasarightfulsupremacyovereveryotherprincipleofhumanaction;'itissummedupinthatshortbutimperiouswordought,sofullofhighsignificance"(i.1871,p.67).Butwhatgivesthis"imperiouswordought"sorightfulasupremacy?Mr.Darwinteachesthat"themoralsenseisfundamentallyidenticalwiththesocialinstincts"(pp.93f.),andthat"theimperiouswordoughtseemsmerelytoemploytheconsciousnessoftheexistenceofapersistentinstinct,eitherinnateorpartlyacquired,"sothat"wehardlyusethewordoughtinametaphoricalsensewhenwesayhoundsoughttohunt,pointerstopoint,andretrieverstoretrievetheirgame"(p.88).Hehas,indeed,"endeavoredtoshowthatthesocialinstincts-theprimeprincipleofman'smoralconstitution-withtheaidofactiveintellectualpowersandtheeffectsofhabit,naturallyleadtothegoldenrule,'Asyewouldthatmenshoulddotoyou,doyetothemlikewise;'andthisliesatthefoundationofmorality"(pp.101,102).Butthisisnotbecausethegoldenruleisanymoretruly"moral"thananyotherrule."Anyanimalwhatever,endowedwithwell-markedsocialinstincts,wouldinevitablyacquireamoralsenseorconscience,assoonasitsintellectualpowershadbecomeaswelldeveloped,ornearlyaswelldeveloped,asinman"(pp.68,69);butnotnecessarily"exactlythesamemoralsenseasours"(p.70).Forinstance,beessodevelopingamoralsensewould

developonewhichrequireditasadutytomurdertheirbrothersandfertiledaughters.Thusthemorallawhasnomoresanctionthanarisesfromitsbeingthebestmodeofconservingthecommongood,asitisknowninpresentconditions;anditsveryoppositemightbeasmoralandasimperiousunderchangedconditions.Mr.Darwin'sowntenderconsciencewasthus,inhisowneyes,nothingmorethanthedissatisfactionthatarosefromanunsatisfiedinheritedinstinct(p.69)!

116. Howinevitablethiswasmaybeseenfromthetemperatediscussionoftherelationofnaturalisticevolutiontothesenseofsin,inJohnTulloch's"TheChristianDoctrineofSin,"lecturei.

117. "LifeandLetters,"iii.p.359(1879).118. Ibid.,iii.p.358.119. "TheLifeofCharlesHodge,"byhisson,A.A.Hodge,1880,

p.13.120. "LifeandLetters,"i.p.31.121. "Life,"p.13.122. "Life,"p.582.123. SincethispaperwasputintotypeanewletterofMr.

Darwin'sonhisreligiousviewshascometolight,whichadds,indeed,nothingtowhatwealreadyknew,butwhichissocharacteristicastodeserveinsertionhere.ItisdatedMarch11th,1878,andrunsasfollows:"DearSir:Ishouldhavebeenverygladtohaveaidedyouinanydegreeifithadbeeninmypower.Buttoansweryourquestionwouldrequireanessay,andforthisIhavenotstrength,beingmuchoutofhealth.Nor,indeed,couldIhaveanswereditdistinctlyandsatisfactorilywithanyamountofstrength.ThestrongestargumentfortheexistenceofGod,asitseemstome,istheinstinctorintuitionwhichweall(asIsuppose)feelthattheremusthavebeenanintelligentbeginnerofthe

Universe;butthencomesthedoubtanddifficultywhethersuchintuitionsaretrustworthy.Ihavetouchedononepointofdifficultyinthetwolastpagesofmy'VariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication,'butIamforcedtoleavetheprobleminsoluble.Nomanwhodoeshisdutyhasanythingtofear,andmayhopeforwhateverheearnestlydesires.-DearSir,yoursfaithfully,Ch.Darwin."(SeeTheBritishWeeklyforAugust3d,1888.)

Date post:	28-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Studies in Theology - Monergism in Th… · 2. christian supernaturalism 3. the idea of systematic...

Documents