Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation: A Book for the Times
by James B. Walker · English · Gutenberg #44644 · 343,238 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation: A Book for the Times
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation: A Book for the Times
Author: James B. Walker
Release date: January 11, 2014 [eBook #44644]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44644
Credits: Produced by Sam W. and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHY OF THE PLAN OF SALVATION: A BOOK FOR THE TIMES ***
Transcriber's Note
There is a small amount of Hebrew, e.g. קדש and Greek, e.g. ἅγιος in
this book. If this text does not display correctly, you may wish to
adjust your font or browser settings.
PHILOSOPHY
OF THE
PLAN OF SALVATION.
A Book for the Times.
BY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
_A NEW EDITION REVISED._
THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY,
56, Paternoster Row;
65, St. Paul's Churchyard, and
164, Piccadilly.
PREFACE.
I. OCCASION OF THE WORK.
During some of the first years of the writer's active life he was a
sceptic; he had a friend who has since become well known as a lawyer
and legislator, who was also sceptical in his opinions. We were both
conversant with the common evidences of Christianity. None of them
convinced our minds of the Divine origin of the Christian religion,
although we both thought ourselves willing to be convinced by
sufficient evidence. Circumstances, which need not be named, led the
writer to examine the Bible, and to search for other evidence than
that which had been commended to his attention by a much-esteemed
clerical friend, who presided in one of our colleges. The result of
the examination was a thorough conviction in the author's mind of the
truth and Divine authority of Christianity. He supposed at that time
that, in his inquiries, he had adopted the only true method to settle
the question, in the minds of all intelligent inquirers, in relation
to the Divine origin of the Christian religion. Subsequent reflection
has confirmed this opinion.
Convinced himself of the Divine origin of the religion of the Bible,
the author commenced a series of letters to convey to his friend the
evidence which had satisfied his own mind beyond the possibility of
doubt. The correspondence was, by the pressure of business
engagements, interrupted. The investigation was continued, however,
when leisure would permit, for a number of years. The results of this
investigation are contained in the following chapters. The epistolary
form in which a portion of the book was first written will account for
some repetitions, and some varieties in the style, which otherwise
might not have been introduced.
II. REASONS FOR PRESENTING THE WORK TO THE PUBLIC.
Book-making is not the author's profession. But after examining his
own private library, and one of the best public libraries in the
country, he could find no treatise in which the course of reasoning
was pursued which will be found in the following pages. Dr. Chalmers,
in closing his Bridgewater Treatise, seems to have had an apprehension
of the plan and importance of such an argument; and had he devoted
himself to the development of the argument suggested, the effort would
have been worth more to the world than all the Bridgewater Treatises
put together, including his own work.
Coleridge has somewhere said that the Levitical economy is an enigma
yet to be solved. To thousands of intelligent minds it is not only an
enigma, but it is an absolute barrier to their belief in the Divine
origin of the Bible. The solution of the enigma was the clue which
aided the writer to escape from the labyrinth of doubt; and now,
standing upon the rock of unshaken faith, he offers the clue that
guided him to others.
A work of this kind is called for by the spirit of the age. Although
the signs of the times are said to be propitious, yet there are
constant developments of undisciplined and unsanctified mind both in
Europe and America, which furnishes matter of regret to the
philanthropist and the Christian. A struggle has commenced--is going
on at present; and the heat of the contest is constantly increasing,
in which the vital interests of man, temporal and spiritual, are
involved. In relation to man's spiritual interests, the central point
of controversy is the 'cross of Christ.' In New England, some of those
who have diverged from the doctrine of the fathers have wandered into
a wilderness of speculation which, were it not for the evil
experienced by themselves and others, ought, perhaps, to be pitied as
the erratic aberrations of an unsettled reason, rather than blamed as
the manifestations of minds determinately wicked. The most painful
indication connected with this subject is, that these guilty dreamers
are not waked from their reveries by the rebuke of men whose position
and relations in society demand it at their hands.
The west, likewise, is overrun by sects whose teachers, under the
name of Reformers, or some other inviting appellation, are using every
effort to seduce men from the spiritual doctrines and duties of the
gospel, or to organize them into absolute hostility against Christ.
These men are not wanting in intellect, or in acquired knowledge, and
their labours have prejudiced the minds of great numbers against the
spiritual truths of the gospel, and rendered their hearts callous to
religious influence. These facts, in the author's opinion, render such
a volume as he has endeavoured to write necessary, in order to meet
the exigencies of the times.
* * * * *
*** The present edition has been carefully revised; and has been
slightly modified on one or two minor points, to which exception had
been taken, or which appeared obscure in expression.--1881.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER PAGE
I. Man will worship--he will become assimilated to
the character of the object that he worships--
Character of heathen deities defective and
unholy--From this corrupting worship man has
no power to extricate himself 9
II. The design and necessity of the bondage in Egypt 21
III. Miracles--particularly the miracles which
accompanied the deliverance of the Israelites
from bondage in Egypt 25
IV. What was necessary as the first step in the
process of revelation 34
V. The necessity of affectionate obedience to God;
and the manner of producing that obedience in
the hearts of the Israelites 36
VI. The design and necessity of the Moral Law 41
VII. The development of the idea of holiness, and its
transfer to Jehovah as an attribute 45
VIII. The origin of the ideas of justice and mercy, and
their transfer to the character of Jehovah 53
IX. The transition from the material system, by which
religious ideas were conveyed through the senses,
to the spiritual system, in which abstract ideas
were conveyed by words and parables 61
X. The medium of conveying to men perfect instruction
in doctrine and duty 66
XI. Some of the peculiar proofs of the Messiahship of
Christ 70
XII. The condition in life which it was necessary the
Messiah should assume in order to benefit the
human family in the greatest degree, by his
example and instructions 75
XIII. The essential principles which must, according to
the nature of things, lie at the foundation of
the instruction of Christ 81
XIV. Faith, the exercise through which truth reaches
and affects the soul 82
XV. The manifestations of God which would be necessary,
under the new and spiritual dispensation, to
produce in the soul of man affectionate obedience 89
XVI. The influence of faith in Christ upon the moral
disposition and moral powers of the soul 117
XVII. The design and the importance of the means of
grace--prayer--praise--preaching 133
XVIII. The agency of God in carrying on the work of
redemption, and the manner in which that agency
is exerted 146
XIX. The practical effects of the system as exemplified
in individual cases 150
PHILOSOPHY OF THE PLAN OF SALVATION.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.
MAN WILL WORSHIP--HE WILL BECOME ASSIMILATED TO THE CHARACTER OF THE
OBJECT THAT HE WORSHIPS--CHARACTER OF HEATHEN DEITIES DEFECTIVE AND
UNHOLY--FROM THIS CORRUPTING WORSHIP MAN HAS NO POWER TO EXTRICATE
HIMSELF.
There are three facts, each of them fully developed in the experience
of the human family, a consideration of which will prepare the mind
for the investigation which follows. When considered in their relation
to each other, and in their bearing upon the moral interests of
mankind, they will be seen to be of exceeding importance. We will
adduce these facts, in connection with the statements and principles
upon which they rest, and show how vital are the interests which
depend upon them.
THE FIRST FACT STATED.
There is in the nature of man, or in the circumstances in which he is
conditioned, something which leads him to recognise and worship a
superior being. What that _something_ is, is not important in our
present inquiry:--whether it be a constitutional instinct inwrought by
the Maker--whether it be a deduction of universal reason, inferring a
first cause from the things that are made--whether it be the effect of
tradition, descending from the first worshippers, through all the
tribes of the human family--whether any or all of these be the cause,
the fact is the same--_Man is a religious being: HE WILL WORSHIP._
In view of this propension of human nature, philosophers, in seeking a
generic appellation for man, have denominated him a "religious
animal." The characteristic is true of him in whatever part of the
world he may be found, and in whatever condition; and it has been true
of him in all ages of which we have any record, either fabulous or
authentic.
Navigators have, in a few instances, reported that isolated tribes of
men, whom they visited, recognised the existence of no superior being:
subsequent researches, however, have generally corrected the error;
and, in all cases, when it has been supposed that a tribe of men was
found believing in no god, the fact has been stated as an evidence of
their degradation below the mass of their species, and of their
approximation to the confines of brute nature. Of the whole family of
man, existing in all ages, and scattered over the four quarters of the
globe, and in the isles of the sea, there is scarcely one
well-authenticated exception to the fact, that, moved by an impulse of
nature, or the force of circumstances, man worships something which he
believes to be endowed with the attributes of a superior being.
THE SECOND FACT STATED.
The second fact, connected as it is, by the nature of things, with the
preceding, assumes the highest degree of importance. It may be stated
in the following terms:--_Man_, by worshipping, _becomes assimilated
to the moral character of the object which he worships_. This is an
invariable principle, operating with the certainty of cause and
effect. The worshipper looks upon the character of the object which he
worships as the standard of perfection. He therefore condemns
everything in himself which is unlike, and approves of everything
which is like that character. The tendency of this is to lead him to
abandon everything in himself, and in his course of life, which is
condemned by the character and precepts of his god, and to conform
himself to that standard which is approved by the same criterion. The
worshipper desires the favour of the object worshipped, and this,
reason dictates, can be obtained only by conformity to the will and
the character of that object. To become assimilated to the image of
the object worshipped must be the end of desire with the worshipper.
His aspirations, therefore, every time he worships, do, from the
nature of the case, assimilate his character more and more to the
model of the object that receives his homage.
To this fact the whole history of the idolatrous world bears
testimony. Without an exception, the character of every nation and
tribe of the human family has been formed and modified, in a great
degree, by the character attributed to their gods.
From the history of idolatrous nations we will cite a number of
familiar cases, confirmatory of the foregoing statement, that man
becomes like the object of his worship.
A most striking instance is that of the Scythians, and other tribes of
the Northmen, who subdued and finally annihilated the Roman power.
Odin, Thor, and others of their supposed deities, were ideas of
hero-kings, bloodthirsty and cruel, clothed with the attributes of
deity, and worshipped. Their worship turned the milk of human kindness
into gall in the bosoms of their votaries, and they seemed, like
bloodhounds, to be possessed of a horrid delight when they were
revelling in scenes of blood and slaughter. It being believed that one
of their hero-gods, after destroying great numbers of the human race,
destroyed himself, it hence became disreputable to die in bed, and
those who did not meet death in battle frequently committed suicide,
supposing that to die a natural death might exclude them from favour
in the hall of Valhalla.
Among the gods of the Greeks and Romans there were some names, in the
early ages of their history, to which some virtuous attributes were
attached; but the conduct and character generally attributed to their
gods were marked deeply with such traits as heroism, vengeance,
caprice, and lust. In the later history of these nations, their
idolatry degenerated in character, and became a system of most
debasing tendency.
The heroism fostered by idolatry was its least injurious influence.
Pope's couplet, had he thrown a ray or two of light across the
background of the dark picture, would have been a correct delineation
of the character of pagan idols--
'Gods partial, changeful, passionate, unjust;
Whose attributes were rage, revenge, and lust.'
In some cases the most corrupt attributes of human nature, and even of
brute nature, were attributed to objects of worship, and while men
bowed down to them, they sank themselves to the lowest depths of vice.
The Egyptians might be named as an instance. The first patrons of the
arts and sciences were brute-worshippers; and it is testified of them
that bestiality, the lowest vice to which human nature can descend,
was common amongst them. The paintings and sculpture of their
divinities, in the mummy catacombs, are for the most part clusters of
beasts, birds, reptiles, and flies, grouped together in the most
disgusting and unnatural relations; a true indication that the minds
of the worshippers were filled with ideas the most vile and unnatural.
The ancient Venus, as worshipped by almost all the elder nations of
antiquity, was a personification of lust. The deeds required to be
done at her polluting fane, as acts of homage, ought not to be named.
In the best days of Corinth--'Corinth, the eye of Greece'--the most
sacred persons in the city were prostitutes, consecrated to the
worship of Venus. From this source she derived a large portion of her
revenues. The consequence was, that her inhabitants became proverbial
for dissoluteness and treachery.
To the heathen divinities, especially those placed at the head of the
catalogue as the superior gods, what theologians have called the
physical attributes of deity--omnipotent and omnipresent power--were
generally ascribed; but their moral character was always defective,
and generally criminal. As one of the best instances in the whole
mythology of the ancients, the Roman Jupiter might be cited. Had a
medal been struck delineating the character of this best of the gods,
on one side might have been engraved _Almightiness_, _Omnipresence_,
_Justice_; and on the reverse, _Caprice_, _Vengeance_, _Lust_. Thus
men clothed depraved or bestial deities with almighty power, and they
became cruel, or corrupt, or bestial in their affections, by the
reaction of the character worshipped upon the character of the
worshipper. In the strong language of a recent writer, 'They clothed
beasts and depraved beings with the attribute of almightiness, and in
effect they worshipped almighty beasts and devils.' And the more they
worshipped, the more they resembled them.
These testimonies concerning the influence of idolatrous worship, and
the character of the idols worshipped, are maintained by authorities
which render doubt in relation to their credibility impossible. Upon
this subject the wiser men among the Greeks and Romans have borne
unequivocal testimony. Plato, in the second book of the Republic,
speaks of the pernicious influence of the conduct attributed to the
gods, and suggests that such histories should not be rehearsed in
public, lest they should influence the youth to the commission of
crimes. Aristotle advises that statues and paintings of the gods
should exhibit no indecent scenes, except in the temples of such
divinities as, according to common opinion, preside over
sensuality.[1] What an affecting testimony of the most discriminating
mind among the heathen, asserting not only the turpitude of the
prevailing idolatry, but sanctioning the sensuality of their debauched
worship!
[1] Aristot. Politica, vii. 18, ed. Schneider.
As Rome and Greece grew older, the infection of idolatry festered,
until the body politic became one mass of moral disease. The state of
things, in the later ages of these nations, is well stated by a late
writer of the first authority.[2] 'We should naturally suppose,' says
this writer, 'that among so great a variety of gods, of religious
actions, of sacred vows, at least some better feeling of the heart
must have been excited; that at least some truly pious sentiment would
have been awakened. But when we consider the character of this
superstition, and the testimony of contemporaneous writers, such does
not appear to have been the fact. Petronius' history of that period
furnishes evidence that temples were frequented, altars crowned, and
prayers offered to the gods, in order that they might render nights of
unnatural lust agreeable; that they might favour acts of poisoning;
that they might cause robberies and other crimes to prosper.' In view
of the abominations prevailing at this period, the moral Seneca
exclaimed--'How great now is the madness of men! they lisp the most
abominable prayers; and if a man is found listening they are silent.
What a man ought not to hear, they do not blush to relate to the
gods.' Again, says he, 'If any one considers what things they do, and
to what things they subject themselves, instead of decency he will
find indecency; instead of the honourable, the unworthy; instead of
the rational, the insane.' Such was heathenism and its influence in
the most enlightened ages, according to the testimony of the best men
of those times.
[2] Tholuck on the Influence of Heathenism.
In relation to modern idolatry, the world is full of living witnesses
of its corrupting tendency. We will cite, in illustration, a single
case or two. The following is extracted from a public document, laid
before Parliament by H. Oakley, Esq., a magistrate in Lower Bengal.
Speaking of the influence of idolatry in India, he says of the worship
of Kalé, one of the most popular idols, 'The murderer, the robber, and
the prostitute, all aim to propitiate a being whose worship is
obscenity, and who delights in the blood of man and beast; and without
imploring whose aid no act of wickedness is committed. The worship of
Kalé must harden the hearts of her followers; and to them scenes of
blood and crime must become familiar.'
In China, according to Medhurst, the priests of Buddha understand and
teach the doctrine of the assimilation of the worshipper to the object
worshipped. They say--'Think of Buddha and you will be transformed
into Buddha. If men pray to Buddha and do not become Buddha, it is
because the mouth prays, and not the mind.'[3]
[3] For a succinct statement of the universal prevalence of false
religions, and their corrupting influence, see Ryan on the Effect
of Religion upon Mankind, _passim_.
Two facts, then, are philosophically and historically true: First--Man
is a religious animal, and will worship something as a superior being.
Second--By worshipping he becomes assimilated to the moral character
of the object which he worships. And (the God of the Bible out of view
for the present) those objects have always had a defective and unholy
character.
Here, then, is one great source which has developed the corruption of
the family of man. We inquire not in this place concerning the origin
of idolatry; whatever or wherever was its origin, its influence has
been uniformly the same. As no object of idolatrous worship was ever
conceived to be perfectly just and benevolent, but most of them no
better than the apotheosis of heroes, or the deification of the
imperfect faculties and impure passions of human or brute nature, the
result followed, with a certainty as unerring as cause and effect,
that man, by following his instinct to worship, would becloud his
intellect and corrupt his heart. Notice how inevitable, from the
circumstances of the case, was the corruption of man's powers:--He was
led to worship by an instinct over which he had no control:--The
objects of his worship were, whether he originated them or not, all
of them of a character that corrupted his heart; thus the
gratification of his instinctive propensities inevitably strengthened
the corruption of his nature.
Now it is not our design to inquire whether, or how far, man was
guilty in producing this evil condition of things. In considering the
facts in the case, the inquiry which forces itself upon the mind
is--Were there any resources in human nature, or any means of any
kind, of which man could avail himself, by which he might save himself
from the debasing influence of idolatrous worship? In reply,
THE THIRD FACT IS STATED.
_There were no means within the reach of human power or wisdom, by
which man could extricate himself from the evil of idolatry, either by
an immediate or by a progressive series of efforts._
This fact is maintained from the history of idolatry, the testimony of
the heathen philosophers, and the nature of man.
1. Instead of man acquiring the power or the disposition, as the race
became older, to destroy idolatry--idolatry, from its first entrance
into the world, gained power to destroy him. Amid all the mutations of
society, from barbarous to civilised, and amid all the conflicts of
nations, and the changes of dynasties and forms of government, from
the first historic notices which we have of the human family down to
the era of Christ, idolatry constantly became more evil in its
character and more extended in its influence. It is well ascertained
that the first objects of idolatrous homage were few and simple, and
the worship of the earliest ages comparatively pure. Man fell into
this moral debasement but one step at a time. The sun, moon, stars,
and other conspicuous objects of creative power and wisdom received
the first idolatrous homage. Afterwards a divinity was supposed to
reside in other objects, especially in those men, and beasts, and
things which were instrumental in conferring particular benefits on
tribes or nations of men. And finally, images of those objects were
formed and worshipped. Images, which subsequently became innumerable,
were not so in the earliest historic ages. In some nations, they were
not allowed until after the era of the foundation of Rome.[4] As the
nations grew older, images, which were at the first but few and
clothed with drapery, became more numerous, and were presented before
the worshippers in a state of nudity, and in most obscene attitudes.
And, as has been before stated, their character, from being
comparatively innoxious, became, without exception, demoralising in
the extreme.
[4] Plutarch says that Numa forbade the Romans to make statues of
their gods.
2. During the Augustan age of Rome, and the age of Pericles and
Alcibiades in Greece--those periods when the mind had attained the
highest elevation ever known among heathen nations--the mass of the
people were more idolatrous in their habits, and consequently more
corrupt in their hearts, than ever before. The abominations of
idol-worship, of the mysteries, and of lewdness, in forms too vile to
name, were rife throughout the country and the villages, and had their
foci in the capitals of Greece and Rome. Jahn says, in relation to
this period, 'Deities increased in number, and the apotheosis of
vicious emperors was not unfrequent. Their philosophers, indeed,
disputed with much subtlety respecting the architect of the universe,
but they knew nothing about the Creator, the holy and almighty Judge
of men.'
Some of the more intelligent of the philosophers, perceiving the evil
of the prevailing idolatry, desired to refine the grossness of the
popular faith. They taught that the facts believed concerning the gods
were allegories. Some endeavoured to identify the character of some of
their deities with the natural virtues; while many of them became
sceptical concerning the existence of the gods and of a future state.
Those were, however, but isolated exceptions to the mass of mankind;
and had their views been adopted by others, they would only have
modified, not remedied the evil. But a contemporary writer shows how
entirely unavailing, even to modify the evil, was the teaching of the
philosophers. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says, 'There are only a few
who have become masters of this philosophy. On the other hand, the
great and unphilosophic mass are accustomed to receive these
narratives rather in their worst sense, and to learn one of these two
things, either to despise the gods as beings who wallow in the
grossest licentiousness, or not to restrain themselves even from what
is most abominable and abandoned, when they see that the gods do the
same.' Cicero, in one sentence, as given by Tholuck, notices both the
evil and its cause; confirming, in direct language, the preceding
views. 'Instead,' says he, 'of the transfer to man of that which is
divine, they transferred human sins to the gods, and then experienced
again the necessary reaction.' Such, then, is the testimony of the
philosophers in relation to the idolatry of their times. A few gifted
individuals obtained sufficient light to see the moral evil in which
men were involved, but they had neither wisdom to devise a remedy, nor
power to arrest the progress of the moral pestilence that was
corrupting the noble faculties of the human soul.
3. It was impossible, from the nature of man, that he should extricate
himself from the corrupting influence of idolatry. In this place we
wish to state a principle which should be kept in view throughout the
following discussion: _If man were ever redeemed from idolatrous
worship, his redemption would have to be accomplished by means and
instrumentalities adapted to his nature and the circumstances in which
he existed._ If the faculties of his nature were changed, he would not
be man. If his temporal condition were changed, different means would
be necessary; if, therefore, man, as man, in his present condition,
were to be recovered, the means of recovery, whether instituted by God
or man, must be adapted to his nature and his circumstances.
The only way, then, in which relief was possible for man was, that an
object of worship should be placed before the mind directly opposite
in moral character to those he had before adored. If his heart was
ever purified, it must be by tearing his affections from his gods, and
fixing them upon a righteous and holy being as the proper object of
his homage. But for man to form such an object was plainly impossible.
He could not transfer a better character to his gods than he himself
possessed. Man could not 'bring a pure thing out of an impure.' The
effect could not rise higher in moral purity than the cause. Human
nature, in the maturity of its faculties, all agree, is imperfect and
selfish; and, for an imperfect and selfish being to originate a
perfect and holy character, deify it, and worship it, is to suppose
what is contrary to the nature of things. The thought of the eloquent
and philosophic Cicero expresses all that man could do. He could
transfer his own imperfect attributes to the gods, and, by worshipping
a being characterized by these imperfections, he would receive in
himself the reaction of his own depravity.
But if some men had had the power and the disposition to form for the
world a perfectly holy object of worship, still the great difficulty,
as we have seen in the case of the philosophers, would have remained,
that is, a want of the necessary power to arrest the progress of
idolatry and substitute the better worship. To doubt the truth of the
prevailing idolatry was all that men, at the highest intellectual
attainment ever acquired in heathen countries, could do. And if they
had had power to convey their doubts to all minds in all the world, it
would only have been to place mankind in the chaotic darkness of
atheism, and leave them to be led again by their instincts into the
abominations of imperfect and impure worship.
The testimony, then, is conclusive, from the history of idolatry, that
the evil became greater every age--from the statement of the wisest of
the heathen, that they had no power to arrest its progress--and from
the nature of man, that it was not possible for him to relieve
himself from the corrupting influence of idolatry, in which he had
become involved.
From the foregoing facts and reasonings it is plain that the high-born
faculties of the human soul must have been blighted for ever, by a
corrupting worship, unless two things were accomplished, neither of
which it was in the power of human nature to effect; and yet both of
which were essentially necessary to accomplish the elevation of man
from the pit into which he had fallen.
The first thing necessary to be accomplished was, that _a pure object
of worship should be placed before the eye of the soul_. Purity of
heart and conscience would be necessary in the object of worship,
otherwise the heart and conscience of the worshipper would not be
purified. But if an object were presented, whose nature was infinitely
opposed to sin--to all defilement, both physical and spiritual--and
who revealed, in his example, and by his precepts, a perfect standard
to govern the life of man under the circumstances in which he was
placed, then man's mind would be enlightened, his conscience
rectified, and the hard and corrupt feelings of his heart softened and
purified, by assimilation to the object of his worship.--As, according
to the nature of things, an unholy object of worship would necessarily
degrade and corrupt the human soul; so, on the contrary, a holy object
worshipped would necessarily elevate and purify the nature of man.
The second necessary thing in order to man's redemption was, _that
when a holy object of worship was revealed, the revelation should be
accompanied with sufficient power to influence men to forsake their
former worship, and to worship the holy object made known to them_.
The presentation of a new and pure object would not cause men to turn
from their former opinions and practices, and become directly opposed
in heart to what they had formerly loved. A display of power would be
necessary, sufficient to overcome their former faith and their present
fears, and to detach their affections from idols, and fix them upon
the proper object of human homage.
It follows, then, that man must remain a corrupt idolater for ever,
unless God interpose in his behalf. The question whether he would thus
interpose, in the only way possible, to save the race from moral
death, depends entirely upon the benevolence of his nature. The
question whether he has done so may be answered by inquiring whether
any system of means has been instituted in this world, characterized
by sufficient power to destroy idolatry--revealing at the same time a
holy object of worship--and this revelation being accompanied by means
and influences so adapted to man's nature as to secure the result.
To this inquiry the future pages of this volume will be devoted. The
inquiry is not primarily concerning the truth of the Bible; but
concerning the only religion possible for mankind, and the only means
by which such religion could be given consistently with man's nature
and circumstances.
CHAPTER II.
THE DESIGN AND NECESSITY OF THE BONDAGE IN EGYPT.
There are certain bonds of union, and sources of sympathy, by which
the minds of a whole people may be united into one common mind: so
much so, that all hearts in the nation will be affected by the same
subjects, and all minds moved by the same motives. Any cause which
creates a common interest and a common feeling, common biases and
common hopes, in the individual minds which compose a nation, has a
tendency to unite them in this manner.
Some of the causes which have more power than any others to bind men,
as it were, into a common being, are the following:--The natural tie
of consanguinity, or a common parentage, is a strong bond of
affiliation among men. And there are others, which, in some cases,
seem to be even stronger than this; among these may be named a common
interest; a common religion; and a common fellowship in suffering and
deliverance. Any circumstance which educes the susceptibilities of the
mind and twines them together, or around a common object--any event in
which the interest, the feelings, the safety, or the reputation of any
people is involved, causes them to be more closely allied to each
other in social and civil compact.
The more firmly a people are bound together by these ties of union,
the more strength they will possess to resist opposing interests and
opinions from without; while, at the same time, everything national,
or peculiar to them as a people, will be cherished with warmer and
more tenacious attachment.
From the operation of this principle originates the maxim 'Union is
strength;' and whether the conflict be mental or physical, the people
who are united together by the most numerous and powerful sympathies
will oppose the strongest and the longest resistance to the
innovations of external forces. On the contrary, if the bonds of moral
union are few, and easily sundered, the strength of the nation is soon
broken, and the fragments easily repelled from each other.
According to this principle, in all cases in which a whole nation is
to be instructed, or prepared for offence and defence, or in any wise
fitted to be acted upon, or to act as a nation, it would be necessary
that the bonds of national union should be numerous and strong; and
that, as far as possible, a perfect oneness of interest and feeling
should pervade the nation.
So long as the human mind and human circumstances continue what they
are, no power in heaven or on earth could unite a people together,
except by the same or similar means as have been stated. If,
therefore, God designed to form a nation, either to be acted upon or
to act as a nation, he would put in operation those agencies which
would bind them firmly and permanently into one mass.
Now, mark the application of these deductions to the case of the
Israelites. About the period when the corruptions of idolatry were
becoming generally prevalent, Abraham, the Bible record states, was
extricated by Divine interposition. He was assured that his
descendants should suffer a long bondage, and afterwards become a
numerous nation. Abraham was their common ancestor, one whom they
remembered with reverence and pride; and each individual felt himself
honoured by the fact that the blood of the "father of the faithful"
circled in his veins. The tie of consanguinity in their case was bound
in the strongest manner, and encircled the whole nation. In Egypt
their circumstances and employments were the same; and, in the
endurance of a protracted and most galling bondage, they had a common
lot. Their liberation was likewise a national deliverance, which
affected alike the whole people, the anniversary of which was
celebrated by distant posterity with strong and peculiar national
enthusiasm.
Now, it has been said that the events of our colonial servitude, and
the achievement of American independence, are points in our history
which will ever operate upon our national character, impressing clear
views of the great principles of republicanism, and uniting all hearts
in support of those principles: how much more affecting and indelible,
then, was the impress made upon the national heart of the Israelites
by their bondage and deliverance! They were bound by blood, by
interest, feeling, hopes, fears, by bondage, and by faith.
And how firmly did these providences weave into one web the sympathies
and views of the Jewish people! It is a fact which is the miracle of
history, and the wonder of the world, that the ties which unite this
people seem to be indissoluble. While other nations have risen and
reigned and fallen; while the ties which united them have been
sundered, and their fragments lost amid earth's teeming population,
the stock of Abraham endures, like an incorruptible monument of gold,
undestroyed by the attrition of the waves of time, which have dashed
in pieces and washed away other nations, whose origin was but
yesterday, compared with this ancient and wonderful people.
In this manner was this nation prepared for peculiar duties, and to
discharge those duties under peculiar circumstances. Many of the
nations by which they were surrounded were more powerful than
themselves; all were warlike, and each had its peculiar system of
idolatry, which corrupted all hearts that came within its influence.
Hence the necessity that this people should be so united as to resist
the power and contagious example of surrounding nations, while they
were fitted to receive and preserve a peculiar national character,
civil polity, and religious doctrines; of all which they were to be
the conservators, amid surrounding and opposing heathenism, for many
ages.
Other facts might be added to the induction, which would make the
design, if possible, more apparent. If the Jews were to be the
recipients of new instruction--to obey new laws, and to sustain new
institutions, it would be desirable that their minds, so far as
possible, should be in the condition of new material, occupied by
little previous knowledge, and by no national prejudices against or in
favour of governmental forms and systems. Now, in the case of the
Jews, the habit of obedience had been acquired. They had no national
predilections or prejudices arising from past experience. In relation
to knowledge of any kind, their mind was almost a _tabula rasa_. They
were as new material prepared to receive the moulding of a master
hand, and the impress of a governing mind.
Now, as this discipline of the descendants of Abraham was the result
of a long concatenation of events, and could not have been designed by
themselves to accomplish the necessary end; and as the whole chain of
events was connected together and perfectly adapted, in accordance
with the nature of things, to produce the specific purpose which was
accomplished by them, it follows, as the only rational conclusion,
first that the overruling intelligence of God was employed in thus
preparing material for a purer religious worship than the world then
enjoyed; and, second, that a nation could have been so prepared by no
other agent, and in no other way.
CHAPTER III.
CONCERNING MIRACLES--PARTICULARLY THE MIRACLES WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE
DELIVERANCE OF THE ISRAELITES FROM BONDAGE IN EGYPT.
There has been so much false philosophy written concerning the subject
of miracles, that it is difficult for those conversant with the
speculations of writers upon this subject, to divest their minds
sufficiently of preformed biases, to examine candidly the simple and
natural principles upon which are based the evidence and necessity of
miraculous interposition.
The following statement is true beyond controversy: _Man cannot, in
the present constitution of his mind, have sufficient reason for
believing that religion has a Divine origin, unless it be accompanied
with miracles._ The natural inference of the mind is that, if an
Infinite Being act, his acts will be superhuman in their character;
because the effect, reason dictates, will be characterized by the
nature of its cause. Man has the same reason to expect that God will
perform acts above human power and knowledge, that he has to suppose
the inferior orders of animals will, in their actions, sink below the
power and wisdom which characterize human nature. For, as it is
natural for man to perform acts superior to the power and knowledge of
the animals beneath him, so reason affirms that it is natural for God
to develop his power by means, and in ways, above the skill and
ability of mortals. Hence, if God manifest himself at all--unless, in
accommodation to the capacities of men, he should constrain his
manifestations within the compass of human ability--every act of God's
immediate power would, to human capacity, be a miracle. But, if God
were to constrain all his acts within the limits of human means and
agencies, it would be impossible for man to discriminate between the
acts of the Godhead and the acts of the manhood. And man, if he
considered acts to be of a Divine origin, which were plainly within
the compass of human ability, would violate his own reason.
Suppose, for illustration, that God desired to reveal a religion to
men, and wished them to recognise his character and his benevolence in
giving that revelation. Suppose, further, that God should give such a
revelation, and that every appearance and every act connected with its
introduction were characterized by nothing superior to human power;
could any rational mind on earth believe that such a system of
religion came from God? Impossible! A man could as easily be made to
believe that his own child, who possessed his own lineaments, and his
own nature, belonged to some other world, and some other order of the
creation. It would not be possible for God to convince men that a
religion was from heaven unless it was accompanied with the marks of
Divine Power.
Suppose, again, that some individual were to appear either in the
heathen or Christian world--he claimed to be a teacher sent from God,
yet aspired to the performance of no miracles. He assumed to do
nothing superior to the wisdom and ability of other men. Such an
individual, although he might in gaining proselytes to some particular
view of a religion already believed, yet could never make men believe
that he had a special commission from God to establish a new religion,
for the simple reason that he had no grounds more than his fellows to
support his claims as an agent of the Almighty. But if he could
convince a single individual that he had wrought a miracle, or that he
had power to do so, that moment his claims would be established, in
that mind, as a commissioned agent from heaven: so certainly, and so
intuitively, do the minds of men revere and expect miracles as the
credentials of the Divine presence.
This demand of the mind for miracles, as testimony of the Divine
presence and power, is intuitive with all men; and those very
individuals who have doubted the existence or necessity of miracles,
should they examine their own convictions on this subject, would see
that, by an absolute necessity, if they desired to give the world a
system of religion, whether truth or imposture, in order to make men
receive it as of Divine authority, they must work miracles to attest
its truth, or make men believe that they did so. Men can produce doubt
of a revelation in no way until they have destroyed the evidence of
its miracles; nor can faith be produced in the Divine origin of a
religion until the evidence of miracles is supplied.
The conviction that miracles are the true attestation of immediate
Divine agency, is so constitutional (allow the expression) with the
reason, that so soon as men persuade themselves they are the special
agents of God, in propagating some particular truth in the world, they
adopt likewise the belief that they have ability to work miracles.
There have been many sincere enthusiasts, who believed that they were
special agents of Heaven, and, in such cases, the conviction of their
own miraculous powers arises as a necessary concomitant of the other
opinion. Among such, in modern times, may be instanced Emanuel
Swedenborg. Impostors also, perceiving that miracles were necessary in
order that the human mind should receive a religion as Divine, have
invariably claimed miraculous powers. Such instances recur constantly,
from the days of Elymas down to the Mormon, Joseph Smith.
All the multitude of false religions that have been believed since the
world began have been introduced by the power of this principle.
_Miracles believed_, lie at the foundation of all religions which men
have ever received as of Divine origin. No matter how degrading or
repulsive to reason in other respects, the fact of its establishment
and propagation grows out of the belief of men that supernatural
agency lies at the bottom.[5] This belief will give currency to any
system, however absurd: and without it, no system can be established
in the minds of men, however high and holy may be its origin and its
design.
[5] Mohammedanism is no exception: as the wonders reported by the
false prophet, though unseen, were _believed_. 'The Koran,' he
said, 'is itself a miracle!'
Such, then, is the constitution which the Maker has given to the
mind. Whether the conviction be an intuition or an induction of the
reason, God is the primary cause of its existence; and its existence
puts it out of the power of man to accept a revelation from God
himself, unless accompanied by miracle. If, therefore, God ever gave a
revelation to man, it was necessarily accompanied with miracles, and
with miracles of such a nature as would clearly distinguish the Divine
character and the Divine authority of the dispensation.
The whole fulness and force of these deductions apply to the case of
the Israelites. The laws of their mind not only demanded miracles as
an attestation of Divine interposition; but at that time, the belief
existed in their minds that miracles were constantly performed.
Although they remembered the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet
they likewise, as subsequent facts clearly attested, believed that the
idols of Egypt possessed the attributes of Divinity. The belief in a
plurality of gods was then common to all nations. And although this
error was corrected, and perhaps entirely removed, by succeeding
providences and instructions, from the minds of the Jews; yet, before
the miracles in Egypt, while the God of Abraham was, perhaps, in most
cases acknowledged as their God, the idols of Egypt were acknowledged
as the gods of the Egyptians, and probably worshipped as the
divinities who had power to dispense good and evil to all the
inhabitants of that land. And in common with all Egypt, they, no
doubt, believed that the acts of jugglery, in which the magicians, or
priests of Egypt, had made astonishing proficiency, were actual
miracles, exhibiting the power of their idols, and the authority of
the priests to act in their name.
In view, therefore, of existing circumstances, two things were
necessary, on the part of God,[6] in order to establish belief in any
revelation to the Israelites:--First, that he should manifest himself
by miracles; and, Secondly, that those miracles should be of such a
character, as evidently to distinguish them from the jugglery of the
magicians, and to convince all observers of the existence and
omnipotence of the true God, in contradistinction from the objects of
idolatrous worship. Unless these two things were done, it would have
been impossible for the Israelites to have recognised JEHOVAH as the
_only living_ and _true GOD_.
[6] When we speak of a thing as necessary on the part of God, it
is said, not in reference to God's attributes, but to man's nature
and circumstances.
It follows, then, that by the miracles which God wrought by the hand
of Moses, he pursued the only way that was possible to authenticate a
revelation in which his presence and power would be recognised. The
only point of inquiry remaining is, Were the miracles of such a
character, and performed in such a manner, as to remove false views
from the minds of the Israelites, and introduce right views concerning
the true God, and the non-existence of factitious objects of worship?
With this point in view, the design in the management and character of
the miracles in Egypt is interesting and obvious. Notice, first, the
whole strength of the magicians' skill was brought out and measured
with that of the miraculous power exerted through Moses. If this had
not been done, the idea would have remained in the minds of the people
that, although Moses wielded a mighty miraculous power, it might be
derived from the Egyptian gods, or if it were not thus derived, they
might have supposed that if the priests of those idols were summoned,
they would contravene or arrest the power vested in Moses by Jehovah.
But now, the magicians appearing in the name of their gods, the power
of Moses was seen to be not only superior to their sorceries, but
hostile to them and their idolatrous worship.
Notice, secondly, the design and adaptedness of the miracles, not only
to distinguish the power of the true God, but to destroy the
confidence placed in the protection and power of the idols.
The first miracle, while it authenticated the mission of Moses,
destroyed the serpents which, among the Egyptians, were objects of
worship; thus evincing, in the outset, that their gods could neither
help the people nor save themselves.
The second miracle was directed against the river Nile, another object
which they regarded with religious reverence. This river they held
sacred, as the Hindoos do the Ganges; and even the fish in its waters
they revered as objects of worship. They drank the water with
reverence and delight; and supposed that a Divine efficacy dwelt in
its waves to heal diseases of the body. The water of this, their
cherished object of idolatrous homage, was transmuted to blood; and
its finny idols became a mass of putridity.
The third miracle was directed to the accomplishment of the same
end--the destruction of faith in the river as an object of worship.
The waters of the Nile were caused to send forth legions of frogs,
which infested the whole land, and became a nuisance and a torment to
the people. Thus their idol, by the power of the true God, was
polluted, and turned into a source of pollution to its worshippers.
By the fourth miracle of a series constantly increasing in power and
severity, lice came upon man and beast throughout the land. 'Now, if
it be remembered,' says Gleig, 'that no one could approach the altars
of Egypt upon whom so impure an insect harboured, and that the
priests, to guard against the slightest risk of contamination, wore
only linen garments, and shaved their heads and bodies every day,[7]
the severity of this miracle as a judgment upon Egyptian idolatry may
be imagined. Whilst it lasted no act of worship could be performed;
and so keenly was this felt, that the very magicians exclaimed--"This
is the finger of God!"'
[7] Every third day, according to Herodotus.
The fifth miracle was designed to destroy the trust of the people in
Beelzebub, or the Fly-god, who was reverenced as their protector from
visitations of swarms of ravenous flies which infested the land,
generally about the time of the dog-days, and removed only, as they
supposed, at the will of this idol. The miracle now wrought by Moses
evinced the impotence of Beelzebub, and caused the people to look
elsewhere for relief from the fearful visitation under which they were
suffering.
The sixth miracle, which destroyed the cattle, excepting those of the
Israelites, was aimed at the destruction of the entire system of brute
worship. This system, degrading and bestial as it was, had become a
monster of many heads in Egypt. They had their sacred bull, and ram,
and heifer, and goat, and many others, all of which were destroyed by
the agency of the God of Moses. Thus by one act of power Jehovah
manifested his own supremacy, and destroyed the very existence of
their brute idols.
Of the peculiar fitness of the sixth plague (the seventh miracle),
says the writer before quoted, the reader will receive a better
impression, when he is reminded that in Egypt there were several
altars upon which human sacrifices were occasionally offered when they
desired to propitiate Typhon, or the Evil Principle. These victims
being burned alive, their ashes were gathered together by the
officiating priests, and thrown up into the air, in order that evil
might be averted from every place to which an atom of the ashes was
wafted. By the direction of Jehovah, Moses took a handful of ashes
from the furnace (which, very probably, the Egyptians at this time had
frequently used to turn aside the plagues with which they were
smitten), and he cast it into the air, as they were accustomed to do;
and instead of averting evil, boils and blains fell upon all the
people of the land. Neither king, nor priest, nor people escaped. Thus
the bloody rites of Typhon became a curse to the idolaters; the
supremacy of Jehovah was affirmed, and the deliverance of the
Israelites insisted upon.
The ninth miracle was directed against the worship of Serapis, whose
peculiar office was supposed to be to protect the country from
locusts. At periods these destructive insects came in clouds upon the
land, and, like an overshadowing curse, they blighted the fruits of
the field and the verdure of the forest. At the command of Moses
these terrible insects came--and they retired only at his bidding.
Thus was the impotence of Serapis made manifest, and the idolaters
taught the folly of trusting in any other protection than that of
Jehovah the God of Israel.
The eighth and tenth miracles were directed against the worship of
Isis and Osiris, to whom and the river Nile they awarded the first
place[8] in the long catalogue of their idolatry. These idols were
originally the representatives of the sun and moon; they were believed
to control the light and the elements, and their worship prevailed in
some form among all the early nations. The miracles directed against
the worship of Isis and Osiris must have made a deep impression on the
minds both of the Israelites and the Egyptians. In a country where
rain seldom falls--where the atmosphere is always calm, and the light
of the heavenly bodies always continued, what was the horror pervading
all minds during the elemental war described in the Hebrew
record--during the long period of three days and three nights, while
the gloom of thick darkness settled, like the out-spread pall of
death, over the whole land! Jehovah of hosts summoned Nature to
proclaim him the true God--the God of Israel asserted his supremacy,
and exerted his power to degrade the idols, destroy idolatry, and
liberate the descendants of Abraham from the land of their bondage.
[8] Against the worship of the Nile, two miracles were directed,
and two likewise against Isis and Osiris, because they were
supposed to be the supreme gods. Many placed the Nile first, as
they said it had power to water Egypt independently of the action
of the elements.
The Almighty having thus revealed himself as the true God, by
miraculous agency, and pursued those measures, in the exercise of his
power, which were directly adapted to destroy the various forms of
idolatry which existed in Egypt, the eleventh and last miracle was a
judgment, in order to manifest to all minds that Jehovah was the God
who executed judgment in the earth.
The Egyptians had, for a long time, cruelly oppressed the Israelites,
and to put the finishing horror to their atrocities, they had finally
slain, at their birth, the offspring of their victims; and now God, in
the exercise of infinite justice, visited them with righteous
retribution. In the mid-watches of the night, the 'angel of the
pestilence' was sent to the dwellings of Egypt, and he 'breathed in
the face' of all the first-born in the land. In the morning, the hope
of every family, from the palace to the cottage, was a corpse. What
mind can imagine the awful consternation of that scene, when an
agonizing wail rose from the stricken hearts of all the parents in the
nation? The cruel task-masters were taught, by means which entered
their souls, that the true God was a God not only of power but of
judgment, and as such, to be feared by evil-doers, and reverenced by
those that do well.
The demonstration, therefore, is conclusive, that in view of the
idolatrous state of the world, and especially of the character and
circumstances of the Israelites, the true God could have made a
revelation of himself in no other way than by the means, and in the
manner, of the miracles of Egypt; and none but the true God could have
revealed himself in this way.[9]
[9] In accordance with the foregoing are the intimations given in
the Bible of the design of the miracles of Egypt. By these
exhibitions of Divine power God said--'Ye,' the Israelites, 'and
Pharaoh shall know that I am Jehovah.'
Miracles, moreover, were the evidence that Pharaoh required.--Ex.
vii. 9, God said to Moses, that when he should present himself as
the Divine legate, and Pharaoh should require a miracle, he should
perform it accordingly.
In relation to the destruction of idolatry, the design of Jehovah
is expressly announced (Ex. xii. 12), 'Against all the Gods of
Egypt I will execute judgment: I am Jehovah.'
See also Ex. xviii. 11.
CHAPTER IV.
WHAT WAS NECESSARY AS THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS OF REVELATION.
By the miracles of Egypt, the false views and corrupt habits of the
Israelites were, for the time being, in a great measure removed.
Previously they had believed in a plurality of gods; and although they
remembered the God of Abraham, yet they had, as is evident from
notices in the Bible, associated with his attribute of almighty power
(the only attribute well understood by the patriarchs) many of the
corrupt attributes of the Egyptian idols. Thus the idea of God was
debased by having grovelling and corrupt attributes superinduced upon
it. By miraculous agency these dishonourable views of the Divine
character were removed; their minds were emptied of false impressions
in order that they might be furnished with the true idea and the true
attributes of the Supreme Being.
But how, to minds in the infancy of knowledge respecting God and human
duty--having all they had previously learned removed, and being now
about to take the first step in their progress--how could the first
principles of Divine knowledge be conveyed to such minds?
One thing, in the outset, would evidently be necessary. Knowledge, as
the mind is constituted, can be communicated in no other way than
progressively; it would be necessary, therefore, that they should
begin with the elementary principles, and proceed through all the
stages of their education. The mind cannot receive at once all the
parts of a system in religion, science, or any other department of
human knowledge. One fact or idea must be predicated upon another,
just as one stone rests upon another, from the foundation to the top
of the building. There are successive steps in the acquisition of
knowledge, and every step in the mind's progress must be taken from
advances already made. God has inwrought the law of progression into
the nature of things, and observes it in his own works. From the
springing of a blade to the formation of the mind, or of a world,
every thing goes forward by consecutive steps.
It was necessary, therefore, in view of the established laws of the
mind, that the knowledge of God and human duty should be imparted to
the Israelites by successive communications--necessary that there
should be a first step, or primary principle, for a starting point,
and then a progression onward and upward to perfection.
In accordance with these principles, God, in the introduction of the
Mosaic dispensation, revealed only his essential existence to the
Israelites. In Exodus iii. 13, 14, it is stated that Moses inquired of
God, 'Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say
unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they
shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God
said, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.' In the Hebrew text,
the simple form of the verb is used, corresponding with the first
person present, indicative, of the English verb _to be_. Simply, 'I
am,' conveying no idea but that of personality and existence. WHAT HE
was, besides his existence thus revealed, was afterwards to be
learned. This was a revelation of Divine BEING--a nucleus of essential
Deity, as a foundation fact of the then new dispensation, upon which
God, by future manifestations, might engraft the attributes of his
nature.
Thus, at the outset of the dispensation, there was thrown into their
minds a first truth. God revealed his Divine existence; and the idea
of God, thus revealed, was in their minds, without any other attribute
being connected with it than that of infinite power--an attribute of
the Godhead which all men derive from the works of nature--which was
known to the patriarchs as belonging to the true God, and which was
now, by the miracles manifesting supreme power, appropriated to I
AM--Jehovah--the God of the Israelites.
Thus were this peculiar people carried back to the first principles of
natural religion--their mind disembarrassed from false notions
previously entertained, and the true idea of the supreme God and Judge
of men revealed. By these providences, they were prepared, in a manner
consistent with the nature of things and the nature of mind, to
receive a further revelation of the moral attributes of Jehovah, whom
they now recognised as the Supreme God.
CHAPTER V.
THE NECESSITY OF AFFECTIONATE OBEDIENCE TO GOD; AND THE MANNER OF
PRODUCING THAT OBEDIENCE IN THE HEARTS OF THE ISRAELITES.
The following principles in relation to the affections will be
recognised by consciousness as true in the experience of every man. As
they lie at the foundation of the moral exercises of the soul, and as
they relate to the sources and central principles of all true
religion, it will be necessary for the reader to notice them, in order
that he may see their application in subsequent pages.
1. The affections of the soul move in view of certain objects, or in
view of certain qualities believed to exist in those objects. The
affections never move--in familiar words, the heart never loves,
unless love be produced by seeing, or by believing that we see, some
lovely and excellent qualities in the object. When the soul believes
those good qualities to be possessed by another, and especially when
they are exercised towards us, the affections, like a magnetised
needle, tremble with life, and turn towards their object.
2. The affections are not subject to the will;[10] neither our own
will nor any other will can directly control them. I cannot will to
love a being who does not appear to me lovely, and who does not
exhibit the qualities adapted to move the affections; nor can I, by
command, or by any other effort of will, cause another being to love
me. The affections are not subject to command. You cannot force
another to love, or respect, or even, from the heart, to obey. Such an
attitude assumed to produce love would invariably produce disaffection
rather than affection. No one (as a matter of fact) thinks the
affections subject to the will, and, therefore, men never endeavour to
obtain the affections of others solely by command, but by exhibiting
such a character and conferring such favours as they know are adapted
to move the heart. An effect could as easily exist without a cause as
affection in the bosom of any human being which was not produced by
goodness or excellencies seen, or believed to exist, in some other
being.
[10] We state the facts in the case, of which every man is
conscious in his own experience, without regard to the theories of
sects in religion or philosophy.
3. The affections, although not governed by the will, do themselves
greatly influence the will. All acts of will produced entirely by pure
affection for another are disinterested. Cases of the affections
influencing the will are common in the experience of every one. There
is probably no one living who has not, at some period of his life, had
affection for another, so that it gave more pleasure to please the
object of his love than to please himself. Love for another always
influences the will to act in such a way as will please the object
loved. The individual loving acts in view of the desires of the loved
object, and such acts are disinterested, not being done with any
selfish end in view, but for the sake of another. So soon as the
affections move towards an object, the will is proportionably
influenced to please and benefit that object; or, if a superior being,
to obey his will and secure his favour.
4. All happy obedience must arise from affection. Affectionate
obedience blesses the spirit which yields it, if the conscience
approve the object loved and obeyed, while, on the contrary, no
happiness can be experienced from obedience to any being that we do
not love. To obey externally either God or a parent, from no other
than interested motives, would be sin. The devil might be obeyed for
the same reasons. Love must, therefore, constitute an essential
element in all proper obedience to God.
5. When the affections of two are reciprocally fixed upon each other,
they constitute a bond of union and sympathy peculiarly strong and
tender:--those things that affect the one affecting the other, in
proportion to the strength of affection existing between them. One
conforms to the will of the other, not from a sense of obligation
merely, but from choice; and the constitution of the soul is such that
the sweetest enjoyment of which it is capable arises from the exercise
of reciprocal affection.
6. When the circumstances of an individual are such that he is exposed
to constant suffering and great danger, the more afflictive his
situation the more grateful love will he feel for affection and
benefits received under such circumstances. If his circumstances were
such that he could not relieve himself, and such that he must suffer
greatly or perish; and, while, in this condition, if another, moved by
benevolent regard for him, should come to aid and save him, his
affection for his deliverer would be increased by a sense of the
danger from which he was rescued.
7. It is an admitted principle that protracted and close attention
always fixes the fact attended to deeply in the memory; and the longer
and more intensely the mind attends to any subject, other subjects
proportionably lose their power to interest. The same is true in
relation to the affections. The longer and more intensely we
contemplate an object in that relation which is adapted to draw out
the affections, the more deeply will the impression be made upon the
heart, as well as upon the memory. The most favourable circumstances
possible to fix an impression deeply upon the heart and memory
are--First, that there should be protracted and earnest attention;
and--Second, that at the same time that the impression is made, the
emotions of the soul should be alive with excitement. Without these,
an impression made upon the heart and the memory would be slight and
easily effaced; while, on the contrary, an impression made during
intense attention and excited feeling will be engraved, as with a pen
of steel, upon the tablets of the soul.
Now, with these principles in mind, mark the means used to fix the
attention and to excite the susceptibilities of the Israelites, and,
while in that state of attention and excitement, to draw their
affections to God.
The children of Israel were suffering the most grievous bondage, which
had arrived at almost an intolerable degree of cruelty and injustice.
Just at this crisis the God of their fathers appears as their
Deliverer, and Moses is commissioned as his prophet. When the people
are convened and their minds aroused by the hopes of deliverance,
their attention is turned to two parties: one, Pharaoh, their
oppressor and the slayer of their first-born; and the other the God of
Abraham, who now appeared as their Deliverer, espousing their cause
and condescending personally to oppose Himself to their oppressor.
Then a scene ensues adapted in all its circumstances to make a deep
and enduring impression upon their memory and their hearts.--The God
of Abraham seems, by his judgments, to have forced the oppressor to
relent, and to let the people go. At this point hope and encouragement
predominate in their minds. Now their oppressor's heart is hardened,
and he renews his cruelty; but while their hopes are sinking, they are
again revived and strengthened, by finding that God continues to use
means to induce Pharaoh to release the captives. Thus, for a
considerable length of time, all the powers of excitability in their
nature are aroused to activity. Towards that being who had so
graciously interposed in their behalf they felt emotions of hope,
gratitude, love, and admiration. Towards their oppressor feelings of
an opposite character must have been engendered; and this state of
exciting suspense--the emotions vacillating between love and hatred,
hope and fear--was continued until the impression became fixed deep in
their souls.
Keeping in mind the fact, that the more we need a benefactor and feel
that need, the stronger will be our feelings of gratitude and love for
the being who interposes in our behalf--notice further: When, through
the interposition of the Almighty, the Israelites were delivered, and
had advanced as far as the Red Sea, another appeal was made to their
affections which was most thrilling, and adapted to call by one grand
interposition all their powers of gratitude and love into immediate
and full exercise.
The army of the Israelites lay encamped on the margin of the Red Sea,
when, suddenly, they were surprised by the approaching host of
Pharaoh;--before them was the sea, and behind them an advancing
hostile army. If they went forward, they would find death in the
waves; if they returned backward, it would be to meet the swords of
their pursuers. A rescue, by earthly means, from death or bondage more
severe than they had ever borne, was impossible. Just at this crisis
of extremity, Jehovah appears as their Deliverer. The bosom of the
pathless sea is cleft by the power of God. The stricken waters recoil
upon themselves on either side. The Israelites pass over in safety.
The Egyptian host enter, and are overwhelmed in the waters.
Now, it may be affirmed, without qualification, that, in view of the
nature and circumstances of the Israelites, no combination of means,
not including the self-sacrifice of the benefactor himself, could be
so well adapted to elicit and absorb all the affections of the soul,
as this wonderful series of events. That this result was accomplished
by these means, is authenticated by the history given in the Bible.
When the people were thus delivered, they stood upon the other side of
the sea, and their affections, in answer to the call which God had
made upon them, gushed forth in thanksgiving and praise. Hear the
response of their hearts, and their allusion to the cause which
produced that response:
'I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the
horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. The Lord is my
strength and song, and he is become my SALVATION. He is my God, and I
will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt
him.'--Ex. xv. 1, 2, etc.
Thus was the attention of the whole nation turned to the true God. An
impression of his goodness was fixed deeply in their memory, and their
affections drawn out and fastened upon the true object of worship. Now
this, as was shown in the commencement of the chapter, was necessary,
before they could offer worship either honourable or acceptable to
God. The end was accomplished by means adapted to the nature of the
human soul and to the circumstances of the Israelites; and by means
which no being in the universe but the Maker of the soul could use.
The demonstration is therefore perfect, that the Scripture narrative
is true, and that no other narrative, differing materially from this
in its principles, could be true.
CHAPTER VI.
THE DESIGN AND NECESSITY OF THE MORAL LAW.
At this stage of our progress it will be useful to recapitulate the
conclusions at which we have arrived, and thus make a point of rest
from which to extend our observations further into the plan of God for
redeeming the world. This review is the more appropriate as we have
arrived at a period in the history of God's providence with Israel,
which presents them as a people prepared (so far as imperfect material
could be prepared) to receive that model which God might desire to
impress upon the nation.
1. They were bound to each other by all the ties of which human nature
is susceptible, and thus rendered compact and united, so that
everything national, whether in sentiment or practice, would be
received and cherished with unanimous, and fervent, and lasting
attachment: and, furthermore, by a long and rigorous bondage, they had
been rendered, for the time being at least, humble and dependent.
Thus, they were disciplined by a course of providences, adapted to fit
them to receive instruction from their Benefactor with a teachable and
grateful spirit.
2. Their minds were shaken off from idols; and Jehovah, by a
revelation made to them, setting forth his name and nature, had
revealed himself as a DIVINE BEING, and by his works had manifested
his almighty power: so that when their minds were disabused of wrong
views of the Godhead, an idea of the first, true, and essential nature
of God was revealed to them; and they were thus prepared to receive a
knowledge of the attributes of that Divine essence.
3. They had been brought to contemplate God as their Protector and
Saviour. Appeals the most affecting and thrilling had been addressed
to their affections; and they were thus attached to God as their
almighty temporal Saviour, by the ties of gratitude and love for the
favour which he had manifested to them.
4. When they had arrived on the further shore of the Red Sea, thus
prepared to obey God and worship him with the heart, they were without
laws either civil or moral. As yet, they had never possessed any
national or social organization. They were therefore prepared to
receive, without predilection or prejudice, that system of moral
instruction and civil polity which God might reveal, as best adapted
to promote the moral interests of the nation.
From these conclusions we may extend our vision forward into the
system of revelation. This series of preparations would certainly lead
the mind to the expectation that what was still wanting, and what they
had been thus miraculously prepared to receive, would be
granted--which was a knowledge of the moral character of God, and a
moral law prescribing their duty to God and to men. Without this, the
plan that had been maturing for generations, and had been carried
forward thus far by wonderful exhibitions of Divine wisdom and power,
would be left unfinished, just at the point where the finishing
process was necessary.
But besides the strong probability which the previous preparation
would produce, that there would be a revelation of moral law, there
are distinct and conclusive reasons, evincing its necessity.
The whole experience of the world has confirmed the fact, beyond the
possibility of scepticism, that man cannot discover and establish a
perfect rule of human duty. Whatever may be said of the many excellent
maxims expressed by different individuals in different ages and
nations, yet it is true that no system of duty to God and man, in
anywise consistent with enlightened reason, has ever been established
by human wisdom, and sustained by human sanctions; and for reasons
already stated,[11] such a fact never can occur.
[11] See chap. i. p. 9, _et seq._
But, it may be supposed that each man has, within himself, sufficient
light from reason, and sufficient admonition from conscience, to guide
himself, as an individual, in the path of truth and happiness. A
single fact will correct such a supposition. Conscience, the great
arbiter of the merit and demerit of human conduct, has little
intuitive sense of right, and is not guided entirely by reason, but is
governed in a great measure by what men believe. Indeed, faith is the
legitimate regulator of the conscience. If a man has correct views of
duty to God and men, he will have a correct conscience; but if he can,
by a wrong view of morals and of the character of God, be induced to
believe that theft, or murder, or any vice, is right, his conscience
will be corrupted by his faith. When men are brought to believe--as
they frequently do believe in heathen countries--that it is right to
commit suicide, or infanticide, as a religious duty, their conscience
condemns them if they do not perform the act. Thus, that power in the
soul which pronounces upon the moral character of human conduct, is
itself dependent upon and regulated by the faith of the individual.
It is apparent, therefore, that the reception and belief of a true
rule of duty, accompanied with proper sanctions, will alone form in
man a proper conscience. God has so constituted the soul that it is
necessary, in order to the regulation of its moral powers, that it
should have a rule of duty, revealed under the sanction of its Maker's
authority; otherwise its high moral powers would lie in dark and
perpetual disorder.
Further, unless the human soul be an exception, God governs all things
by laws adapted to their proper nature. The laws which govern the
material world are sketched in the books on natural science; such are
gravitation, affinity, mathematical motion. Those laws by which the
irrational animal creation is controlled are usually called instincts.
Their operation and design are sketched, to some extent, in treatises
upon the instincts of animals. Such is the law which leads the beaver
to build its dam, and all other animals to pursue some particular
habits instead of others. All beavers, from the first one created to
the present time, have been instinctively led to build a dam in the
same manner, and so their instinct will lead them to build till the
end of time. The law which drives them to the act is as necessitating
as the law which causes the smoke to rise upwards. Nothing in the
universe of God, animate or inanimate, is left without the government
of appropriate law, unless that thing be the noblest creature of
God--the human spirit. To suppose, therefore, that the human soul is
thus left unguided by a revealed rule of conduct, is to suppose that
God cares for the less and not for the greater--to suppose that he
would constitute the moral powers of the soul so that a law was
necessary for their guidance, and then reveal none--to suppose,
especially in the case of the Israelites, that he would prepare a
people to receive, and obey with a proper spirit, this necessary rule
of duty, and yet give no rule. But to suppose these things would be
absurd; it follows, therefore, that God would reveal to the Israelites
a law for the regulation of their conduct in morals and religion.
But physical law or necessitating instinct would not be adapted in
its nature to the government of a rational and moral being. The
application of either to the soul would destroy its free agency. God
has made man intelligent, and thereby adapted his nature to a rule
which he understands. Man has a will and a conscience: but he must
understand the rule in order to will obedience, and he must believe
the sanction by which the law is maintained before he can feel the
obligation upon his conscience. A law, therefore, adapted to man's
nature, must be addressed to the understanding, sanctioned by suitable
authority and enforced by adequate penalties.
In accordance with these legitimate deductions, God gave the
Israelites a rule of life--the Moral Law--succinctly comprehended in
the Ten Commandments. And as affectionate obedience is the only proper
obedience, he coupled the facts which were fitted to produce affection
with the command to obey; saying, 'I am the Lord thy God, which
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and from the house of
bondage'--therefore, love me and keep my commandments.[12]
[12] Deut. v. 6, _passim_.
CHAPTER VII.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF HOLINESS AND ITS TRANSFER TO JEHOVAH AS
AN ATTRIBUTE.
As yet the Israelites were little acquainted with any attribute of the
I AM--Jehovah--except his infinite power and goodness; and his
goodness was known to them only as manifested in kindness and mercy
towards themselves, as a peculiar people, distinguished from other
nations, as the special objects of the Divine favour. They had a
disposition to worship Jehovah, and to regard the rights of each other
according to his commandments; but they knew as yet little of his
moral attributes. Of the attribute of holiness--purity from sin, and
opposition of nature to all moral and physical defilement--they knew
comparatively nothing. After the law had been given, they knew that
God required worship and obedience for himself and just conduct
towards others, but they did not know that his nature was hostile to
all moral defilement of heart and life. And to this knowledge, as we
have seen in the introduction, they could not of themselves attain.
At the period of the deliverance from Egypt, every nation by which
they were surrounded worshipped unholy beings. Now, how were the Jews
to be extricated from this difficulty, and made to understand and feel
the influence of the holy character of God? The Egyptian idolatry in
which they had mingled was beastly and lustful; and one of their first
acts of disobedience after their deliverance showed that their minds
were still dark, and their propensities corrupt. The golden calf which
they desired should be erected for them, was not designed as an act of
apostasy from Jehovah, who had delivered them from Egyptian servitude.
When the image was made, it was proclaimed to be that God which
brought them up out of the land of Egypt: and when the proclamation of
a feast, or idolatrous debauch, was issued by Aaron, it was
denominated a feast, not to Isis or Osiris, but a feast to Jehovah;
and as such they held it.[13] But they offered to the holy Jehovah the
unholy worship of the idols of Egypt. Thus they manifested their
ignorance of the holiness of his nature, as well as the corruption of
their own hearts.
[13] Ex. xxxii. 4, 5.
It was necessary, therefore, in order to promote right exercises of
heart in religious worship, that the Israelites should be made
acquainted with the holiness of God. The precise question, then, for
solution is, How could the idea of God's holiness be conveyed to the
minds of the Israelites? If it should be found that there is but one
way in which it could be originated, according to the nature of mind,
then it would follow, necessarily, that God would pursue that way, or
he would have to alter the human constitution, in order to communicate
a knowledge of his attribute of holiness. But, as it is matter of
fact that the constitution of the mind has not been altered, it
follows that that method would be pursued which is in accordance with
the nature of mind, to convey the necessary knowledge. Now all
practical knowledge is conveyed to the understanding through the
medium of the senses. Whatever may be said about innate ideas by
speculative philosophers, still all agree that all acquired knowledge
must reach the mind through the medium of one of the five senses, or
upon the occasion of their exercise. Through the senses the knowledge
of external objects is conveyed to the mind, and these simple ideas
serve as a material for reflection, comparison, and abstraction.
The etymology of the Hebrew language, as written by Moses, and spoken
by the Israelites, furnishes an interesting illustration of the origin
of the few abstract terms with which their minds were familiar. The
abstract ideas of the Hebrew tongue may even now, in most instances,
be traced to the object or circumstance whence they originated. Thus
the idea of power, among the Hebrews, was derived from the horn of an
animal; and the same word, in Hebrew, which signifies horn, likewise
signifies power, and may be translated in either way to suit the
sense. The idea was originally conveyed through the eye, by noticing
that the strength of the animal was exerted through its horn. The
force thus exerted, especially when the animal was enraged, was the
greatest which fell under their observation; and sometimes, in its
effects, it was disastrous and overwhelming. Hence, the horn soon
became a figure to denote power, and when the idea was once originated
and defined in their minds, they could apply it to any object which
produced a strong effect either upon the bodies or the minds of men.
An idea of power likewise originated from the human hand, because
through it man exerted his strength. The same word in Hebrew still
expresses both the object and the idea derived from it--'Life and
death are in the power of the tongue,' reads literally--'Life and
death are in the _hand_ of the tongue.' Sunshine, in Hebrew, is
synonymous with happiness, the idea being originated by experiencing
the pleasant feelings produced by the effects of a sunny day; and when
thus originated, it was applied to the same and similar feelings
produced by other causes. The abstract idea of judgment or justice is
derived from a word which signifies to _cut_ or _divide_; it being
originated by the circumstance that when the primitive hunters had
killed a stag, or other prey, one divided the flesh with a knife,
among those who assisted in the pursuit, distributing a just portion
to each. Thus, the act of cutting and dividing their prey, which was
the first circumstance that called into exercise and placed before
their senses the principle of justice, was the circumstance from which
they derived this most important abstract idea.
Other instances might be mentioned. These are sufficient to show the
manner in which the abstract ideas of the Hebrews were originated. And
so, every new idea which found a place in their understanding had to
be originated, primarily, by an impression made by external objects
upon the senses.
Further, all ideas which admit of the signification of more or most
perfect, can be originated only by a comparison of one object with
another. More lovely, or more pure, can only be predicated of one
thing by comparison with another which it excels in one of these
respects. By a series of comparisons, each one exceeding the last in
beauty or purity, an idea of the highest degree of perfection may be
produced. Thus one flower may be called lovely, another more lovely,
and the rose the most lovely; and the idea of the _superior_ beauty of
the rose would be originated by the comparison or contrast between it
and other flowers of less beauty. It is not said that the rose would
not appear lovely without comparison, but the idea of its _superior_
loveliness is originated by comparison, and it could be derived in no
other way.
With these principles in mind, we return to the inquiry, _How could
the idea of God's holiness, or moral purity, be conveyed to the minds
of the Jews?_
First, mark the principles--(1.) There was not an object in the
material world which would convey to the mind the idea of God's
holiness.--(2). The idea, therefore, would have to be originated, and
thrown into their mind, through the senses, by a process instituted
for that express purpose.--(3.) The plan to originate the idea, in
order to meet the constitution of the mind, must consist of a series
of comparisons.
Now mark the correspondency between these principles, founded upon the
laws of the mind, and that system devised to instruct the Israelites
in the knowledge of God.
In the outset, the animals common to Palestine were divided, by
command of Jehovah, into clean and unclean; in this way a distinction
was made, and the one class in comparison with the other was deemed to
be of a purer and better kind. From the class thus distinguished, as
more pure than the other, one was selected to offer as a sacrifice. It
was not only to be chosen from the clean beasts, but, as an
individual, it was to be without spot or blemish. Thus it was, in
their eyes, purer than the other class, and purer than other
individuals of its own class. This sacrifice the people were not
deemed worthy, in their own persons, to offer unto Jehovah; but it was
to be offered by a class of men who were distinguished from their
brethren, purified, and set apart for the service of the priest's
office. Thus the idea of purity originated from two sources; the
purified priest and the pure animal _purified_, were united in the
offering of the sacrifice. But before the sacrifice could be offered
it was washed with clean water--and the priest had, in some cases, to
wash himself, and officiate without his sandals. Thus, when one
process of comparison after another had attached the idea of
superlative purity to the sacrifice--in offering it to Jehovah in
order that the contrast between the purity of God and the highest
degrees of earthly purity might be seen, neither priest, people, nor
sacrifice was deemed sufficiently pure to come into his presence; but
the offering was made in the court without the holy of holies. In
this manner, by a process of comparison, the character of God, in
point of purity, was placed indefinitely above themselves and their
sacrifices.[14]
[14] It is not argued that no other end was designed and
accomplished by the arbitrary separation of animals into classes
of clean and unclean. By this means the Jews were undoubtedly
excluded from partaking in the feasts of the heathen around, who
ate those animals which were forbidden to them. An excellent
writer observes that it is characteristic of the wisdom of God to
accomplish many ends by a single act of providence.
And not only in the sacrifices, but throughout the whole Levitical
economy, the idea of purity pervaded all its ceremonies and observances.
The camp was purified--the people were purified--everything was purified
and re-purified; and each process of the ordinances was designed to
reflect purity upon the others; until finally that idea of purity formed
in the mind and rendered intense by the convergence of so many rays,
was, by comparison, referred to the idea of God; and the idea of God in
their minds being that of an infinitely powerful and good Spirit, hence
purity, as a characteristic or attribute of such a nature, would
necessarily assume a moral aspect, because it appertained to a moral
being--it would become _moral purity_, or _holiness_. Thus they learned,
in the sentiment of Scripture, that God was of too _pure_ eyes to look
upon iniquity.
That the idea of moral purity in the minds of the Israelites was thus
originated by the machinery of the Levitical dispensation, is
supported, not only by the philosophy of the thing, but by many
allusions in the Scriptures. Such allusions are frequent, both in the
writers of the old and of the new dispensations; evidencing that, in
their minds, the idea of moral purity was still symbolized by physical
purity. The rite of baptism is founded upon this symbolical analogy:
the external washing with water being significant of the purifying
influence of the Holy Spirit. St. John saw in vision the undefiled in
heart clothed with linen pure and white; evincing that, to the mind of
the Jew, such vestments as the high priest wore when he entered the
holy of holies, were still emblematical of moral purity. In the
Epistle to the Hebrews, which is an apostolic exposition of the
spiritual import of the Levitical institution, so far as that
institution particularly concerns believers under the New Testament
dispensation, we have the foregoing view of the design of ceremonial
purification expressly confirmed. 'It was, therefore, necessary,' says
Paul to the Hebrews, 'that the patterns of things in the heavens
should be purified with these (that is, with these purifying processes
addressed to the senses), but the heavenly things themselves with
better sacrifices than these.' The plain instruction of which is, that
the parts and processes of the Levitical economy were patterns
addressed to the senses of unseen things in heaven, and that the
purifying of those patterns indicated the spiritual purity of the
spiritual things which they represented.
There is, finally, demonstrative evidence of the fact that the idea of
perfect moral purity, as connected with the idea of God, is now, and
always has been, the same which was originated and conveyed to the
minds of the Jews by the machinery of the Levitical dispensation. The
Hebrew word קדש _quadhosh_, was used to express the idea of purity as
originated by the tabernacle service. The literal definition is,
_pure_, _to be pure_, _to be purified for sacred uses_. The word thus
originated, and conveying this meaning, is employed in the Scriptures
to express the moral purity or holiness of God.[15] In the New
Testament this word is translated by the Greek term ἅγιος, _hagios_,
but the Hebrew idea is connected with the Greek word. In King James's
version this Greek word is rendered by the Saxon term _holy_--the
Saxon word losing its original import (_whole_, _wholly_), and taking
that of the Hebrew derived through the Greek. So that our idea of the
holiness of God is the same which was originated by the Levitical
ceremonies; and there is no other word, so far as I have been able to
examine, in any language which conveys this idea. Nor is there any
idea among any people that approximates closely to the Scripture idea
of holiness, unless the word received some shades of its signification
from the Bible.[16]
[15] קדשי שם 'my holy name.'--Lev. xx. 3.
[16] One of the principal difficulties which the missionary meets
with, according to letters in the missionary reports, is, that of
conveying to the mind of the heathen the idea of the holiness of
God. They find no such idea in their minds, and they can use no
words in their language by which to convey the full and true force
of the thought. The true idea, therefore, if communicated at all,
must be conveyed by a periphrasis, and by laboured illustration.
This obstacle will be one of the most difficult to surmount in all
languages; and it cannot be perfectly overcome, till the Christian
teacher becomes perfectly familiar with the language of those whom
he wishes to instruct.
Here, then, the idea of God's moral purity was conveyed by the Mosaic
economy in a manner in accordance with the constitution and the
condition of the Jewish mind. This same idea has descended from the
Hebrew, through the Greek, to our own language; and there is, so far
as known, no other word in the world which conveys to the mind the
true idea of God's moral purity, but that originated by the
institution which God prescribed to Moses upon the Mount.[17]
[17] Ex. xxv. 9.
The demonstration, then, is conclusive, both from philosophy and fact,
that the true and necessary idea of God's attribute of holiness was
originated by the 'patterns' of the Levitical economy, and that it
could have been communicated to mankind, at the first, in no other
way.[18]
[18] The foundation principle of that school of scepticism, at the
head of which are the atheistical materialists, is, that all
knowledge is derived through the medium of the senses, and that as
God is not an object of sense, men can have no knowledge of his
being or attributes. Now these deductions show that the truth of
revealed religion may be firmly established upon their own
proposition.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE ORIGIN OF THE IDEAS OF JUSTICE AND MERCY, AND THEIR TRANSFER TO
THE CHARACTER OF JEHOVAH.
Although holiness and justice convey to the mind ideas somewhat
distinct from each other, yet the import of the one is shaded into
that of the other. Holiness signifies the purity of the Divine nature
from moral defilement; while justice signifies the relation which
holiness causes God to sustain to men, as the subjects of the Divine
government. In relation to God, one is subjective, declaring his
freedom from sin; the other objective, declaring his opposition to
sin, as the transgression of the Divine law. The Israelites might know
that God was holy, and that he required of them clean hands and a
clean heart in worship, and yet not understand the full demerit of
transgressing the will of God, or the intensity of the Divine
opposition to sin. God had given them the moral law, and they knew
that he required them to obey it; but what, in the mind of God, was
the proper desert of disobeying it, they did not know. They had been
accustomed, like all idolaters, to consider the desert of moral
transgression uncertain and unequal. Now they had to learn the
immutable justice of the Supreme Being--that his holiness was not a
passive quality, but an active attribute of his nature, and not only
the opposite, but the antagonist principle to sin.
_In what manner, then, could a knowledge of the Divine justice, or of
the demerit of sin in the sight of God, be conveyed to the minds of
the Jews?_
There is but one way in which any being can manifest to other minds
the opposition of his nature to sin. A lawgiver can manifest his views
of the demerit of transgression in no other way than by the _penalty_
which he inflicts upon the transgressor. In all beings who have
authority to make law for the obedience of others, the conscience is
the standard which regulates the amount of punishment that should be
inflicted upon the disobedient; and the measure of punishment which
conscience dictates, is just in proportion to the opposition which the
lawgiver feels to the transgression of his law; that is, the amount of
regard which he has for his own law, will graduate the amount of
opposition which he will feel to its transgression. The amount of
opposition which any being feels to sin is in proportion to the
holiness of that being, and conscience will sanction penalty up to the
amount of opposition which he feels to crime.
If the father of a family felt no regard for the law of the sabbath,
his conscience would not allow him to punish his children for
violating, by folly or labour, a law which he did not himself respect.
But a father who felt a sacred regard for the Divine law, would be
required by his conscience to cause his children to respect the
sabbath, and to punish them if they disobeyed. The penalty which one
felt to be wrong, the other would feel to be right, because the
disposition of the one towards the law was different from that of the
other.
The principle, then, is manifest, that the more holy and just any
being is, the more opposed he is to sin, and the higher penalty will
his conscience sanction as the desert of transgressing the Divine law.
Now God being infinitely holy, he is, therefore, infinitely opposed to
sin; and the Divine conscience will enforce penalty accordingly.
This is the foundation of penalty in the Divine mind. The particular
point of inquiry is, _How could the desert of sin, as it existed in
the mind of God, be revealed to the Israelites?_
If the penalty inflicted is sanctioned by the conscience of the
lawgiver, it follows, as has been shown, that the opposition of his
nature to the crime is in exact proportion to the penalty which he
inflicts upon the criminal. Penalty, therefore, inflicted upon the
transgressor, is the only way by which the standard of justice, as it
exists in the mind of God, could be revealed to men.
The truth of this principle may be made apparent by illustration.
Suppose a father were to express his will in relation to the
government of his family, and the regulations were no sooner made than
some of his children should resist his authority and disobey his
commands. Now, suppose the father should not punish the offenders, but
treat them as he did his obedient children. By so doing he would
encourage the disobedient, discourage the obedient, destroy his own
authority, and make the impression upon the minds of all his children
that he had no regard for the regulations which he had himself made.
And further, if these regulations were for the general good of the
family, by not maintaining them he would convince the obedient that he
did not regard their best interests, but was the friend of the
rebellious. And if he were to punish for the transgression but
lightly, they would suppose that he estimated but lightly a breach of
his commands, and they could not, from the constitution of their
minds, suppose otherwise. But if the father, when one of the children
transgressed, should punish him and exclude him from favour till he
submitted to his authority, and acknowledged with a penitent spirit
his offence, then the household would be convinced that the father's
will was imperative, and that the only alternative presented to them
was affectionate submission, or exclusion from the society of their
father and his obedient children. Thus the amount of the father's
regard for the law, his interest in the well-being of his obedient
children, and the opposition of his nature to disobedience, would be
graduated in every child's mind by the penalty which he inflicted for
the transgression of his commands.
So in the case of an absolute lawgiver: his hostility to crime could
be known only by the penalty which he inflicted upon the criminal. If,
for the crime of theft, he were to punish the offender only by the
imposition of a trifling fine, the impression would be made upon every
mind that he did not, at heart, feel much hostility to the crime of
larceny. If he had the power, and did not punish crime at all, he
would thus reveal to the whole nation that he was in league with
criminals, and himself a criminal at heart.
So in relation to murder, if he were to let the culprit go free, or
inflict upon him but a slight penalty, he would thus show that his
heart was tainted with guilt, and that there was no safety for good
men under his government. But should he fix a penalty to
transgression, declare it to all his subjects, and visit every
criminal with punishment in proportion to his guilt, he would show to
the world that he regarded the law, and was opposed directly and for
ever to its transgression.
In like manner, and in no other way, could God manifest to men his
infinite justice and his regard for the laws of his kingdom. Did he
punish for sin with but a slight penalty, the whole universe of mind
would have good reason to believe that the God of heaven was but
little opposed to sin. Did he punish it with the highest degree of
penalty, it would be evidence to the universe that his nature was in
the highest degree opposed to sin and attached to holiness.
Now, whatever may be said in relation to the application of these
principles to future rewards and punishments, one thing will be
apparent to all, which is all that the present argument requires to be
admitted, that is--the mind of man would receive an idea of the amount
of God's opposition to sin, only by the amount of penalty which he
inflicted upon the sinner.
Having ascertained these premises, we return to the inquiry, _How
could the demerit of sin in the sight of God, or the idea of God's
attribute of justice, be conveyed to the minds of the Jews?_
The people had now, in a good degree, a knowledge of what sin is. In
addition to the light of natural conscience, which might guide them to
some extent in relation to their duties to each other, they had the
moral law, with the commentary of Moses, defining its precepts, and
applying them to the conduct of life. Their minds were thus
enlightened in relation to sin in the following particulars. First,
those acts which were a transgression of the positive precepts of the
law; Second, omissions of duties enjoined in the law; and, Third, many
acts which the spirit of the law would condemn, but which might not
be defined in any particular precept, would now be noticed by
enlightened conscience, as sin against Jehovah, their holy benefactor,
and the giver of the law.
Having thus been taught what was sin of commission and omission, one
obvious design of the institution of sacrifices,[19] and one which has
been perceived and understood, both by the Jews and Gentiles, was to
convey to the mind the just demerit and proper penalty of sin.
[19] The question whether the sacrifices, and the particular
regulations concerning them, were of Divine origin, does not
affect the argument. Whether they were originally instituted by
Divine command, or whether Moses, acting under Divine guidance,
modified an existing institution and adapted it to the Divine
purposes, both the design, and the end accomplished, would be the
same. There are good reasons, however, for the opinion, that
sacrifices for sin were of Divine appointment.
There were three classes of sacrifices in the old dispensation in
which death was inflicted. The first, which Gentiles as well as Jews
were permitted to offer, was the holocaust, or whole burnt-offering,
which was entirely consumed by fire. Sacrifices of this description
seem to have been offered from the earliest ages. They were offered,
as the best informed think, as an acknowledgment of, and atonement
for, general sinfulness of life. They seem to have had reference to
the fact that men constantly violate known duty, and do many things
which the light of nature and conscience teaches them not to do.
After the whole burnt-offering, was the sin-offering, sacrificed for
an atonement, when the individual had transgressed any specific
precept of the moral law.
The trespass-offering differed only from the sin-offering, as the
learned suppose, in this, that it was a sacrifice for sins of
omission, or for the non-performance of duty, while the sin-offering
was made for a violation of the specific precepts of the moral law.
Whether the design of the different classes of sacrifices was as above
specified or not, is not material, further than it shows how nicely
the forms of the Levitical economy were adjusted to meet that varied
consciousness of sin which the precepts of the law and an enlightened
conscience would produce in the human soul. The material point to
which attention is necessary, with reference to the present
discussion, is that by which the death and destruction of the animal
offered in sacrifice were made to represent the desert of the sinner.
When an individual brought a sacrifice, he delivered it to the priest
to be slain. He then laid his hands upon its head, thereby, in a form
well understood among the Jews, transferring to it his sins; and then
the life of the sacrifice was taken as a substitute for his own life.
He was thus taught that the transgression of the law, or any act of
sin against God, was worthy of death; and that the sacrifice suffered
that penalty in his stead.
Further: the Jews had been taught that the blood of the sacrifice was
its life; or rather the principle upon which the life of the body
depended. Upon this subject they had the following express
instruction--'For the life of the flesh is the blood: and I have given
it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it
is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.'[20] Now, this
blood, which the Jews were thus taught to believe was the life of the
sacrifice, was repeatedly sprinkled by the priest upon the mercy-seat
and towards the holy place; thus presenting the life of the sacrifice
immediately in the presence of God (the ineffable light, or symbol of
God's presence, rested over the mercy-seat between the cherubim);
signifying--as plainly as forms, and shadows, and external types could
signify, that life had been rendered up to God to make atonement for
their souls.
[20] Lev. xvii. 11.
Thus the idea was conveyed to their minds through the senses, that the
desert of sin in the sight of God was the death of the soul. And while
they stood praying in the outer court of the tabernacle, and beheld
the dark volume of smoke ascending from the fire that consumed the
sacrifice which was _burning in their stead_, how awful must have been
the impression of the desert of sin, made by that dark volume of
ascending smoke! The idea was distinct and deeply impressed, that
God's justice was a consuming fire to sinners, and that their souls
escaped only through a vicarious atonement.
As a picture in a child's primer will convey an idea to the infant
mind, long before it can be taught by abstract signs, so the Jews, in
the infancy of their knowledge of God, and before there were any
abstract signs to convey that knowledge, had thrown into their minds,
through the senses, the two essential ideas of God's justice and
mercy: His justice, in that the wages of sin is the death of the soul;
and His mercy, in that God would pardon the sinner, if he confessed
his sin, acknowledged the life of his soul forfeited, and offered the
life of the sacrifice as his substitute.
In this manner an idea of the desert of sin was conveyed to the minds
of the Jews; God's law honoured, and the utter hostility of the
Lawgiver to sin clearly manifested; and God's mercy was likewise
revealed as stated in the preceding paragraph. Thus, in a manner
accordant with the circumstances of the Jews, and by means adapted in
their operation to the constitution of nature, was the knowledge of
God's attribute of justice, and the relation which mercy sustains to
that attribute, fully revealed in the world; and in view of the nature
of things, it could have been revealed in no other way.[21]
[21] Inquiring readers of the Old Testament often find many things
announced in the name of God, which must seem to them inconsistent
with the majesty of the Divine nature, unless they view those
requirements in the light of the inquiry, 'What impressions were
they adapted to make upon the Jewish mind?' There are but few
readers of the Old Testament who read on this subject
intelligently. In this remark we do not refer to the historical or
preceptive portions of these writings, but to the elements of the
Mosaic institution. In order to see the design of many items of
the system, we must consider those items as exhibitions to the
senses, designed chiefly, perhaps only, to produce right ideas, or
to correct erroneous ones then existing, in the minds of the Jews.
The inquiry ought not to be, What impressions are they adapted to
produce upon our minds concerning God? but, What impression would
the particular revelation make upon _their_ minds? An instance or
two will illustrate these remarks.
The adaptation to accomplish a necessary end is apparent in the
scene at Sinai. The Israelites had been accustomed to an idolatry
where the most common familiarities were practised with the idol
gods. The idea of reverence and majesty which belongs to the
character of God had been lost, by attaching the idea of divinity
to the objects of sense. It was necessary, therefore, that the
idea of God should now be clothed, in their minds, with that
reverence and majesty which properly belong to it. The scene at
Sinai was adapted to produce, and did produce for the time being,
the right impression. The mountain was made to tremble to its
base. A cloud of darkness covered its summit, from which the
lightnings leaped out and thunders uttered their voices. In the
words of a New Testament writer, there was 'blackness, and
darkness, and tempest.' It was ordered that neither man nor beast
should touch the mountain, lest they should be visited with death.
The exhibition in all its forms was adapted to produce that sense
of majesty and awe in view of the Divine character which the
Israelites needed to feel. To minds subjected to the influence of
other circumstances than those which affected the character of the
Israelites in Egypt, such manifestations might not be necessary;
but in the case of the Jews, accustomed as they had been to
witness a besotting familiarity with idols, these manifestations
were directly adapted to counteract low views of the Divine
character, and to inspire the soul with suitable reverence in view
of the infinite majesty and eternal power of the Being with whom
they had to do.
The testimony of the Bible in relation to the design of the
exhibition at Sinai corroborates the views that have been given.
'When the people saw it, they removed and stood afar off. And they
said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not
God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people,
Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be
before your faces, that ye sin not.'--Ex. xx. 18-20.
The scene which occurred afterwards, evinced the necessity of this
exhibition, and developed the result of the proof [trial] that was
made of their character. In the absence of Moses, they required an
image of Jehovah to be made, and they feasted and 'played' (this
last word having a licentious import) in its presence. Thus, after
trial of the strongest exhibitions upon their mind, some of them
proved themselves so incorrigibly attached to licentious idolatry,
that they desired to worship Jehovah under the character of the
Egyptian calf. They thus proved themselves unfit material, too
corrupt for the end in view; and they were, in accordance with the
reason of the case, destroyed.
Another conviction necessary to be lodged in the minds of the
Israelites, and impressed deeply and frequently upon their hearts,
was faith in the present and overruling God. This was the more
necessary, as no visible image of Jehovah was allowed in the camp.
There were but two methods possible by which their minds could be
convinced of the immediate presence and power of God controlling
all the events of their history. Either such exhibitions must be
made that they would see certain ends accomplished without human
instrumentality; or they must see human instrumentality clothed
with a power which it is not possible in the nature of things it
should in itself possess. The circumstances connected with the
fall of Jericho will illustrate the case. The people were required
to surround the city, by a silent procession during seven days,
bearing the sacred ark, and blowing with rude instruments which
they used for trumpets. On the seventh day, the people were to
shout after they had compassed the city seven times; and when they
shouted, according to a Divine promise, the walls of the city fell
to the ground. Now, here was a process of means in which there was
no adaptation to produce the external effect, in order that the
INTERNAL effect, the great end of all revelation, might be
produced--that they might be taught to recognise Jehovah as the
present God of nature and providence, and rest their faith on him.
If the Israelites had, in this case, used the common
instrumentalities to secure success--if they had destroyed the
wall with instruments of war, or scaled its height with ladders,
and thus overcome by the strength of their own arm, or the aid of
their own devices, instead of being led to humble reliance upon
God, and to recognise his agency in their behalf, they would have
seen in the means which they had used a cause adequate to produce
the effect, and they would have forgotten the First Cause, upon
whose power they were dependent. Second causes were avoided in
order that they might see the connection between the First Cause
and the effect produced--human instrumentality stood in abeyance,
in order that the Divine agency might be recognised. Thus they
were taught to have faith in God, and to rely upon the presence
and the power of the Invisible Jehovah.
CHAPTER IX.
THE TRANSITION FROM THE MATERIAL SYSTEM, BY WHICH RELIGIOUS IDEAS WERE
CONVEYED THROUGH THE SENSES, TO THE SPIRITUAL SYSTEM, IN WHICH
ABSTRACT IDEAS WERE CONVEYED BY WORDS AND PARABLES.
Human language has always advanced from its first stage, in which
ideas are acquired directly through the medium of the senses, to the
higher state, in which abstract ideas are conveyed by appropriate
words and signs. When an idea is once formed by outward objects, and a
word formed representing that idea, it is then no longer necessary or
desirable that the object which first originated the idea should
longer be associated in the mind with the idea itself. It is even
true that the import of abstract ideas suffers from a co-existence, in
the mind, of the abstract thought with the idea of the object which
originated it. Thus the word spirit now conveys a distinct idea to the
mind of pure spiritual existence; but the distinctness and power of
the idea are impaired, by remembering that the word from which it was
derived originally signified wind, and that the word itself was
originated in the first place by the wind. So in other cases, although
the ideas of abstract and spiritual things can be originated,
primarily, only from outward objects, yet when they have been
originated, and the spiritual idea has been connected with the sign or
word conveying its proper sense, it is desirable, in order to their
greater force and perspicuity, that their connection with materiality
should be broken off in the mind.
In all written languages this advancement from one stage of perfection
to another, by the addition of abstract ideas, can be traced; and
experience teaches, incontrovertibly, that the advancement of human
language, as above described, and the advancement of human society,
are dependent upon each other.
The preceding principles being applied to the subject under
consideration, it would follow that the Mosaic machinery, which formed
the abstract ideas, conveying the knowledge of God's true character,
would no longer be useful after those ideas were originated, defined,
and connected with the words which expressed their abstract or
spiritual import. It would follow, therefore, that the machinery would
be entirely dispensed with whenever it had answered the entire design
for which it was put into operation. Whenever the Jews were cured of
idolatry, and had obtained true ideas of the attributes of the true
God, then the dispensation of shadows and ceremonies, which 'could not
make the comers thereunto perfect,' would, according to the reason of
things, pass away, and give place to a more perfect and more spiritual
dispensation.
We find, accordingly, that the machinery of the tabernacle was
gradually removed, it never having existed in perfection after the
location of the tribes in Palestine. They sojourned in the wilderness
until those who had come out of Egypt died. The generation who
succeeded them had the advantage of having received their entire
education through the medium of the Mosaic institution, and thus of
being freed from vicious habits and remembrances contracted in
idolatrous society.
Afterwards the Prophets held an intermediate place between the
material dispensation of Moses and the pure spirituality of that of
Christ. In the prophetic books, especially the later ones, there is an
evident departure from a reliance upon the external forms, and an
application of the ideas connected with those forms to internal states
of mind. Their views of the old dispensation were more spiritual than
the views of those who lived near the origin of the institution. And
in the dispensation of the Messiah, the Prophets evidently expected
clearer light and purer spirituality.
The state of the case, then, is this: The old dispensation was
necessary and indispensable in itself, and in its place; but it was
neither designed nor adapted to continue. The knowledge of Divine
things which it generated was necessary for all men, but as yet it was
circumscribed to a small portion of the human family. The point of
inquiry now presents itself: _How could this essential knowledge
concerning the Divine Nature and attributes be extended throughout the
world?_
There would be but two methods possible--either the same processes,
and the same cumbrous machinery (which were a 'burden' that an apostle
affirmed neither he nor his fathers were able to bear) must be
established in every nation, and kindred, and tribe of the human
family, and thus each nation be disciplined and educated by itself, or
one nation must be prepared and disciplined, their propensity to
idolatry destroyed, the ideas coined in the die prepared by Jehovah
thrown into their minds, and then, being thus prepared, they might be
made the instruments of transferring those ideas into the languages of
other nations.[22] If the Almighty were to adopt the first method, it
would exclude men from benevolent labour for the spiritual good of
each other; and besides, the history of the process with the Jews, as
well as the reason of the thing, would indicate that the latter method
would be the one which the Maker would adopt.
[22] There is a common, and to some minds, a weighty objection
against the truth of revealed religion, stated as follows:--If God
ever gave a religion to the world, why did he not reveal it to all
men, and reveal it at once and perfectly, so that no one could
doubt? If this had been possible, it might not have been
expedient; but the nature of things, as we have seen, rendered it
impossible to give man a revelation in such a manner.
But, in order to the diffusion of the knowledge of God by the latter
method, some things would be necessary as pre-requisites, among which
are the following:
1. That the Jews, who possessed these ideas, should be scattered
throughout the world, and that they should be thus scattered long
enough before the time of the general diffusion of Divine knowledge to
have become familiar with the languages of the different nations where
they sojourned. This would be necessary, in order that, by speaking in
other tongues, they might transfer into them their own ideas of Divine
things, by attaching those ideas to words in the respective languages
which they spoke, or by introducing into those languages words and
phrases of Hebrew origin conveying the revealed ideas. Whether the
different languages were acquired by miraculous or by human
instrumentality, there would be no other way possible of transferring
ideas from one language to another, but by the methods above
mentioned.
2. It would be necessary, before the Jews were thus scattered, that
their propensity to idolatry should be entirely subdued, otherwise
they would, as they had frequently done before, fall into the
abominable habits of the nations among whom they were dispersed.[23]
[23] Idolatry is one of the most unconquerable of all the corrupt
propensities of the human soul. Miracles under the new
dispensation had scarcely ceased--the apostolic fathers were
scarcely cold in their graves, before idolatrous forms were again
superinduced upon the pure spirituality of the holy gospel; and in
the papal church the curse continues till this hour.
3. The new and spiritual system should be first propagated among
those who understood both the spiritual import of the Hebrew language,
and likewise the language of the other nations to whom the gospel was
to be preached. It was necessary that the new dispensation should be
committed, first to the Jews, who were scattered in the surrounding
nations, because, as we have seen, they were the only individuals
immediately prepared to communicate it to others.
Now the following facts are matters of authentic history.
1. By instruction and discipline the Jews were entirely cured of the
propensity to idolatry--so much so that their souls abhorred idols.
2. They were, and had been for many generations, dispersed among all
nations of the Roman world; but still, in their dispersion they
retained their peculiar ideas, and multitudes of this peculiar people
assembled out of all countries, at least once a year, at the city of
Jerusalem, to worship Jehovah; and it was while the multitudes were
thus assembled that the gospel was first preached to them; and
preached, as was proper it should be, by power and miracle, in order
that those present might know assuredly that the dispensation was from
heaven.
3. The new dispensation was likewise introduced, in the first place,
among the Jews who continued to reside in Palestine, and when a
sufficient number of them were fully initiated persecutions were
caused to arise which scattered them abroad among the nations; and the
Gentile languages not being known to them, they were miraculously
endowed with the gift of tongues, that they might communicate to
others the treasures of Divine knowledge committed to them.
Thus, when the old dispensation had fulfilled its design in
disciplining the Jews, in imparting first ideas, and thus, as a
'schoolmaster,' preparing the people for the higher instruction of
Christ; and when the fulness of the times had come that the means and
the material were prepared to propagate the spiritual truth of the new
dispensation, then the Mosaic cycle would appropriately close--it
would not be consistent that it should remain longer, for the plain
reason given by Jesus himself, that new wine should not be put into
old bottles, nor the old and imperfect forms be incorporated with the
new and spiritual system.
Therefore it was that so soon as the new dispensation had been
introduced, and its foundations firmly laid, Jerusalem, the centre of
the old economy, with the temple, and all things pertaining to the
ritual service, was at once and completely destroyed, and the old
system vanished away for ever. It would not have been expedient for
God to destroy the old system sooner, because it was necessary to
engraft the new system upon the old; and it ought not to have remained
longer, for the reasons above stated.[24]
[24] It was necessary that the old system should be destroyed at
this time in order to throw the Jews upon Christ as the sacrifice
for their sins. Under the old dispensation the sacrifices for sin
were allowed to continue to the end. From this sacrifice they were
taught to hope for pardon. An idea had been, by the process which
God himself instituted, originated in their mind, that death must
ensue for sin; but by transferring their sins to the head of the
sacrifice, it died as a vicarious expiation, and they lived. It
had become a part almost of the Jewish mind, that they could not
hope for pardon, unless the sacrifice was offered. They felt that
their life was forfeited by sin, and they were unpardoned until
the sacrifice was made, and it could be made nowhere else but at
Jerusalem. Now God destroyed Jerusalem, and caused the offering
for sin to cease, and entirely annihilated the possibility of
their ever again expiating their sins by the bloody sacrifices;
they were therefore shut up to the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice
for sin. By the destruction of Jerusalem the alternative was
presented to the Jews--Accept of Christ's sacrifice, or you have
no propitiation for your sins.
CHAPTER X.
THE MEDIUM OF CONVEYING TO MEN PERFECT INSTRUCTION IN DOCTRINE AND
DUTY.
The knowledge which the old dispensation was designed to generate had
been transmitted into the minds of the Jews; and the Jews had been
prepared to transmit the abstract import of those spiritual ideas into
other languages. The Mosaic institution, having accomplished its
design, was about to 'vanish away,' and give place to the new
dispensation, which would end the series of God's revealed
instructions, by giving men a perfect system of religion, accompanied
by those aids and influences which would be adapted to develop and
perfect man's moral powers, and render him, in his present condition,
as perfect as his nature and his circumstances would allow.
At this point of our progress the inquiry presents itself--_What can
we learn, from the present constitution of things, concerning the
medium or instrumentality that God would adopt in giving mankind a
perfect system of religion?_
When the ideas that conveyed the knowledge of God were understood by
the people, human language would then become the proper medium of
communication. The very fact that the ideas were generated and thrown
into language, evinces that language was designed eventually to be the
medium through which they should be transmitted to the world. When the
ideas were prepared, as has been stated, then all that would be
necessary, in order to the further and more perfect communication of
knowledge, would be, that men should have a teacher to use this
language--to expand, illustrate, and apply these ideas; and by these,
give definitions, and illustrate and spiritualize other ideas when
necessary.
Further: man's senses are constituted with an adaptation to the
external world; and his intellectual constitution is adapted to
intercourse with his fellow man. The delicate bony structure of the
ear, which conveys sounds from the tympanum to the sensorium, is
nicely adjusted by the Maker to appreciate and convey the tones and
modulations of the human voice. Human gesture, likewise, and the
expression of the countenance and the eye, are auxiliary to human
language in conveying instruction. The nature of man, therefore, is
adapted, both physically and intellectually, to receive knowledge by
communications from one of his own species. If God designed that an
angel should instruct the human family, one of two things would have
to be done--either the human constitution would have to be elevated
and adapted to intercourse with a being of a higher order in the scale
of creation, or that being would have to let down his nature to human
capacity, and thus adapt himself to intercourse with human natures.
And it would even be requisite that the teacher should not assume the
highest condition of humanity in order that his instructions should
accomplish the greatest general good; nor should his communications be
made in the most cultivated and elevated style of language. If he
would instruct the common mind in the best manner, he must use common
language and common illustrations; and if God (blessed be his name)
were himself to instruct human nature, _as it is_, the same means
would be necessary.
Another step--Man is so constituted that he learns by example better
than precept. Theory without practice, or precept without example,
does not constitute a perfect system of instruction. The theory of
surveying, however perfect it may be taught in college, never makes a
practical surveyor. An artist may give a most perfect theory of his
art to his apprentices or those whom he wishes to instruct in a
knowledge of his business; but if he would have them become practical
artists themselves, he must, with tools in hand, practise his own
instructions before the eyes of the learner. In the language of the
trades, he must 'show how it's done.' Such, then, is the nature of
man, that in order to a perfect system of instruction there must be
both precept and example.
Now there can be but one perfect model of human nature. And man could
not be removed to some other planet, nor out of his present
circumstances, to be instructed. If the Almighty, therefore, designed
ever to give a perfect and final system of instruction to mankind, it
could be done only by placing in this world a perfect human nature--a
being who would not only give perfect precepts, but who would practise
those precepts before the eyes of men. If such a being were placed
among men, who, amid all the perplexities, difficulties, and trials
which affect men in their present condition, would exhibit perfect
action of body, heart, and mind in all his relations of life, and in
all his duties to God and man--that would be a model character,
practising the precepts of the Divine law in man's present
circumstances. The example of an angel, or of any being of a different
order from man, would be of no benefit to the human family. Man must
see his duties, as man exemplified in his own nature. Human nature
could be perfected only by following a perfect model of human nature.
But, with the rule of duty in his hand, and a model character before
him, man would have a system of instruction perfectly adapted to his
nature, and adapted to perfect his nature. If God, therefore, designed
to give man a final and perfect system of instruction, he would adopt
the method thus adapted to the constitution which he has given his
creatures.--Now, Jesus Christ is that model character. He assumed
human nature--came to the earth, man's residence--expounded and
illustrated the law in human language; gave it its spiritual import,
and applied it to the different circumstances and conditions of human
life. He removed the false glosses which the ignorance and the
prejudices of men had attached to it; he modified or rescinded those
permissions or clauses which were accommodated to the darkness of
former times, and the imperfections of the Jewish system: and then, by
applications the most striking and definite, he showed the bearing of
the rule of duty upon all varieties of human action.
And further: the law being thus defined and applied, in order that the
world might have a model character, he conformed himself to all its
requirements. And in order that that model might be a guide in all the
varied circumstances in which some of the family of man might be
placed, Jesus placed himself in all those circumstances, and _acted_
in them. Is man surrounded by a sinful and suffering world? So was
Jesus. Does he desire to know how to act in such circumstances? Jesus
ministered occasionally to the temporal wants of men, and laboured
continually to promote their spiritual good. Is man popular? So was
Jesus; and he used his influence to purify his Father's house. Is man
forsaken by his last friend? So was Jesus; and he upbraided and
murmured not, but sought consolation in communion with the Father.
Does man visit and dine with the learned and the religious formalists
of the age? So did Jesus; and in his conversation he maintained the
claims of spiritual religion, and reproved man's hypocrisy and
formality. Does man sit down in the cottage of the poor? So did Jesus;
and he encouraged and comforted the inmates with spiritual
instruction. Is man present when a group of friends are assembled on
an occasion which warrants innocent enjoyment? So was Jesus; and he
approved their social pleasures. Is man called to sympathize with
those in affliction? So was Jesus; and '_Jesus wept_.' Thus by land
and by sea, in all places and under all circumstances, wherever any of
earth's children are called to act, Jesus--the model Man--is seen
living and moving before them: and his voice falls upon their ear with
the mingled cadence of authority and encouragement, 'FOLLOW ME.'
The demonstration, then, is manifest, that, through the medium of
Jesus Christ, man has received a perfect system of instruction; and a
final and perfect revelation of duty to God and man could be given in
no other way.
CHAPTER XI.
SOME OF THE PECULIAR PROOFS OF THE MESSIAHSHIP OF CHRIST.
We have now arrived at a point in our subject where the light of
history will aid in our investigations. The facts which history
furnishes, and which will elucidate the present point of inquiry, are
the following: First, the Jewish prophets lived and wrote centuries
before the period in which Jesus appeared in Judæa. This fact is as
certain as any other item of human knowledge.
A second fact is--The Jews, about the time of Christ's appearance,
expected with more earnestness and desire than usual the appearance of
their Messiah, who, they supposed, would deliver them from subjection
to Gentile nations, and place the Jewish power in the ascendant among
the nations of the earth. They generally supposed that as a king he
would reign with great dignity and power, and, as a priest, preside
over, not abrogate, the ceremonial law. Although some of the common
people may have had some understanding of the true nature of the
Messiah's kingdom, yet the prominent men of the nation, and the great
body of the people of all classes, were not expecting that the kingdom
of Christ would be purely spiritual, but that it would be mainly
temporal. And, indeed, it was necessary that they should not have a
clear conception of the worth and spirituality of the Messiah's
dispensation previously to his coming; because if they had had such a
conception, the imperfections and darkness of their own dispensation
would not have been borne. It is contrary to the nature of mind when
it is enlightened, to delight in, and employ itself longer about, the
preparatory steps that lead it to the light.
The facts in the case, then, were, first, The prophets lived and wrote
centuries before the era of Christ; and, second, On account of
intimations, or supposed intimations, in their prophecies, the Jews
were expecting the Messiah about the time that Jesus appeared in
Judæa. With the question concerning the inspiration of the prophets,
we have just now nothing to do. Whether they were inspired or not,
their books contained the matter upon which the Jews founded their
expectations of the appearance of the Messiah. With the question how
the Jews could mistake the character of the Messiah, we have also now
nothing to do; although the solution of the question would not be
difficult. The simple facts which require attention are--The
prophecies existed; and in those prophecies a Ruler was spoken of, of
most exalted character, whose dominion would be triumphant, universal,
and endless--whose doctrines would be pure and spiritual; and whose
administration would be a blessing, not only to the Jews, but also to
the Gentiles--and yet, his life would be humble and not suited to the
feeling of the Jews--his sufferings extreme; and that he would
terminate the old dispensation, and die for the sins of the
people.[25]
[25] Isaiah liii. Dan. ix. 24-27. Micah v. 1, 2. Mal. iii. 1-3.
Zech. ix. 9, 10. Isa. ix. 1-7.
Now, in view of these facts, _In what character would the true Messiah
appear, when he assumed his duties as the Instructor of mankind?_
If he had appeared and conformed to the views which the Jews
entertained of a temporal Messiah, it would have been direct evidence
that he was an impostor; because the Jewish views of his character and
reign, as all can now see, were selfish, ambitious, imperfect, and
partial. Now, a teacher sent from God to give the world a perfect
religion could not conform to such views; but an impostor, from the
nature of the case, could have conformed to no other standard than the
views of the people. If an impostor wished to pass himself upon the
Jews as their Messiah, he must assume that character and conform to
that conduct which he knew they expected in their Messiah. For an
impostor to assume a different character from that which he knew the
nation expected their Messiah would bear, would have been to use means
to frustrate his own plans, which would be impossible; because man
cannot have a governing desire for attainment of an end, and at the
same time use means which he knows will frustrate the accomplishment
of his own object. An impostor, therefore, in the state of expectancy
which existed at that time in Judæa, could not do otherwise than
conform himself to the character which the nation were expecting
their Messiah would possess.
Mark the two points. The prophets gave a delineation of the character,
life, and death of the Messiah. This delineation the Jews
misinterpreted, or applied to several individuals; so that they were
expecting in their Messiah a character entirely different from that
described by the prophets.
Now mark the application of these points. If Christ had conformed to
the views of the Jews there would have been three direct testimonies
that he was not from God. (1.) Because their views were partial,
prejudiced, wicked. (2.) He could not have conformed to their views,
and sustained at the same time the character of a perfect
instructor.[26] (3.) He would not have fulfilled the predictions of
the prophets concerning him. But, on the other hand, if he conformed
to the prophets, and assumed the character of a perfect teacher, his
rejection by the Jews was absolutely certain.[27] It follows,
therefore, legitimately and conclusively, that Jesus Christ was the
Messiah of God, because he pursued that course which would, from the
nature of the case, result in his rejection by the nation; which
conduct, in an impostor, would be impossible--but in the true Messiah
it was the necessary course.
[26] See chap. x.
[27] The fact that Jesus conformed to the prophets, established
the truth of the prophecies; because, by conforming to them, he
suffered death; while by his death, in accordance with the
prophets, the world gained the evidence that he was the true
Messiah. To give life as a testimony to falsehood, is impossible,
either in a good or in an evil being.
But further: it was necessary that Jesus should establish his claim as
the Messiah by miraculous agency.[28] But owing to the peculiar state
of the Jewish nation at that time, there would be great difficulty in
doing this, for the following reasons.--If he, as Moses did, had come
publicly before the nation at Jerusalem, and by miracles of great
power, frequently repeated, and extending their influence throughout
all the land, had forced conviction upon the minds of all the Jews
that he was the true Messiah, the immediate and inevitable result
would have been, that they would have raised one universal revolt
against the Roman power, and would have hurried the Saviour of sinners
into the office of the King of the Jews; and then bowed down to him as
the temporal sovereign of the Jewish nation. But, notwithstanding this
error of the Jews, and the results to which it would directly tend,
still it would be necessary in order to meet the constitution of
things, that Christ should manifest, by exhibitions of miraculous
power, the credentials attesting the Divinity of his mission. The
inquiry then arises, _How could Jesus perform miracles, and at the
same time prevent revolt in the nation?_
[28] See chap. iii. On Miracles.
The circumstances of the case would render it necessary that his
miracles should not be attended by that publicity and power which
would lead those who had the influence of the nation in their hands,
and who were blind to the true design of his mission, into revolt and
destruction. It was likewise necessary, on the other hand, that they
should be sufficiently frequent, and of sufficient power, to convince
the candid who witnessed them that they were the seal of heaven to the
mission of Jesus. When Christ wrought miracles, therefore, he would
have to aim at one end, and endeavour to prevent another--the end
aimed at, that the impression might be made on honest minds, that he
was the true Messiah; the end avoided, that the rulers of the nation
might not, on account of his mighty miracles, rally round him as their
temporal king, and thus hurry themselves and their nation to premature
destruction.
Now, the character and conduct of Jesus accord entirely with the
foregoing deductions, made out from undoubted historical facts. That
he performed many miracles, and yet suppressed their extensive
publicity, is frequently noticed in the New Testament. Jesus,
therefore, had the peculiar marks of the true Messiah; and, in view of
the peculiar condition of the Jewish nation at that time, the true
Messiah could have assumed no other character, and pursued no other
course of conduct, than that exhibited in the life of Christ.[29]
[29] Another item might be added to this demonstration, showing
that in order to the ultimation of the plan of salvation, it was
necessary that Jesus should so manifest himself and manage his
ministry, that a part of the Jews should receive him as the
Messiah, and a part reject him.
CHAPTER XII.
THE CONDITION IN LIFE WHICH IT WAS NECESSARY THE MESSIAH SHOULD ASSUME
IN ORDER TO BENEFIT THE HUMAN FAMILY IN THE GREATEST DEGREE, BY HIS
EXAMPLE AND INSTRUCTIONS.
Selfishness is a fundamental evil of human nature, the existence of
which is acknowledged by all men. It is not an evil which belongs to
any one class of human society. It is generic; and moves all ranks;
each individual looks upon those who stand next or near him in
society, and desires equality with, or superiority over them in
wealth, or popularity, or power. The law of reason and of God requires
that men should endeavour to elevate those below them up to their own
condition; selfishness is the opposite principle, which urges men to
elevate themselves over others. If the militia captain could follow
the desires of his nature, and ascend from one condition to another
until he stood upon the floor of the senate chamber, he would find
that the desire which led him to take the first step, had only
increased its power by gratification, and was still goading him on to
rise higher; and he would stop nowhere while life lasted, until he
perceived further efforts useless or dangerous. This selfish pride and
desire for self-aggrandizement is detrimental both to the individual
and to the social interests of men. Wherever selfish ambition exists
in any degree of strength, it generates misery to the individual and
to others about him. There are not, perhaps, more miserable men in the
world than are some of those who have gained to some extent the
object of their ambition, and are seated in the halls of legislation.
Their minds are constantly anxious in making some effort, or devising
some plan, by which they may promote the schemes in which they are
engaged. And every time the hopes of one are realised, the stings of
envy, and jealousy, and concealed hate, rankle in the bosoms of some
others. In the humbler walks of life, the evil exists, perhaps in a
less degree, but still it exists; and its existence is the bane of
human happiness, and the cause of human guilt.
Now, this wicked desire of human nature to aspire after elevated
worldly condition, rather than after usefulness of life and goodness
of heart, would be either fostered or checked by the condition in life
which the Messiah assumed among men. In proportion as his condition
was elevated, pride and the desire of elevation would be fostered in
the hearts of his followers. In proportion as his condition was humble
and depressed, pride of heart would be checked in all those who
received and honoured him as their Master and Teacher.[30]
[30] See chap. v.
Suppose that the Messiah had presented himself in the condition
anticipated by the Jews; surrounded by the pomp and parade of a
powerful temporal prince; sustaining the earthly dignity and splendour
of the ancient monarchs of the dynasty of David. Now, had such a
Messiah appeared in Judæa, it is perfectly certain, from the character
of human nature, that his earthly circumstances would have a tendency
to cherish in the people, as a nation, and as individuals, the bad
principles of pride and ambition. Worldly pomp and circumstances would
have had the sanction of the highest authority in the person of their
Messiah; and it would have induced the desire in all hearts to elevate
themselves as nearly as possible to his temporal condition. The pride
of the human heart would have been fostered and not humbled. Instead
of causing the middle walks of life to be grateful and contented in
their condition, it would have produced in them an anxiety to stretch
themselves upwards. And instead of causing those already elevated to
benefit the worthy poor, it would have caused them to have no sympathy
for any of the human family in low estate; because theirs was a
condition the opposite of that assumed by the great model which they
loved and admired. And instead of causing the poor to feel a greater
degree of contentment, and to avoid repining at their lot, the
circumstances of the Messiah would have deepened their dejection, and
rendered them less happy in their depressed condition; because their
condition would hinder them from approach to, or fellowship with, the
Heaven-sent Instructor. A teacher, therefore, believed to be from
heaven, who should assume an elevated condition in the world, instead
of being a spiritual blessing to the whole family of man, by promoting
in their bosoms humility and sympathy for each other, would have been
a spiritual curse, by producing haughtiness and hardness of heart in
the rich, ambition in the middle classes, and hopeless dejection in
the poor.
Suppose the Messiah had come in the character which the Greeks
admired; that, assuming the seat of the philosophers, he had startled
the learned world by disclosing to them new and sublime truths.
Suppose he had, by the power of far-reaching intellect, answered all
the questions and solved all the difficulties which perplexed the
minds of the disciples of the Porch and the Academy. In such a case
his instructions would have been adapted to satisfy the minds of a few
gifted individuals, but they would not have been adapted to benefit
the minds of many, nor the heart of any of the great mass of mankind.
Vain of their wisdom already, the character of the Messiah would have
been adapted to make the philosophers more so; and instead of blessing
them, by humbling their pride, and giving them a sympathy with their
fellow men, it would have led them and their admirers to look upon
those who were not endowed with superior mental qualities, as an
inferior class of men.
But, if the Messiah could not have appeared in the condition desired
by the Jews, nor in that admired by the Gentiles, the inquiry
arises--What condition in life would it be necessary that the Messiah
should assume, in order to benefit the human family in the highest
degree by the influence of that condition? In view of the foregoing
deductions, the solution is obvious: _In that condition which would
have the most direct influence to destroy selfishness and pride in the
human heart, and to foster, in their stead, humility, contentment, and
benevolence._
Now, in view of this result, deduced directly from the acknowledged
character of human nature, turn your attention to the earthly
circumstances of Jesus, and see how he brought the whole weight of his
condition in life to bear against selfishness and pride of heart.--He
was born in the lowest possible circumstances. His life was the
constant rebuke to every ambitious and proud feeling of the human
heart; and his death was one esteemed by men the most ignominious. No
one who openly acknowledged and had fellowship with Jesus of Nazareth,
as his Teacher and Master, could do so until the natural pride of his
nature was subdued. It was impossible for a man to find fellowship
with Jesus unless he humbled himself, because in no other state could
his feelings meet those of Christ. 'Take my yoke upon you,' said
Jesus, 'and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye
shall find rest unto your souls.'
Thus did Jesus place himself in a condition which rendered humility
absolutely necessary in order to sympathy with him--in the condition
directly opposed to pride of heart, one of the most insidious enemies
of man's happiness and usefulness. And as it is an acknowledged and
experimental fact that the soul finds rest only in meekness, and never
in selfishness and pride of mind, therefore, the demonstration is
perfect, that Christ assumed the only condition which it was possible
for him to assume, and thereby destroy pride and misery, and produce
humility and peace, in human bosoms.
Profane history and the New Testament Scriptures confirm the foregoing
views. Tacitus, speaking of the primitive Christians, alludes to them
with marked contempt, as the followers of one who had been crucified.
His manner evinces clearly not only his own feelings, but it is a good
index to the feelings of a majority of the people of that proud and
idolatrous age; and it establishes, beyond all controversy, the fact,
that no one could declare himself a follower of Christ until, for
truth and for Christ's sake, he was willing to be considered base in
the estimation of the world. The elegant Pliny likewise bears direct
testimony to the humility and integrity of life which characterized
the early disciples of Christ.
A great number of passages in the New Testament confirm the preceding
views. It is only necessary to say that the apostles understood not
only the effect of their Lord's circumstances, in life and death, upon
the minds of men, but they understood likewise the philosophy and the
necessity of the case. Says Paul--'It became (or was expedient for)
Him, from whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing
many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect
through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are
sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call
them brethren.'--That is, the humble and self-denying life and death
of Jesus was necessary, because it would have a sanctifying effect in
counteracting the evils in the hearts of men. It was necessary for him
to become their brother man, and assume a certain character and
condition, in order that, by their becoming one with him, they might
be sanctified and made happy and useful.
Thus, while the Jews required a sign, and the Greeks sought after
wisdom, the apostles preached Christ crucified; understanding the
philosophy, the efficiency, and the necessity of their doctrine. And
so long as the world lasts, every man who reads the New Testament,
whether saint or sinner, will be penetrated with the conviction that a
vain, aspiring, selfish spirit is incompatible with the religion of
Jesus.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES WHICH MUST, ACCORDING TO THE NATURE OF
THINGS, LIE AT THE FOUNDATION OF THE INSTRUCTION OF CHRIST.
The Messiah having come in the proper character, displayed the proper
credentials, and assumed the necessary condition, the question arises,
What may we learn from the character of God and the nature of man
concerning the fundamental principles which would govern the teaching
of Jesus?
God is righteous and benevolent; it therefore follows that he would
connect happiness with righteousness and goodness in his creatures.
Were he to do otherwise, it would be causing the happiness of man to
arise from a character different from its own, which, as God is good,
would be impossible, because it would be wicked.
Further, man is so constituted that, as a matter of fact, his true
happiness depends upon righteousness of life and benevolence of heart.
When his will accords with his knowledge of duty, or when he acts as
he knows is right towards God and his fellow men, there is peace and
even complacency of conscience. Peace and complacency of conscience is
the happiness which, according to man's moral constitution, arises
from righteousness, or right acting, in life. And when man exercises
benevolent feeling--has love in his heart to God and men, this
exercise of benevolent affection produces happiness. Now there can be
no such thing as happiness of spirit except it arise from these
sources. And when these sources are full and flowing, and thus unite
together--when there is perfect love and a perfect life, the soul is
rendered happy. A single unrighteous act of will or malevolent feeling
of heart will destroy this happiness; a single emotion of hatred or
ill-will, or a single evil act, known to be such, towards any of God's
creatures, will destroy the peace of the soul. Even hatred to an
enemy, or the desire of revenge, or any emotion but good-will, injures
the soul's happiness.
Thus, in constituting the human soul, God, in accordance with his own
character, has caused its happiness to depend upon righteousness and
goodness.
Now, then, a teacher sent from God must recognise these fundamental
principles, and give him instruction in view of them. The happiness of
the human soul, which is its _life_--its first, and best, and only
good, could be produced in no other way. The whole force, therefore,
of Divine instruction would be designed and adapted to accomplish this
necessary end. The legitimate development of God's nature, exercised
towards man, would produce such instructions and such an example; and
the best good of the human soul rendered it necessary that they should
be given.
It is not said that, as in the schools of philosophy, the constant
inquiry and search should be for the 'greatest good.' The very effort
to obtain happiness in this way would destroy its existence. Happiness
is not objective but subjective; no direct effort could gain it; it is
the result of the right action of the moral powers. It would not be
necessary, therefore, that those instructed should even understand the
principles which governed their instructor. It would be sufficient if
the instruction were designed and adapted to promote righteousness and
goodness: the happiness of the soul would follow as a result, whether
or not the recipient of the instruction understood the principles
which governed his teacher.
Now the whole power of Christ's instruction was directed to this
point. It was distinguished in this respect from all other instruction
ever given to mankind. I say unto you, Love your enemies. Do good to
them that despitefully use you. Be anxious about no worldly good. The
weightier matters of the law are righteousness and the love of God.
Love and obey God, and love and do good to your neighbour: this is the
law and the prophets. Seek first the kingdom of heaven and its
righteousness, and all other things will be added to you. That is,
seek first righteousness and the love of God, and the necessary result
will grow out of these exercises--happiness, or life, will be added as
a consequence.
Thus was the whole force of the Saviour's teaching and example
designed and adapted to produce righteousness and benevolence; and as
these are the only exercises from which man's true happiness can
arise, it follows that the principles involved in the instruction of
Christ, connecting happiness with holiness, are the only principles
which can, in accordance with the character of God and the
constitution of man, produce the greatest good of the human soul.
Jesus, therefore, was the Christ of God; because the Christ of God
could found his instructions on no other principles,--the principles
which are fundamental in his teaching being those which alone can
produce the happiness of the soul in accordance with its own moral
nature, and in accordance with the moral character of God.
CHAPTER XIV.
FAITH, THE EXERCISE THROUGH WHICH TRUTH REACHES AND AFFECTS THE SOUL.
When Christ, man's perfect and spiritual Instructor, had come, and
introduced the great doctrines of the spiritual dispensation, the next
necessary step in the process was, that those truths should be brought
to impress the soul, and influence the life, and so produce their
proper effects upon human nature. The inquiry then presents itself:
_In what way could the truths of the gospel be brought into efficient
contact with the soul of man?_
There are but two ways in which truth can be brought into contact with
the mind. The one is sometimes called knowledge; the other, faith, or
belief of testimony. In the earlier and ruder ages, men were
necessarily moved more by knowledge, derived from their own
observation and experience, through the medium of their senses; but
as mankind increased in number, important truth was conveyed by one
man or one generation communicating their experience, and another man
or another generation receiving it by belief in their testimony.
Perception and faith are the only modes by which truth can be brought
into contact with the soul; and their effects are nearly the same upon
man's conduct and feelings, with the following remarkable exception:
Of facts which are the subjects of personal observation, every time
they are experienced, the effect upon the soul grows less; while, on
the contrary, those facts which are received by faith, produce, every
time they are realised, a greater effect upon the soul. By constant
sight, the effect of objects seen grows less; by constant faith, the
effect of objects believed in grows greater. The probable reason of
this is, that personal observation does not admit of the influence of
the imagination in impressing the fact; while unseen objects, realised
by faith, have the auxiliary aid of the imagination, not to exaggerate
them, but to clothe them with living colours, and impress them upon
the heart. Whether this be the reason or not, the fact is true, that
the more frequently we see, the less we feel the power of an object;
while the more frequently we dwell upon an object by faith, the more
we feel its power. This being true, it follows that faith would be the
method best adapted to bring the sublime truths of the new
dispensation to bear upon the souls of men. And further, as the
dispensation is spiritual, and has relation to unseen and eternal
things, faith becomes the only medium through which they can be
conveyed to the soul.
Furthermore, man is so constituted that his faith, or belief, has an
influence not only over his conduct in life, but, likewise, over the
character and action of the moral powers of the soul.
Faith governs the _conscience_.
We have said, in another place, that a true conscience depends upon a
true faith. No proposition in morals is more plain. It is not our
design to inquire what leads, or has led, men to a wrong faith.
Whatever may be the cause of any particular belief, it is
incontrovertible that, if a man believes a thing to be right,
conscience cannot condemn an act performed in view of that belief.
Conscience is so modified and guided by a man's faith, that it will
sanction and command an act in one man which it will forbid and
condemn in another. A Roman Catholic believes that he ought to pray to
the Virgin Mary to intercede for him with God; and if a good Roman
Catholic were to neglect his worship to the saints, his conscience
would smite him, until, in some instances, he confessed his sin with
tears. Now, if a good Protestant were to pray to saints, or to any
other being but God, his conscience would smite him for doing that
which the conscience of the Roman Catholic smote him for not doing. So
the heathen mother will conscientiously throw her infant into the
Ganges, or under the wheels of Juggernaut, while the conscience of a
Christian mother would convict her of murder were she to do the same
act. Conscience seldom convicts those whom Christians call impenitent
persons for neglecting to pray, while the moment a man becomes a true
believer, he will be convicted of guilt if he neglects the duty. So
certainly and so clearly is it true, that a man's conscience is
governed by his faith.
Faith governs the _affections_.
As man is constituted, no power in the universe can move his
affections to an object until he believes that the object possesses
some loveliness or excellency of character. The heart is affected just
as much by the goodness of another, if we _believe_ that goodness to
exist, as it would be if we _knew_ that it existed. No matter, in the
case of the affections, whether the object in reality possesses the
good qualities or not, if they are fully believed to exist, the
affections will act just as certainly as though they really did exist.
The affections are constituted to be governed by faith. And they act
most powerfully, as was demonstrated in a previous chapter, in view of
good qualities existing in another, who, under certain circumstances,
exercises those qualities towards us. The fact, then, is apparent,
that the conduct of man's life is influenced by what he believes; and
especially that the character and action of the moral powers of his
nature are governed by the principle of faith.
Another most important fact in connection with this subject is, that a
man's interests, temporal and spiritual, depend upon what he believes.
The nature of man and the nature of things are so constituted, that
the belief of falsehood always destroys man's interests, temporal or
spiritual, and the belief of truth invariably guides man right, and
secures his best and highest good.
Perhaps the most absurd and injurious adage that has ever gained
currency among mankind, is 'that it is no difference what a man
believes, if only he be sincere.' Now, the truth is, that the more
sincerely a man believes falsehood, the more destructive it is to all
his interests, for time and eternity. This statement can be confirmed
in every mind beyond the reach of doubt.
First, _The influence of believing falsehood on temporal and social
interests_.
We will state some cases of common and constant occurrence, in order
that the principle may be made obvious.
A gentleman of property and the highest respectability, in the course
of his business transactions, became acquainted with an individual,
who, as the event showed, was a man destitute, in a great degree, of a
conscientious regard for truth. The persuasions and false
representations of this man led the gentleman referred to, to embark
almost his entire fortune with him in speculations in which he was at
that time engaged. While this matter was in progress, the friends of
the gentleman called upon him, and stated their doubts of the
individual's integrity who solicited his confidence, and likewise of
the success of the enterprises in which he was asked to engage. The
advice of his friends was rejected--he placed confidence in the false
statements of the individual referred to--he acted upon those
statements, and was, consequently, involved in pecuniary distress. In
this case, the gentleman not only sincerely believed the falsehood to
be the truth, but he had good motives in relation to the object which
he desired to accomplish. He was a benevolent man. He had expended
considerable sums for charitable and religious uses, and his desire
was, by the increase of his property, to be enabled to accomplish
greater good. In this case he was injured likewise by believing what
others did not believe. The individual who seduced him into the
speculation, had endeavoured to lead others to take the same views and
to act in the same way; they did not believe the falsehood, and were,
consequently, saved; he believed, and was, consequently, ruined.
When the English army under Harold, and the Norman under William the
Conqueror, were set in array for that fearful conflict which decided
the fate of the two armies, and the political destinies of Great
Britain, William, perceiving that he could not, by a fair attack, move
the solid columns of the English ranks, had recourse to a false
movement, in order to gain the victory. He gave orders that one flank
of his army should feign to be flying from the field in disorder. The
officers of the English army believed the falsehood, pursued them, and
were cut off. A second time, a false movement was made in another part
of the field. The English again believed, pursued, and were cut off.
By these movements the fortunes of the day were determined. Although
the English had the evidence of their senses, yet they were led to
believe a falsehood--they acted in view of it; the consequence was,
the destruction of a great part of their army, and the establishment
of the Norman power in England.
How often does it occur that the young female, possessing warm
affections and being inexperienced in the wiles of villains, is led to
believe falsehood which destroys her prospects and her happiness while
life lasts! Under other circumstances she might have been virtuous,
useful, happy. By false indications of affection her heart is won--by
false promises of faithfulness and future good her assent to marry is
gained; and then, when too late, she discovers that her husband is a
villain, and she is forsaken, with a broken heart, to the cold
sympathies of a selfish world. No matter how many hearts, besides her
own, are broken by her error; no matter how sincere, or how guileless,
or how young; she sincerely believed the falsehood, and is thereby
ruined. Nothing in heaven or on earth will avert the consequences. If
she had doubted, she would have been saved. She believed, and is
consigned to sorrow till she sinks into her grave.
Secondly, _The belief of falsehood in relation to spiritual things
destroys man's spiritual interests_.
It is an incontrovertible fact that the whole heathen world, ancient
and modern, have believed in and worshipped unholy beings as gods.
Now, from the necessities of the case, as demonstrated in the
introductory chapter, the worshipper becomes assimilated to the
character of the object worshipped. In consequence of believing
falsehood concerning the character of God, all heathendom, at the
present hour, is filled with ignorance, impurity, and crime. As a mass
of corruption spreads contagion and death among all those who approach
it, so certainly does the worship of unholy beings taint the soul, and
spread moral corruption through the world. 'Can a man take coals into
his bosom, and not be burned?'--Neither can the soul hold communion
with beings believed to be unholy, and not itself become corrupt. The
fact is so plain that it is not necessary to detail again the
impurities, the vices, the tortures, the self-murders, and the
unnatural affections of the heathen world, in order to show the deadly
evils, both to the body and soul, which arise from the belief of
falsehood in relation to spiritual things. It must be obvious to
everyone that, if the heathen believed in one holy and benevolent God,
their abominable and cruel rites would cease. It follows, therefore,
that it is the belief of falsehood that causes their ignorance and
corruption.
Thus it is invariably and eternally true that the belief of truth will
lead a man right, and secure his temporal, spiritual, and eternal
interests; and on the contrary, the belief of falsehood will lead a
man wrong, and destroy his interests in relation to whatever the
falsehood pertains, whether it be temporal or eternal.
The preceding premises being established, the following conclusions
result:
1. The entire man, in his body and soul, his actions and moral
feelings, is governed by what he believes; and that, in relation to
things that should have a constantly increasing influence over the
spirit, faith is a more powerful actuating cause than sight, because
the one gains while the other loses power by repetition.
2. That the belief of falsehood, concerning any human interest, is
fatally injurious; while the belief of truth is eternally beneficial.
And that the more sincerely any one believes error, the more certainly
he destroys his interests, whether temporal or spiritual: while, on
the contrary, the more sincerely a man believes truth, the more
certainly and powerfully are his interests advanced. The living God
has connected evil with the belief of falsehood, and good with the
belief of truth; it is a part of the constitutional law of the moral
universe; and there is no power in existence that will stop the
consequence from following the antecedent.
Mark it--That doctrine which rectifies the conscience, purifies the
heart, and produces love to God and men, is necessarily true; because,
as it has been demonstrated that righteousness and benevolence are the
greatest good of the soul, and likewise that the greatest good must
depend on the belief of truth, therefore the conclusion is inevitable
that that doctrine which, being believed, destroys sin in the heart
and life of man, and produces righteousness and benevolence, is the
truth of God. No matter whether men can comprehend all its depths and
relations or not, if it destroys sin wherever it takes effect by
faith, and makes happiness grow out of right living and right loving,
from the constitution of things--from the character of God--from the
nature of man--that doctrine is the TRUTH OF GOD. And that doctrine
which hinders this result, or produces a contrary result, is the
falsehood of the devil.[31]
[31] John viii. 44.
4. Therefore Christ laid at the foundation of the Christian system
this vital and necessary principle, 'He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned,'--saved in
accordance with the moral constitution of the universe, and damned
from the absolute necessities existing in the nature of things.
CHAPTER XV.
THE MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY, UNDER THE NEW AND
SPIRITUAL DISPENSATION, TO PRODUCE IN THE SOUL OF MAN AFFECTIONATE
OBEDIENCE.
Man's mental and moral constitution was the same under the New as
under the Old Testament dispensation. The same methods, therefore,
which were adapted to move man's nature under the one, would be
adapted to do so under the other. The difference between the two
dispensations was, the first was a preparatory dispensation, its
manifestations, for the most part, being seen and temporal; the
second, a perfect system of truth, spiritual in its character, and in
the method of its communication. But whether the truths were temporal
or spiritual, and, whether they were brought to view by faith or
sight, in order to produce a given effect upon the soul, or any of its
powers, the same methods under all dispensations would be necessary,
varied only to suit the advancement of the mind in knowledge, the
differences existing in the habits and circumstances of men, and the
character of the dispensation to be introduced. For instance: under
one dispensation--it being in a great measure temporal, preparatory,
and imperfect--love might be produced by making men feel temporal
want, and by God granting temporal benefits: while under a spiritual
and universal system, men must likewise feel the want, and receive the
benefit, in order to love; but the want felt and the benefit conferred
must be of a spiritual character.
Under all dispensations, an essential requisite, after the way for its
introduction was prepared, would be such manifestations of God to men
as would produce love in the human heart for the object of worship and
obedience. 'Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,' is the first
great law of the universe; and God cannot be honoured, nor man made
happy, unless his obedience be actuated by love to the object of
obedience.[32] Now the manifestations of mercy, under the old
dispensation, were mainly temporal in their character, and limited in
their application to the Jews. But God's special goodness to them
could not produce love in the hearts of the Gentiles. The
manifestations in Egypt were, therefore, neither adapted in their
character, nor in the extent of their design, to the spiritual and
universal religion of Jesus Christ. But one part of the Mosaic economy
was universal and immutable in its character. The moral law is the
same for ever in its application to all intelligent beings in the
universe. It is plain to reason that, whatever means may be adopted to
bring men to rectitude of conduct or to pardon them for offences, the
rule of right itself, founded upon the justice and holiness, and
sustained by the conscience, of the Eternal, must be immutable and
eternal as its Author; and the means, manifestations, and influences,
under the different dispensations, are expedients of mercy, designed
and adapted to bring men to act in conformity with its requirements.
[32] See chap. iv. on Affectionate Obedience.
How, then, under the new dispensation, and in conformity with its
spiritual and universal character, could love for God be produced in
the human heart?
We will here, again, as the subject in hand is most important, notice
some of the conditions upon which affection for an object may be
produced in the heart.
The will is influenced by motives and by affection; and all acts of
will produced entirely by pure affection, are disinterested acts.
There is, probably, no one living, who has attained to maturity of
years, but has, at some period of life, felt affection for another, so
that it was more gratifying to please the object of his affection than
to please himself. Love for another always influences the will to do
those things which please the object loved; and the acts which proceed
from affection are disinterested, not being done with any selfish end
in view, but to conform to the will and meet the desires of another.
The moment the affections are fixed upon an object, the will is drawn
into union with the will of the object loved; and if that object be
regarded as superior, in proportion as he rises above us in the scale
of being, to obey his will and secure his regard becomes a spontaneous
volition of the soul; and the pleasure that arises from affectionate
compliance with the will of a worthy and loved object, does not arise
because it is sought for, but from the constitution the Maker has
given to the human soul; it is the result of its activity, produced in
accordance with the law of love.
All happy obedience must arise from affection, exercised towards the
object obeyed. Obedience which arises from affection blesses the
spirit which yields it, if the conscience approve of the object
obeyed. While, on the contrary, no being can be happy in obeying one
whom he does not love. To obey a parent, or to obey God, from
interested motives, would be sin. The devil might be obeyed for the
same reasons. All enlightened minds agree to what the Bible confirms,
and what reason can clearly perceive, without argument, that love for
God is essential to every act of religious duty. To tender obedience
or homage to God, while we had no love for him in our hearts, would be
dishonourable to the Maker, and doing violence to our own nature.
When an object presents itself to the attention, whose character
engages the heart, then the affections flow out, and the soul acts
sweetly in this new relation. There is a bond of sympathy between the
hearts of the two beings, and those things which affect the one affect
the other, in proportion to the strength of the cherished affection.
One meets the desires and conforms to the will of the other, not from
a sense of obligation merely, but from choice. And in thus giving and
receiving affection, the soul experiences its highest enjoyment, its
greatest good; and when the understanding perceives, in the object
loved, perfections of the highest character, and affection of the
purest kind for those that love him, the conscience sanctions the
action of the heart and the obedience of the will, and all the moral
powers of the soul unite in happy and harmonious action.
We return, now, to the problem--Under the spiritual dispensation of
Christ, how could the affections of the soul be awakened by faith, and
fixed upon God their proper object?
The principle has been stated, which everyone will recognise as true
in his own experience, that the more we feel the want of a benefactor,
temporal or spiritual, and the more we feel our inability to rescue
ourselves from existing difficulties and impending dangers, the more
grateful love will the heart feel for the being who, moved by
kindness, and in despite of personal sacrifices, interposes to assist
and save us.
Under the Old Testament dispensation the affections of the Israelites
were educed and fixed upon God in accordance with this law of the
soul. They were placed in circumstances of abject need; and from this
condition of suffering and sorrow, God delivered them, and thus drew
their hearts to himself. Now the Jews, as has been noticed, supposed
that the Messiah would appear, and again confer upon them similar
favours, by delivering them from their state of dependence and
subjection as a nation. But a temporal deliverance of this kind, as
has been shown, was not consistent with the design of Christ's perfect
and spiritual dispensation, which was designed to save men from sin
and spiritual bondage, and restore them to spiritual happiness by
restoring them to affectionate obedience to the only living and true
God.
The inquiry, then, presents itself, as a feeling of want was
necessary, in order that the soul might love the Being who supplied
that want--and as Jesus came to bestow spiritual mercies upon
mankind--_How could men be brought to feel the want of a spiritual
Benefactor and Saviour?_
Allow the thought to be repeated again--According to the constitution
which God has given the soul, it must feel the want of spiritual
mercies before it can feel love for the Giver of those mercies; and
just in proportion as the soul feels its lost, guilty, and dangerous
condition, in the same proportion will it exercise love to the Being
who grants spiritual favour and salvation. How, then, could the
spiritual want be produced in the souls of men, in order that they
might love the spiritual Benefactor?
Not by temporal bondage and temporal suffering, because these would
lead men to desire a temporal deliverance. The only possible way by
which man could be made to hope for and appreciate spiritual mercies,
and to love a spiritual deliverer, would be to produce a conviction in
the soul itself of its evil condition, its danger as a spiritual
being, and its inability, unaided, to satisfy the requirements of a
spiritual law, or to escape its just and spiritual penalty. If man
could be made to perceive that he was guilty and needy, that his soul
was under the condemnation of the holy law of a holy God, he would
then necessarily feel the need of a deliverance from sin and its
consequences; and in this way only could the soul of man be led to
appreciate spiritual mercies or love a spiritual benefactor.
Mark another fact, in connection with the foregoing, which is to be
especially noticed, and which will be developed fully in subsequent
pages--The greater the kindness and self-denial of a benefactor
manifested in our behalf, the warmer and the stronger will be the
affection which his goodness will produce in the human heart.
Here, then, are two facts growing out of the constitution of human
nature--First, the soul must feel its evil and lost state, as the
pre-requisite condition upon which alone it can love a deliverer;
Secondly, the degree of kindness and self-denial in a benefactor,
temporal or spiritual, graduates the degree of affection and gratitude
that will be awakened for him.
Now, in view of these necessary conditions, mark the means which God
has used, and the manifestations which he has made of himself, in
order to secure the supreme love of the human soul.
In the first place, _The soul is brought to see and feel its evil and
lost condition, and its need of deliverance_.
At the advent of Jesus, the Roman world was in precisely the condition
which was necessary to prepare it for his doctrines. The Jews had the
moral law written in their Scriptures, and recognised it as the will
of Jehovah; and the Gentiles had its requirements, concerning their
duty to each other, and their duty to worship, written upon their
hearts. Both the doctors among the Jews, and the schools of philosophy
among the Gentiles, especially those of the Stoics, taught the
obligatory nature of many of the important moral duties which man owes
to man. No period in the history of the heathen mind ever existed
before or since, when man's relations to man were so clearly
perceived.[33] The Jews, however, had these advantages, that while the
few intelligent Gentiles received the instruction of the philosophers
in relation to morals as truth, it was truth without any higher
sanction than that of having been spoken by wise men, and therefore it
contained in itself no authority or weight of obligation to bind the
conscience; while they had the Moral Law as a rule of duty, sanctioned
by the authority and infinite justice of Jehovah. Thus the moral
virtues assumed the sanction of religious duties; and they had not
only the moral precepts thus sanctioned, but, having been taught the
true character of God, their religious duties were likewise united in
the same sacred decalogue.
[33] For the views of the different schools of Grecian and Roman
philosophy at this period, and the amount of their indebtedness to
the Jewish Scriptures, see Enfield's History of Philosophy.
There was, however, in the application of the law, one most important
and vital mistake, in relation to what constituted human guilt. The
moral law was generally applied as the civil law, not to the acts of
the spirit, but to the acts of the body. It was applied to the
external conduct of men, not to the internal life. If there was
conformity to the letter of the law in external manners, there was a
fulfilment, in the eyes of the Jew and the Gentile, of the highest
claims that God or man held upon the spirit. No matter how dark or
damning were the exercises of the soul, if it only kept its sin in its
own habitation, and did not develop it in action, the penalty of the
law was not laid to its charge. The character of the spirit itself
might be criminal, and all its exercises of thought and feeling
sensual and selfish, yet if it added hypocrisy to its guilt, and
maintained an outward conformity to the law--a conformity itself
produced by selfishness--man judged himself, and others adjudged him,
guiltless. Man could not, therefore, understand his own guilt, as a
spiritual being, nor feel his condemned and lost condition, until the
requirements of the holy law were applied to the exercises of his
soul.
Now, Jesus applied the Divine law directly to the soul, and laid its
obligation upon the movements of the will and the desires. He taught
that all wrong thoughts and feelings were acts of transgression
against God, and as such would be visited with the penalty of the
Divine law. Thus he made the law spiritual, and its penalty spiritual,
and appealing to the authority of the supreme God, he laid its claims
upon the naked soul. He entered the secret recesses of the spirit's
tabernacle; he flashed the light of the Divine law upon the awful
secrets known only to the soul itself; and with the voice of a God, he
spoke to the 'I' of the mind: 'Thou shalt not will, nor desire, nor
feel wickedly.'
When he had thus shown that all the wrong exercises of the soul were
sin against God, and that the soul was in a guilty condition, under
the condemnation of the Divine law, he then directs the attention to
the spiritual consequences of this guilt. These he declared to be
exclusion from the kingdom and presence of God, and penalty which
involved either endless spiritual suffering, or destruction of the
soul itself. The punishment which he declared to be impending over the
unbelieving and impenitent spirit, he portrayed by using all those
figures which would lead men to apprehend the most fearful and
unmitigated spiritual misery.
Before the impenitent and unpardoned sinner there was the destruction
of the soul and body in hell--consignment to a state of darkness,
where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched--cursed and
banished from God into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and
his angels--agonising in flame, and refused a drop of water to
mitigate the agony. Now, these figures, to the minds both of Jews and
Gentiles, must have conveyed a most appalling impression of the misery
that was impending over the soul, unless it was relieved from sin, and
the consequent curse of the law. Jesus knew that the Jews, especially,
would understand these figures as implying fearful future punishment:
he therefore designed to do, what was undoubtedly accomplished in the
mind of everyone that believed his instruction, which was, to produce
a conviction of sin in the soul, by applying to it the requirements of
the spiritual law of God, and by showing that the penalty consequent
upon sin was fearful and everlasting destruction. We say, then, what
everyone who has followed these thoughts must perceive to be true,
that the instruction of Jesus would necessarily produce, in the mind
of everyone that believed, a conviction that he was a guilty and
condemned creature, and that an awful doom awaited his soul, unless he
received pardon and spiritual deliverance.
Thus, then, by the instruction of Jesus Christ, showing the spirituality
and holiness of the Divine law, and applying it, with its infinite
sanctions, to the exercise of the soul, that condition of mind was
produced which alone could prepare man to love a spiritual deliverer;
and there is no other way in which the soul could have been prepared, in
accordance with truth and the constitution of its own nature, to
appreciate the spiritual mercies of God, and love him as a spiritual
Saviour.
The law and the truth being exhibited by Christ in the manner adapted
to produce the condition of soul pre-requisite to the exercise of
affection for spiritual deliverance--now, as God was the author of
the law, and as he is the only proper object both of supreme love and
obedience; and, as man could not be happy in obeying the law without
loving its author, it follows, that the thing now necessary, in order
that man's affections might be fixed upon the proper object of love
and obedience, was, that the supreme God should, by self-denying
kindness, manifest spiritual mercy to those who felt their spiritual
wants, and thus draw to himself the love and worship of mankind. If
any other being should supply the need, that being would receive the
love; it was therefore necessary that God himself should do it, in
order that the affection of believers might centre upon the proper
object.
But, notice, that in order to the accomplishment of this end, without
violating the moral constitution of the universe, it would be
essentially necessary that the holiness of God's law should be
maintained. This would be necessary, because the law is, in itself,
the will of the Godhead, and God himself must be unholy before his
will can be so. And whatever God may overlook in those who know not
their duty, yet, when he reveals his perfect law, that law cannot,
from the nature of its Author, allow the commission of a single sin.
But, besides, if its holiness were not maintained, man is so
constituted that he could never become holy. Every change to a better
course in man's life must be preceded by a conviction of error; man
cannot repent and turn from sin till he is convicted of sin in
himself. Now, if the holiness of the law, as a standard of duty, was
maintained, man might thus be enlightened and convicted of sin, until
he had seen and felt the last sin in his soul; and if the law allowed
one sin, there would be no way of convicting man of that sin, or of
converting him from it; he would, therefore, remain, in some degree, a
sinner for ever. But, finally and conclusively, if the holiness of the
law was not maintained, that sense of guilt and danger could not be
produced which is necessary in order that man may love a spiritual
Saviour. Jesus produced that condition by applying to the soul the
authority, the claims, and the sanctions of the holy law. It is
impossible, therefore, in the nature of things, for a sinful being to
appreciate God's mercy, unless he first feel his justice as manifested
in the holy law. Love in the soul is produced by the joint influence
of the justice and mercy of God. The integrity of the eternal law,
therefore, must be for ever maintained.[34]
[34] The preceding views are confirmed, both by the character of
the moral law, and by its design and exposition, as given by the
apostles of Christ. The moral law, or the rule and obligation of
moral rectitude in the sight of God, which is revealed in the
Scriptures, and interpreted by Christ as obligatory upon the
thoughts and feelings of the soul, is not only in its nature of
perpetual and universal obligation, and adapted to produce
conviction of sin in every soul that is sensible of transgressing
its requirements; but the Scriptures expressly declare that it was
designed to produce conviction of sin in the soul, in order to
prepare it to receive the gospel.
The moral law is set forth in the Scriptures as holy, just, and
good in its character; and whatever may be its effects upon the
soul itself, that its character is such no intelligent being in
the universe can doubt, because it requires of every one perfect
holiness, justice, and goodness; it requires that the soul should
be perfectly free from sin in the sight of God: and, as we have
seen, God ought not to allow one sin; if he did, the law would not
be holy, nor adapted to make men holy. But the more holy the law,
the more conviction it would produce in the mind of sinners. If
the law extended only to external conduct, men would not feel
guilty for their wrong thoughts, desires, or designs; and if it
extended only to certain classes of spiritual exercises, men would
not feel guilty for those which it did not condemn; but if it
required that the soul itself--the spiritual agent--the 'I' of the
mind--should be holy, and all its thoughts and feelings in
accordance with the law of love and righteousness, then the soul
would be convicted of guilt for a single wrong exercise, because,
while it felt that the law was holy, just, and good, it could not
but feel condemned in breaking it. When Christ came, therefore,
every soul that was taught its spirituality would be convicted of
sin. One of two things men had to do, either shut out its light
from their soul, and refuse to believe its spiritual and perfect
requirements, or judge and condemn themselves by those
requirements. And while the law thus showed sin to exist in the
soul, and condemned the soul as guilty and liable to its penalty,
it imparted no strength to the sinner to enable him to fulfil its
requirements; it merely sets forth the true standard, which is
holy in itself, and which God must maintain; and, by its light, it
shows sinners their guilt, condemns them, and leaves them under
its curse.
Now, the Scriptures declare that this is the end which, by its
nature, it is adapted to accomplish, and that it was revealed to
men with the design to accomplish this end, and thus lead men to
see and feel the necessity of justification and pardon by Jesus
Christ. The Scripture says, 'It is easier for heaven and earth to
pass than one tittle of the law to fail.' 'The law worketh wrath:
for where there is no law, there is no transgression.' 'Moreover
the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin
abounded grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto
death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto
eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.' Mark the following--'Now
we know that what things soever the law saith it saith to them who
are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the
world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the
law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law
is the knowledge of sin.'
The argument of the apostle in vindicating the holiness of the
law, while it, at the same time, produced conviction and
condemnation, is conclusive. 'What shall we say then? Is the law
sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I
had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;
(that is, I should not have felt covetousness to be sin, except
the law had condemned it as such;) for I was alive (that is, not
consciously condemned) without the law once; but when the
commandment came, sin revived, and I died; and the commandment,
which was ordained to life, (that is, which required the soul to
be holy and therefore alive to God,) I found to be unto death. For
sin, taking occasion by the commandment, (or acts shown to be sin
by the commandment,) deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the
law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was
then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin,
that it might appear sin, (that is, sin which did exist in the
soul, was made to appear in its true evil character,) working
death in me by that which is good; (that is, the holiness of the
law showed the evil of sin;) that sin by the commandment might
become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual:
but I am carnal, sold under sin.' And then, for deliverance from
this bondage, he looks to Christ--'For the law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and
death,' etc. And mark again--'Is the law then against the promises
of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could
have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law
(that is, while the law showed the soul unholy and condemned to
spiritual death, it provided no means for the relief of the
sinner--no influence by which love and holiness could be produced
in the heart). But the S
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/44644