Copyright©MonergismBooks

ChristianityandLiberalism

byJ.GreshamMachen

TableofContents

Introduction

Chapter1:Doctrine

Chapter2:GodandMan

Chapter3:TheBible

Chapter4:Christ

Chapter5:Salvation

Chapter6:TheChurch

Introduction

Thepurposeofthisbookisnottodecidethereligiousissueofthepresentday,butmerelytopresenttheissueassharplyandclearlyaspossible,inorderthatthereadermaybeaidedindecidingitforhimself.Presentinganissuesharplyisindeedbynomeansapopularbusinessatthepresenttime;therearemanywhoprefertofighttheirintellectualbattlesinwhatDr. Francis L. Pattonhas aptly called a "condition of low visibility."[1]Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of thelogicalimplicationsofreligiousviews,isbymanypersonsregardedasanimpious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to missionboards?May itnothinder theprogressof consolidation,andproduceapoorshowingincolumnsofChurchstatistics?Butwithsuchpersonswecannotpossiblybringourselves toagree.Lightmayseemat timestobeanimpertinentintruder,butitisalwaysbeneficialintheend.Thetypeofreligion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases,regardlessoftheirmeanings,orshrinksfrom"controversial"matters,willneverstandamidtheshocksoflife.Inthesphereofreligion,asinotherspheres,thethingsaboutwhichmenareagreedareapttobethethingsthat are leastworth holding; the really important things are the thingsaboutwhichmenwillfight.

In the sphere of religion, in particular, the present time is a time ofconflict; thegreat redemptive religionwhichhasalwaysbeenknownasChristianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief,whichisonlythemoredestructiveoftheChristianfaithbecauseitmakesuse of traditional Christian terminology. This modern non-redemptivereligion is called "modernism" or "liberalism." Both names areunsatisfactory; the latter, in particular, is question-begging. Themovementdesignatedas"liberalism" is regardedas"liberal"onlyby itsfriends; to itsopponents it seems to involveanarrow ignoringofmanyrelevant facts. And indeed the movement is so various in itsmanifestationsthatonemayalmostdespairoffindinganycommonnamewhichwillapplytoallitsforms.Butmanifoldasaretheformsinwhichthe movement appears, the root of the movement is one; the many

varieties ofmodern liberal religion are rooted innaturalism--that is, inthedenialofanyentranceofthecreativepowerofGod(asdistinguishedfrom the ordinary course of nature) in connection with the origin ofChristianity. The word "naturalism" is here used in a sense somewhatdifferentfromitsphilosophicalmeaning.Inthisnon-philosophicalsenseitdescribeswithfairaccuracytherealrootofwhatiscalled,bywhatmayturnouttobeadegradationofanoriginallynobleword,"liberal"religion.

Theriseof thismodernnaturalistic liberalismhasnot comeby chance,buthasbeenoccasionedbyimportantchangeswhichhaverecentlytakenplaceintheconditionsoflife.Thepastonehundredyearshavewitnessedthebeginningofanewerainhumanhistory,whichmayconceivablyberegretted, but certainly cannot be ignored, by the most obstinateconservatism.Thechangeisnotsomethingthatliesbeneaththesurfaceandmightbevisibleonlytothediscerningeye;onthecontraryitforcesitselfupon theattentionof theplainmanat ahundredpoints.Moderninventions and the industrialism that has been built upon them havegivenusinmanyrespectsanewworldtolivein;wecannomoreremoveourselvesfromthatworldthanwecanescapefromtheatmospherethatwebreathe.

But such changes in thematerial conditions of life do not stand alone;theyhave beenproduced bymighty changes in the humanmind, as intheir turn they themselves give rise to further spiritual changes. Theindustrialworldoftodayhasbeenproducednotbyblindforcesofnaturebutbytheconsciousactivityofthehumanspirit;ithasbeenproducedbytheachievementsofscience.Theoutstandingfeatureofrecenthistoryisan enormous widening of human knowledge, which has gone hand inhandwithsuchperfectingoftheinstrumentofinvestigationthatscarcelyanylimitscanbeassignedtofutureprogressinthematerialrealm.

Theapplicationofmodern scientificmethods is almost as broad as theuniverseinwhichwelive.Thoughthemostpalpableachievementsareinthesphereofphysicsandchemistry,thesphereofhumanlifecannotbeisolatedfromtherest,andwiththeothersciencestherehasappeared,forexample, a modern science of history, which, with psychology andsociology and the like, claims, even if it does not deserve, full equalitywith its sister sciences. No department of knowledge can maintain its

isolation from the modern lust of scientific conquest; treaties ofinviolability, thoughhallowedbyall the sanctionsofage-long tradition,arebeingflungruthlesslytothewinds.

Insuchanage,itisobviousthateveryinheritancefromthepastmustbesubjecttosearchingcriticism;andasamatteroffactsomeconvictionsofthehumanracehavecrumbledtopiecesinthetest.Indeed,dependenceofanyinstitutionuponthepastisnowsometimesevenregardedasfurnishingapresumption,notinfavorofit,butagainstit.Somanyconvictionshavehadtobeabandonedthatmenhavesometimescometobelievethatallconvictionsmustgo.

Ifsuchanattitudebejustifiable,thennoinstitutionisfacedbyastrongerhostilepresumptionthantheinstitutionoftheChristianreligion,fornoinstitutionhasbaseditselfmoresquarelyupontheauthorityofabygoneage.Wearenotnowinquiringwhethersuchpolicyiswiseorhistoricallyjustifiable; in any case the fact itself is plain, that Christianity duringmanycenturieshasconsistentlyappealedforthetruthof itsclaims,notmerely and not even primarily to current experience, but to certainancient books the most recent of which was written some nineteenhundred years ago. It is no wonder that that appeal is being criticizedtoday;forthewritersofthebooksinquestionwerenodoubtmenoftheirown age, whose outlook upon the material world, judged by modernstandards, must have been of the crudest and most elementary kind.Inevitablythequestionariseswhethertheopinionsofsuchmencaneverbenormative formenof thepresentday; inotherwords,whetherfirst-century religion can ever stand in company with twentieth-centuryscience.

Howeverthequestionmaybeanswered,itpresentsaseriousproblemtothemodernChurch.Attempts are indeed sometimesmade tomake theanswereasierthanatfirstsightitappearstobe.Religion,itissaid,issoentirely separate from science, that the two, rightly defined, cannotpossiblycomeintoconflict.Thisattemptatseparation,asitishopedthefollowingpagesmayshow,isopentoobjectionsofthemostseriouskind.Butwhatmustnowbeobservedisthateveniftheseparationisjustifiableitcannotbeeffectedwithouteffort;theremovaloftheproblemofreligionandscienceitselfconstitutesaproblem.For,rightlyorwrongly,religion

duringthecenturieshasasamatteroffactconnecteditselfwithahostofconvictions, especially in the sphere of history, which may form thesubjectof scientific investigation; just as scientific investigators, on theother hand, have sometimes attached themselves, again rightly orwrongly, to conclusions which impinge upon the innermost domain ofphilosophyandof religion.For example, if any simpleChristian of onehundredyearsago,orevenof today,wereaskedwhatwouldbecomeofhisreligionifhistoryshouldproveindubitablythatnomancalledJesuseverlivedanddiedinthefirstcenturyofourera,hewouldundoubtedlyanswerthathisreligionwouldfallaway.YettheinvestigationofeventsinthefirstcenturyinJudea,justasmuchasinItalyorinGreece,belongstothe sphere of scientific history. In other words, our simple Christian,whetherrightlyorwrongly,whetherwiselyorunwisely,hasasamatteroffactconnectedhisreligion,inawaythattohimseemsindissoluble,withconvictionsaboutwhichsciencealsohasarighttospeak.If,then,thoseconvictions,ostensibly religious,which belong to the sphere of science,arenot really religious at all, the demonstration of that fact is itself notriflingtask.Eveniftheproblemofscienceandreligionreducesitselftothe problem of disentangling religion from pseudoscientific accretions,the seriousness of the problem is not thereby diminished. From everypoint of view, therefore, the problem in question is the most seriousconcern of the Church. What is the relation between Christianity andmodernculture;mayChristianitybemaintainedinascientificage?

Itisthisproblemwhichmodernliberalismattemptstosolve.Admittingthat scientific objections may arise against the particularities of theChristian religion-- against the Christian doctrines of the person ofChrist,andofredemptionthroughHisdeathandresurrection--theliberaltheologianseekstorescuecertainofthegeneralprinciplesofreligion,ofwhich these particularities are thought to bemere temporary symbols,and these general principles he regards as constituting "the essence ofChristianity."

Itmaywellbequestioned,however,whetherthismethodofdefensewillreallyprove tobe efficacious; for after the apologist has abandonedhisouterdefenses to theenemyandwithdrawn intosome innercitadel,hewill probably discover that the enemypursueshim even there.Modern

materialism, especially in the realm of psychology, is not content withoccupyingthelowerquartersoftheChristiancity,butpushesitswayintoall the higher reaches of life; it is just as much opposed to thephilosophicalidealismoftheliberalpreacherastotheBiblicaldoctrinesthat the liberal preacherhas abandoned in the interests ofpeace.Mereconcessiveness, therefore,willneversucceedinavoidingthe intellectualconflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no"peacewithoutvictory";onesideortheothermustwin.

Asamatteroffact,however,itmayappearthatthefigurewhichhasjustbeenused is altogethermisleading; itmay appear thatwhat the liberaltheologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one ChristiandoctrineafteranotherisnotChristianityatall,butareligionwhichissoentirelydifferentfromChristianityastobelonginadistinctcategory.Itmayappear further that the fearsof themodernmanas toChristianitywereentirelyungrounded,andthatinabandoningtheembattledwallsofthe city of God he has fled in needless panic into the open plains of avaguenaturalreligiononlytofallaneasyvictimtotheenemywhoeverliesinambushthere.

Two lines of criticism, then, are possible with respect to the liberalattempt at reconciling science andChristianity.Modern liberalismmaybecriticized(1)onthegroundthatitisunchristianand(2)onthegroundthat it is unscientific.We shall concern ourselves here chiefly with theformerlineofcriticism;weshallbeinterestedinshowingthatdespitetheliberal use of traditional phraseology modern liberalism not only is adifferentreligionfromChristianitybutbelongsinatotallydifferentclassof religions. But in showing that the liberal attempt at rescuingChristianity is falsewearenotshowingthat there isnowayofrescuingChristianityatall;onthecontrary,itmayappearincidentally,eveninthepresent littlebook, that it is not theChristianity of theNewTestamentwhich is in conflict with science, but the supposed Christianity of themodernliberalChurch,andthattherealcityofGod,andthatcityalone,has defenses which are capable of warding of the assaults of modernunbelief.However, our immediate concern iswith theother sideof theproblem; our principal concern just now is to show that the liberalattempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really

relinquishedeverythingdistinctiveofChristianity,so thatwhatremainsisinessentialsonlythatsameindefinitetypeofreligiousaspirationwhichwas in theworld before Christianity came upon the scene. In trying toremovefromChristianityeverythingthatcouldpossiblybeobjectedtointhenameofscience,intryingtobribeofftheenemybythoseconcessionswhichtheenemymostdesires, theapologisthasreallyabandonedwhathe started out to defend.Here as inmany other departments of life itappears that the things that are sometimes thought to be hardest todefendarealsothethingsthataremostworthdefending.Inmaintainingthat liberalism in the modern Church represents a return to anunchristian and sub-Christian form of the religious life, we areparticularly anxious not to be misunderstood. "Unchristian" in such aconnectionissometimestakenasatermofopprobrium.Wedonotmeanitatallassuch.SocrateswasnotaChristian,neitherwasGoethe;yetweshare to the full the respectwithwhich theirnamesare regarded.Theytowerimmeasurablyabovethecommonrunofmen;ifhethatisleastintheKingdomofHeavenisgreaterthanthey,heiscertainlygreaternotbyanyinherentsuperiority,butbyvirtueofanundeservedprivilegewhichought to make him humble rather than contemptuous. Suchconsiderations, however, should not be allowed to obscure the vitalimportanceofthequestionatissue.Ifaconditioncouldbeconceivedinwhich all the preaching of the Church should be controlled by theliberalism which in many quarters has already become preponderant,then,webelieve,Christianitywouldatlasthaveperishedfromtheearthandthegospelwouldhavesoundedforthforthelasttime.Ifso,itfollowsthatthe inquirywithwhichwearenowconcerned is immeasurably themost important of all those with which the Church has to deal. Vastlymoreimportantthanallquestionswithregardtomethodsofpreachingistherootquestionastowhatitisthatshallbepreached.Many,nodoubt,will turn in impatience from the inquiry--all those, namely, who havesettledthequestionin,suchawaythattheycannotevenconceiveof itsbeing reopened. Such, for example, are the pietists, of whom there arestillmany. "What," theysay, "is theneedofargument indefenseof theBible? Is it not the Word of God, and does it not carry with it animmediatecertitudeofitstruthwhichcouldonlybeobscuredbydefense?IfsciencecomesintocontradictionwiththeBiblesomuchtheworseforscience!" For these personswe have the highest respect, forwe believe

that theyare right in themainpoint; theyhavearrivedbyadirectandeasy road at a convictionwhich for othermen is attainedonly throughintellectual struggle. But we cannot reasonably expect them to beinterestedinwhatwehavetosay.Anotherclassofuninterestedpersonsismuchmorenumerous.Itconsistsofthosewhohavedefinitelysettledthequestionintheoppositeway.Bythemthislittlebook,ifitevercomesinto their hands, will soon be flung aside as only another attempt atdefenseof apositionalreadyhopelessly lost.Thereare still individuals,theywillsay,whobelievethattheearthisflat;therearealsoindividualswhodefendtheChristianityoftheChurch,miraclesandatonementandall. In either case, it will be said, the phenomenon is interesting as acuriousexampleofarresteddevelopment,butitisnothingmore.

Suchaclosingofthequestion,however,whetheritapproveitselffinallyor no, is in its present form based upon a very imperfect view of thesituation; it is based upon a grossly exaggerated estimate of theachievementsofmodernscience.Scientific investigation,ashasalreadybeenobserved,hascertainlyaccomplishedmuch;ithasinmanyrespectsproducedanewworld.But there isanotheraspectof thepicturewhichshouldnotbeignored.Themodernworldrepresentsinsomerespectsanenormousimprovementovertheworldinwhichourancestorslived;butin other respects it exhibits a lamentable decline. The improvementappearsinthephysicalconditionsoflife,butinthespiritualrealmthereisacorrespondingloss.Thelossisclearest,perhaps,intherealmofart.Despite themighty revolutionwhichhasbeenproduced in the externalconditions of life, no great poet is now living to celebrate the change;humanityhassuddenlybecomedumb.Gone, too,are thegreatpaintersandthegreatmusiciansandthegreatsculptors.Theartthatstillsubsistsislargelyimitative,andwhereitisnotimitativeitisusuallybizarre.Eventheappreciationof thegloriesof thepast is graduallybeing lost,undertheinfluenceofautilitarianeducationthatconcernsitselfonlywiththeproductionofphysicalwell-being.The"OutlineofHistory"ofMr.H.G.Wells,with its contemptuousneglect of all thehigher rangesofhumanlife,isathoroughlymodernbook.

Thisunprecedenteddeclineinliteratureandartisonlyonemanifestationof a more far-reaching phenomenon; it is only one instance of that

narrowing of the range of personality which has been going on in themodern world. The whole development of modern society has tendedmightilytowardthelimitationoftherealmoffreedomfortheindividualman. The tendency ismost clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic statewould mean the reduction to a minimum of the sphere of individualchoice.Laborandrecreation,underasocialisticgovernment,wouldbothbe prescribed, and individual liberty would be gone. But the sametendencyexhibitsitselftodayeveninthosecommunitieswherethenameof socialism ismost abhorred.Whenonce themajorityhasdeterminedthatacertainregimeisbeneficial,thatregimewithoutfurtherhesitationis forcedruthlesslyuponthe individualman.Itneverseemstooccurtomodernlegislatures thatalthough"welfare" isgood, forcedwelfaremaybebad. In otherwords, utilitarianism is being carried out to its logicalconclusions;intheinterestsofphysicalwell-beingthegreatprinciplesoflibertyarebeingthrownruthlesslytothewinds.

Theresult isanunparalleledimpoverishmentofhumanlife.Personalitycanonlybedevelopedintherealmofindividualchoice.Andthatrealm,inthemodernstate,isbeingslowlybutsteadilycontracted.Thetendencyismaking itself felt especially in the sphere of education.The object ofeducation,itisnowassumed,istheproductionofthegreatesthappinessfor the greatest number. But the greatest happiness for the greatestnumber, it is assumed further, can be defined only by the will of themajority. Idiosyncrasies in education, therefore, it is said, must beavoided, and the choice of schools must be taken away from theindividual parent and placed in the hands of the state. The state thenexercises its authority through the instruments that are ready to hand,and at once, therefore, the child is placed under the control ofpsychologicalexperts,themselveswithouttheslightestacquaintancewiththe higher realms of human life, who proceed to prevent any suchacquaintancebeinggainedby thosewho comeunder their care.Sucharesult is being slightly delayed in America by the remnants of Anglo-Saxon individualism, but the signs of the times are all contrary to themaintenance of this halfway position; liberty is certainly held by but aprecarioustenurewhenonceitsunderlyingprincipleshavebeenlost.Foratimeitlookedasthoughtheutilitarianismwhichcameintovogueinthemiddle of the nineteenth century would be a purely academic matter,

withoutinfluenceupondailylife.Butsuchappearanceshaveprovedtobedeceptive.Thedominanttendency,eveninacountrylikeAmerica,whichformerlyprideditselfonitsfreedomfrombureaucraticregulationofthedetails of life, is toward a drab utilitarianism in which all higheraspirationsaretobelost.

Manifestations of such a tendency can easily be seen. In the state ofNebraska, for example, a law is now in force according to which noinstruction in any school in the state, public or private, is to be giventhroughthemediumofa languageotherthanEnglish,andno languageotherthanEnglishistobestudiedevenasalanguageuntilthechildhaspassed an examination before the county superintendent of educationshowing that the eighth grade has been passed.[2] In other words, noforeign language, apparently not even Latin or Greek, is to be studieduntil the child is too old to learn it well. It is in thisway thatmoderncollectivismdealswithakindofstudywhichisabsolutelyessentialtoallgenuinementaladvance.ThemindsofthepeopleofNebraska,andofanyotherstateswheresimilarlawsprevail,[3]aretobekeptbythepowerofthestateinapermanentconditionofarresteddevelopment.

It might seem as though with such laws obscurantism had reached itslowest possible depths. But there are depths lower still. In the state ofOregon,onElectionDay,1922,alawwaspassedbyareferendumvoteinaccordancewithwhichallchildreninthestatearerequiredtoattendthepublic schools.Christianschoolsandprivateschools,at least in theall-importantlowergrades,arethuswipedoutofexistence.Suchlaws,whichif the present temper of the people prevails will probably soon beextended far beyond the bounds of one state,[4] [which will] mean ofcoursetheultimatedestructionofallrealeducation.Whenoneconsiderswhat the public schools of America in many places already are--theirmaterialism, their discouragement of any sustained intellectual effort,their encouragement of the dangerous pseudoscientific fads ofexperimental psychology--one can only be appalled by the thought of acommonwealth in which there is no escape from such a soul-killingsystem.Buttheprincipleofsuchlawsandtheirultimatetendencyarefarworsethantheimmediateresults.[5]Apublicschoolsystem,initself,isindeedofenormousbenefittotherace.Butitisofbenefitonlyifitiskept

healthy at every moment by the absolutely free possibility of thecompetition of private schools. A public school system, if itmeans theprovidingof freeeducation for thosewhodesire it, isanoteworthyandbeneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomesmonopolistic it is themostperfect instrumentof tyrannywhichhasyetbeendevised.Freedomof thought in themiddle ageswas combatedbythe Inquisition,but themodernmethod is farmore effective. Place thelivesofchildrenintheirformativeyears,despitetheconvictionsoftheirparents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state,force them then to attend schools where the higher aspirations ofhumanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with thematerialismoftheday,anditisdifficulttoseehoweventheremnantsofliberty can subsist. Such a tyranny, supported as it is by a perversetechniqueusedastheinstrumentindestroyinghumansouls,iscertainlyfarmoredangerous than the crude tyranniesof thepast,whichdespitetheirweaponsoffireandswordpermittedthoughtatleasttobefree.

The truth is that the materialistic paternalism of the present day, ifallowed to go on unchecked, will rapidly make of America one huge"Main Street," where spiritual adventure will be discouraged anddemocracywillberegardedasconsistinginthereductionofallmankindto theproportionsof thenarrowestand leastgiftedof thecitizens.Godgrant that theremay come a reaction, and that the great principles ofAnglo-Saxon liberty may be rediscovered before it is too late! Butwhateversolutionbefoundfortheeducationalandsocialproblemsofourown country, a lamentable conditionmust be detected in the world atlarge.Itcannotbedeniedthatgreatmenarefewornonexistent,andthattherehasbeenageneralcontractingoftheareaofpersonallife.Materialbettermenthasgonehandinhandwithspiritualdecline.

Such a condition of the world ought to cause the choice betweenmodernism and traditionalism, liberalism and conservatism, to beapproachedwithoutanyoftheprejudicewhichistoooftendisplayed.Inviewofthelamentabledefectsofmodernlife,atypeofreligioncertainlyshould not be commended simply because it ismodern or condemnedsimply because it is old. On the contrary, the condition ofmankind issuch that one may well ask what it is that made the men of past

generationssogreatandthemenofthepresentgenerationsosmall.Inthemidstofall thematerialachievementsofmodern life,onemaywellaskthequestionwhetheringainingthewholeworldwehavenotlostourown soul. Are we forever condemned to live the sordid life ofutilitarianism? Or is there some lost secret which if rediscovered willrestoretomankindsomethingofthegloriesofthepast?

SuchasecretthewriterofthislittlebookwoulddiscoverintheChristianreligion. But the Christian religion which is meant is certainly not thereligion of the modern liberal Church, but a message of divine grace,almostforgottennow,asitwasinthemiddleages,butdestinedtoburstforth oncemore in God's good time, in a new Reformation, and bringlightandfreedomtomankind.Whatthatmessageiscanbemadeclear,as is the case with all definition, only by way of exclusion, by way ofcontrast.Insettingforththecurrentliberalism,nowalmostdominantintheChurch,overagainstChristianity,weareanimated, therefore,bynomerely negative or polemic purpose; on the contrary, by showingwhatChristianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is, inorderthatmenmaybeledtoturnfromtheweakandbeggarlyelementsandhaverecourseagaintothegraceofGod.

Notes

1.FrancisL.Patton,intheintroductiontoWilliamHallockJohnsonTheChristianFaithUnderModernSearchlight,[1916],p.7.

2.SeeLaws,ResolutionsandMemorialspassedbytheLegislatureofthe State ofNebraska at theThirty-Seventh Session, 1919, Chapter249,p.1019.

3.Compare,forexample,LegislativeActsoftheGeneralAssemblyofOhio,Vol.cviii,1919,pp.614f.;andAct,andJointResolutionsoftheGeneralAssemblyofIowa,1919,Chapter198,p.219.

4. In Michigan, a bill similar to the one now passed in Oregonrecently received an enormous vote at a referendum, and anagitationlookingat least inthesamegeneraldirectionissaidtobecontinuing.

5. The evil principle is seen with special clearness in the so-called"LuskLaws"inthestateofNewYork.Oneofthesereferstoteachersin the public schools. The other provides that "No person, firm,corporationorsocietyshallconduct,maintainoroperateanyschool,institute, class or course of instruction in any subjects whateverwithoutmakingapplicationforandbeinggrantedalicensefromtheuniversity of the state of New York to so conduct, maintain oroperatesuchinstitute,school,classorcourse."Itisfurtherprovidedthat"Aschool,institute,classorcourselicensedasprovidedInthissectionshallbesubjecttovisitationbyofficersandemployeesoftheuniversityof the state ofNewYork." SeeLawsof theState ofNewYork, 1921, Vol. III, Chapter 667, pp. 2049-2051. This law is sobroadlyworded that it couldnot possibly be enforced, evenby thewholeGermanarmyinitspre-warefficiencyorbyalltheespionagesystemof theCzar.Theexactmeasureofenforcement is left to thediscretionofofficials,andthecitizensareplacedinconstantdangerof that intolerable interference with private life which realenforcement of the provision about "courses of instruction in anysubjects whatever" would mean. One of the exemptions is inprinciple particularly bad. "Nor shall such licensehe required:' thelaw provides. "By schools now or hereafter established andmaintained by a religious denomination or sect well recognized assuchat thetimethissectiontakeseffect."Onecancertainlyrejoicethat the existing churches are freed, for the time being, from themenace involved in the law. But in principle the limitation of theexemption to the existing churches really runs counter to thefundamental idea Of religious liberty; for it sets up a distinctionbetween established religions and those that are not established.Therewasalwaystoleranceforestablishedreligiousbodies,evenintheRomanEmpire;butreligious libertyconsists inequalrights forreligiousbodies thatarenew.Theotherexemptionsdonotremovein the slightest the oppressive character of the law.Bad as the lawmustbe in its Immediate effects, it is farmorealarming inwhat itrevealsaboutthetemperofthepeople.Apeoplewhichtoleratessuchpreposterouslegislationuponthestatutebooks isapeoplethathaswandered far away from the principles of American liberty. Truepatriotismwillnotconcealthemenace,butwillratherseektorecall

the citizens to those great principles for which our fathers, inAmerica and In England, were willing to bleed and die. There aresome encouraging indications that the Lusk Laws may soon berepealed.Iftheyarerepealed,theywillstillserveasAwarningthatonlybyconstantwatchfulnesscanlibertybepreserved.

Doctrine

Chapter1

Modern liberalism in the Church, whatever judgment may be passedupon it, is at any rate no longer merely an academic matter. It is nolongeramattermerelyof theological seminariesoruniversities.On thecontraryitsattackuponthefundamentalsoftheChristianfaithisbeingcarriedonvigorouslybySunday-School"lesson-helps,"bythepulpit,andbythereligiouspress.Ifsuchanattackbeunjustified,theremedyisnottobe found,assomedevoutpersonshavesuggested, intheabolitionoftheological seminaries, or the abandonment of scientific theology, butratherinamoreearnestsearchaftertruthandamoreloyaldevotiontoitwhenonceitisfound.

Atthetheologicalseminariesanduniversities,however, therootsof thegreat issue are more clearly seen than in the world at large; amongstudents the reassuring employment of traditional phrases is oftenabandoned,andtheadvocatesofanewreligionarenotatpains,astheyareintheChurchatlarge,tomaintainanappearanceofconformitywiththepast.Butsuchfrankness,weareconvinced,oughttobeextendedtothepeopleasawhole.Fewdesiresonthepartofreligiousteachershavebeen more harmfully exaggerated than the desire to "avoid givingoffense."Onlytoooftenthatdesirehascomeperilouslyneardishonesty;thereligiousteacher,inhisheartofhearts,iswellawareoftheradicalismof his views, but is unwilling to relinquish his place in the hallowedatmosphereof theChurchbyspeakinghiswholemind.Againstallsuchpolicy of concealment or palliation, our sympathies are altogetherwiththose men, whether radicals or conservatives, who have a passion forlight.

Whatthen,atbottom,whenthetraditionalphraseshaveallbeenstrippedaway,istherealmeaningofthepresentrevoltagainstthefundamentalsof the Christian faith? What, in brief, are the teachings of modernliberalismasoveragainsttheteachingsofChristianity?

Attheoutset,wearemetwithanobjection."Teachings," it issaid,"areunimportant; the exposition of the teachings of liberalism and theteachingsofChristianity,therefore,canarousenointerestatthepresentday; creeds are merely the changing expression of a unitary Christianexperience, andprovided only they express that experience they are allequally good. The teachings of liberalism, therefore, might be as farremovedaspossible from the teachingsofhistoricChristianity, andyetthetwomightbeatbottomthesame."

Suchisthewayinwhichexpressionisoftengiventothemodernhostilityto"doctrine."Butisitreallydoctrineassuchthatisobjectedto,andnotratheroneparticulardoctrine in the interestsofanother?Undoubtedly,inmanyformsofliberalismitisthelatteralternativewhichfitsthecase.There are doctrines of modern liberalism, just as tenaciously andintolerantly upheld as any doctrines that find a place in the historiccreeds. Such for example are the liberal doctrines of the universalfatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. Thesedoctrinesare,asweshall see,contrary to thedoctrinesof theChristianreligion. But doctrines they are all the same, and as such they requireintellectual defense. In seeming to object to all theology, the liberalpreacher is often merely objecting to one system of theology in theinterests of another. And the desired immunity from theologicalcontroversyhasnotyetbeenattained.

Sometimes,however,themodernobjectiontodoctrineismoreseriouslymeant. And whether the objection be well-founded or not, the realmeaningofitshouldatleastbefaced.

Thatmeaning is perfectly plain. The objection involves an out-and-outskepticism.Ifallcreedsareequallytrue,thensincetheyarecontradictorytooneanother,theyareallequallyfalse,oratleastequallyuncertain.Weare indulging, therefore, in amere jugglingwithwords. To say that allcreeds are equally true, and that they are based upon experience, ismerely to fall back upon that agnosticism which fifty years ago wasregardedasthedeadliestenemyoftheChurch.Theenemyhasnotreallybeenchanged intoa friendmerelybecausehehasbeen receivedwithinthecamp.VerydifferentistheChristianconceptionofacreed.AccordingtotheChristianconception,acreedisnotamereexpressionofChristian

experience,but on the contrary it is a setting forth of those facts uponwhichexperienceisbased.

But, itwillbesaid,Christianity isa life,notadoctrine.Theassertion isoftenmade,andithasanappearanceofgodliness.Butitisradicallyfalse,andtodetectitsfalsityonedoesnotevenneedtobeaChristian.Fortosay that "Christianity is a life" is tomake an assertion in the sphere ofhistory.Theassertiondoesnotlieinthesphereofideals;itisfardifferentfromsayingthatChristianityoughttobealife,orthattheidealreligionisa life. The assertion that Christianity is a life is subject to historicalinvestigation exactly as is the assertion that the Roman Empire underNero was a free democracy. Possibly the Roman Empire under Nerowouldhavebeenbetterifithadbeenafreedemocracy,butthehistoricalquestionissimplywhetherasamatteroffactitwasafreedemocracyorno.Christianityisanhistoricalphenomenon,liketheRomanEmpire,orthe Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. And as anhistoricalphenomenonitmustbe investigatedonthebasisofhistoricalevidence.

Isittrue,then,thatChristianityisnotadoctrinebutalife?Thequestioncanbesettledonlybyanexaminationof thebeginningsofChristianity.Recognition of that fact does not involve any acceptance of Christianbelief; it ismerelyamatterof commonsenseandcommonhonesty.Atthefoundationofthelifeofeverycorporationistheincorporationpaper,inwhichtheobjectsofthecorporationaresetforth.Otherobjectsmaybevastlymoredesirablethanthoseobjects,butifthedirectorsusethenameandtheresourcesofthecorporationtopursuetheotherobjectstheyareacting ultra vires of the corporation. So it is with Christianity. It isperfectlyconceivablethattheoriginatorsoftheChristianmovementhadnorighttolegislateforsubsequentgenerations.Butatanyratetheydidhave an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that shouldchoosetobearthenameof"Christian."ItisconceivablethatChristianitymaynowhavetobeabandoned,andanotherreligionsubstituted for it;butatanyratethequestionwhatChristianityiscanbedeterminedonlybyanexaminationofthebeginningsofChristianity.

The beginnings of Christianity constitute a fairly definite historicalphenomenon. The Christianmovement originated a few days after the

deathofJesusofNazareth.ItisdoubtfulwhetheranythingthatprecededthedeathofJesuscanbecalledChristianity.Atanyrate, ifChristianityexistedbeforethatevent,itwasChristianityonlyinapreliminarystage.ThenameoriginatedafterthedeathofJesus,andthethingitselfwasalsosomethingnew.EvidentlytherewasanimportantnewbeginningamongthedisciplesofJesusinJerusalemafterthecrucifixion.Atthattimeistobeplaced thebeginningof the remarkablemovementwhich spreadoutfrom Jerusalem into the Gentile world--the movement which is calledChristianity.

About the early stages of thismovement definite historical informationhas been preserved in the Epistles of Paul, which are regarded by allserioushistorians as genuineproducts of the firstChristian generation.Thewriterof theEpistleshadbeen indirectcommunicationwiththoseintimate friends of Jesus who had begun the Christian movement inJerusalem, and in the Epistles he makes it abundantly plain what thefundamentalcharacterofthemovementwas.Butifanyonefactisclear,on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at itsinceptionwasnotjustawayoflifeinthemodernsense,butawayoflifefoundeduponamessage.Itwasbased,notuponmerefeeling,notuponamereprogramofwork,but upon an account of facts. In otherwords itwasbasedupondoctrine.

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paulcertainlywas not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrinewastheverybasisofhislife.Hisdevotiontodoctrinedidnot,itistrue,makehim incapable of amagnificent tolerance.Onenotable example of suchtoleranceistobefoundduringhisimprisonmentatRome,asattestedbythe Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers atRome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been atlibertytheyhadbeenobligedtotakeasecondaryplace;butnowthathewas in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise upaffliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy andstrife.Inshort,therivalpreachersmadeofthepreachingofthegospelameanstothegratificationoflowpersonalambition;itseemstohavebeenaboutasmeanapieceofbusinessas couldwellbe conceived.ButPaulwasnotdisturbed."Whetherinpresence,orintruth,"hesaid,"Christis

preached;andIthereindorejoice,yea,andwillrejoice"(Phil.i.18).Theway in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but themessageitselfwastrue;andPaulwasfarmoreinterestedinthecontentofthemessagethaninthemannerofitspresentation.Itisimpossibletoconceiveafinerpieceofbroad-mindedtolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed notolerance,forexample,inGalatia.There,too,therewererivalpreachers.But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or anangelfromheaven,preachanyothergospeluntoyouthanthatwhichwehave preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is thereasonforthedifferenceintheapostle'sattitudeinthetwocases?WhatisthereasonforthebroadtoleranceinRome,andthefierceanathemasin Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant,because there the contentof themessage thatwasbeingproclaimedbytherivalteacherswastrue;inGalatiahewasintolerant,becausetherethecontentof the rivalmessagewas false. Inneither casedidpersonalitieshave anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of theJudaizers inGalatiawere far frompure, and in an incidentalway Pauldoes point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of hisopposition. The Judaizers no doubt weremorally far from perfect, butPaul'soppositiontothemwouldhavebeenexactly thesame if theyhadallbeenangels fromheaven.Hisoppositionwasbased altogetheruponthefalsityoftheirteaching;theyweresubstitutingfortheonetruegospelafalsegospelwhichwasnogospelatall.ItneveroccurredtoPaulthatagospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight ofpragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of theobjectivetruthofthegospelmessage,anddevotiontothattruthwasthegreatpassionofhislife.ChristianityforPaulwasnotonlyalife,butalsoadoctrine,andlogicallythedoctrinecamefirst.[2]

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and theteachingoftheJudaizers?Whatwasitthatgaverisetothestupendouspolemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church thedifferencewould have seemed to be amere theological subtlety. Aboutmany things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. TheJudaizersbelievedthatJesuswastheMessiah;there isnotashadowof

evidence that they objected toPaul's lofty viewof the person ofChrist.Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risenfrom the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ wasnecessarytosalvation.Butthetroublewas,theybelievedthatsomethingelsewasalsonecessary;theybelievedthatwhatChristhaddoneneededtobepiecedoutby thebeliever'sowneffort tokeep theLaw.From themodernpointofviewthedifferencewouldhaveseemedtobeveryslight.PaulaswellastheJudaizersbelievedthatthekeepingofthelawofGod,initsdeepest

import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concernedonly the logical--not even, perhaps, the temporal--order of three steps.Paulsaidthataman(1)firstbelievesonChrist,(2)thenisjustifiedbeforeGod,(3)thenimmediatelyproceedstokeepGod'slaw.TheJudaizerssaidthataman(1)believesonChristand(2)keepsthelawofGodthebesthecan, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern"practical"Christianstobeahighlysubtleandintangiblematter,hardlyworthyofconsiderationatallinviewofthelargemeasureofagreementinthepracticalrealm.WhatasplendidcleaningupoftheGentilecitiesitwould have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to thosecities theobservanceof theMosaic law, even including theunfortunateceremonialobservances!SurelyPauloughttohavemadecommoncausewithteacherswhoweresonearlyinagreementwithhim;surelyheoughttohaveappliedtothemthegreatprincipleofChristianunity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and onlybecause he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the ChristianChurchexisttoday.PaulsawveryclearlythatthedifferencesbetweentheJudaizers andhimselfwas thedifferencesbetween twoentirely distincttypesofreligion;itwasthedifferencesbetweenareligionofmeritandareligionofgrace.IfChristprovidesonlyapartofoursalvation,leavingustoprovidetherest,thenwearestillhopelessundertheloadofsin.Fornomatterhowsmallthegapwhichmustbebridgedbeforesalvationcanbeattained,theawakenedconscienceseesclearlythatourwretchedattemptatgoodnessisinsufficienteventobridgethatgap.Theguiltysoulentersagain into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether wehave really done our part. And thus we groan again under the old

bondageof the law.Suchanattempt topieceout theworkofChristbyourownmerit,Paulsawclearly,istheveryessenceofunbelief;Christwilldo everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselvesunreservedlyonHismercyandtrustHimforall.

Paul certainly was right. The differences which divided him from theJudaizerswasnomeretheologicalsubtlety,butconcernedtheveryheartandcoreofthereligionofChrist."JustasIamwithoutoneplea,ButthatThybloodwasshedforme"--thatwaswhatPaulwascontendingfor inGalatia; that hymnwouldnever have beenwritten if the Judaizershadwon. And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is noChristianityatall.

Certainly,then,Paulwasnoadvocateofanundogmaticreligion;hewasinterestedaboveeverythingelseintheobjectiveanduniversaltruthofhismessage. Somuch will probably be admitted by serious historians, nomatterwhattheirownpersonalattitudetowardthereligionofPaulmaybe.Sometimes,indeed,themodernliberalpreacherseekstoproduceanoppositeimpressionbyquotingoutoftheircontextwordsofPaulwhichheinterpretsinawayasfarremovedaspossiblefromtheoriginalsense.The truth is, it is hard to give Paul up. The modern liberal desires toproduceupon themindsof simpleChristians (anduponhisownmind)theimpressionofsomesortofcontinuitybetweenmodernliberalismandthe thought and life of the great Apostle. But such an impression isaltogether misleading. Paul was not interested merely in the ethicalprinciplesofJesus;hewasnotinterestedmerelyingeneralprinciplesofreligionorofethics.Onthecontrary,hewasinterestedintheredeemingwork of Christ and its effect upon us. His primary interest was inChristian doctrine, and Christian doctrine not merely in itspresuppositions but at its center. If Christianity is to be madeindependent of doctrine, then Paulinism must be removed fromChristianityrootandbranch.

Butwhatofthat?Somemenarenotafraidoftheconclusion.IfPaulinismmustberemoved,theysay,wecangetalongwithoutit.Mayitnotturnout that in introducing a doctrinal element into the life of the ChurchPaul was only perverting a primitive Christianity which was asindependent of doctrine as even the modern liberal preacher could

desire?

This suggestion is clearly overruled by the historical evidence. Theproblemcertainlycannotbesolvedinsoeasyaway.ManyattemptshaveindeedbeenmadetoseparatethereligionofPaulsharplyfromthatoftheprimitive Jerusalem Church; many attempts have been made to showthat Paul introduced an entirely new principle into the Christianmovement or even was the founder of a new religion.But all suchattemptshaveresultedinfailure.ThePaulineEpistlesthemselvesattestafundamentalunityofprinciplebetweenPaulandtheoriginalcompanionsofJesus,andthewholeearlyhistoryoftheChurchbecomesunintelligibleexcept on the basis of such unity. Certainly with regard to thefundamentallydoctrinalcharacterofChristianityPaulwasnoinnovator.The fact appears in the whole character of Paul's relationship to theJerusalemChurchasitisattestedbytheEpistles,anditalsoappearswithstartling clearness in thepreciouspassage in 1Cor. xv.3-7,wherePaulsummarizes the tradition which he had received from the primitiveChurch.Whatisitthatformsthecontentofthatprimitiveteaching?IsitageneralprincipleofthefatherlinessofGodorthebrotherlinessofman?Is it a vague admiration for the character of Jesus such as that whichprevails inthemodernChurch?Nothingcouldbe further fromthe fact."Christdiedforoursins,"said theprimitivedisciples, "according to theScriptures;hewasburied;hehasbeenraisedonthethirddayaccordingto the Scriptures." From the beginning, the Christian gospel, as indeedthe name "gospel" or "good news" implies, consisted in an account ofsomething thathadhappened.And fromthebeginning, themeaningofthehappeningwassetforth;andwhenthemeaningofthehappeningwassetforththentherewasChristiandoctrine."Christdied"--thatishistory;"Christdiedforoursins"--that isdoctrine.Withoutthesetwoelements,joinedinanabsolutelyindissolubleunion,thereisnoChristianity.

It is perfectly clear, then, that the first Christian missionaries did notsimply come forward with an exhortation they did not say: "Jesus ofNazareth livedawonderful lifeof filialpiety, andwe call uponyouourhearers to yield yourselves, as we have done, to the spell of that life."Certainly that iswhatmodern historianswould have expected the firstChristianmissionariestosay,butitmustberecognizedthatasamatter

of fact they said nothing of the kind. Conceivably the first disciples ofJesus, after the catastrophe ofHis death,might have engaged in quietmeditationuponHis teaching.Theymighthavesaid to themselves that"OurFatherwhichartinheaven"wasagoodwayofaddressingGodeventhoughtheOnewhohadtaughtthemthatprayerwasdead.TheymighthaveclungtotheethicalprinciplesofJesusandcherishedthevaguehopethattheOnewhoenunciatedsuchprincipleshadsomepersonalexistencebeyondthegrave.Suchredactionsmighthaveseemedverynaturaltothemodern man. But to Peter, James and John they certainly neveroccurred. Jesus had raised in them high hopes; those hopes weredestroyed by the Cross; and reflections on the general principles ofreligion and ethicswerequitepowerless to revive thehopes again.ThedisciplesofJesushadevidentlybeenfarinferiortotheirMasterineverypossibleway; they had not understoodHis lofty spiritual teaching, buteveninthehourofsolemncrisishadquarreledovergreatplaces in theapproachingKingdom.WhathopewastherethatsuchmencouldsucceedwheretheirMasterhad failed?EvenwhenHehadbeenwith them, theyhadbeenpowerless;andnow thatHewas taken from them,what littlepowertheymayhavehadwasgone.[3]

Yetthosesameweak,discouragedmen,withinafewdaysafterthedeathof theirMaster, instituted themost important spiritualmovement thatthe world has ever seen. What had produced the astonishing change?Whathadtransformedtheweakandcowardlydisciplesintothespiritualconquerorsoftheworld?EvidentlyitwasnotthemerememoryofJesus'life, for that was a source of sadness rather than of joy. Evidently thedisciples of Jesus, within the few days between the crucifixion and thebeginningoftheirworkinJerusalem,hadreceivedsomenewequipmentfortheirtask.Whatthatnewequipmentwas,atleasttheoutstandingandexternalelementinit(tosaynothingoftheendowmentwhichChristianmenbelieve tohavebeen received at Pentecost), is perfectly plain. Thegreat weapon with which the disciples of Jesus set out to conquer theworld was not a mere comprehension of eternal principles; it was anhistoricalmessage,anaccountofsomethingthathadrecentlyhappened,itwasthemessage,"Heisrisen."[4]

But themessage of the resurrectionwas not isolated. Itwas connected

withthedeathofJesus,seennowtobenotafailurebutatriumphantactof divine grace; it was connected with the entire appearance of Jesusuponearth.ThecomingofJesuswasunderstoodnowasanactofGodbywhich sinfulmenwere saved.TheprimitiveChurchwas concernednotmerelywithwhatJesushadsaid,butalso,andprimarily,withwhatJesushaddone.Theworldwastoberedeemedthroughtheproclamationofanevent.Andwiththeeventwentthemeaningoftheevent;andthesettingforthoftheeventwiththemeaningoftheeventwasdoctrine.ThesetwoelementsarealwayscombinedintheChristianmessage.Thenarrationofthefactsishistory;thenarrationofthefactswiththemeaningofthefactsis doctrine. "Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead andburied"--thatishistory."HelovedmeandgaveHimselfforme"--that isdoctrine.SuchwastheChristianityoftheprimitiveChurch.

"But,"itmaybesaid,"eveniftheChristianityoftheprimitiveChurchwasdependentupondoctrine,wemay still emancipate ourselves from suchdependence;wemayappealfromtheprimitiveChurchtoJesusHimself.It has already been admitted that if doctrine is to be abandoned Paulmust be abandoned:it may now be admitted that if doctrine is to beabandoned,eventheprimitiveJerusalemChurch,withitsmessageoftheresurrection,mustbeabandoned.ButpossiblywecanstillfindinJesusHimself the simple, non-doctrinal religion that we desire." Such is therealmeaningofthemodernslogan,"BacktoChrist."

Must we really take such a step as that? It would certainly be anextraordinarystep.Agreatreligionderiveditspowerfromthemessageofthe redeeming work of Christ; without that message Jesus and Hisdisciples would soon have been forgotten. The samemessage, with itsimplications,hasbeentheveryheartandsouloftheChristianmovementthroughoutthecenturies.Yetwearenowaskedtobelievethatthethingthat has given Christianity its power all through the centuries was ablunder, that the originators of themovementmisunderstood radicallythemeaningoftheirMaster'slifeandwork,andthatithasbeenlefttousmodernstogetthefirstinklingoftheinitialmistake.Evenifthisviewofthecasewerecorrect,andevenifJesusHimselftaughtareligionlikethatofmodern liberalism, itwould still bedoubtfulwhether sucha religioncould rightly be called Christianity; for the name Christian was first

appliedonlyafterthesupposeddecisivechangehadtakenplace,anditisverydoubtfulwhetheranamewhichthroughnineteencenturieshasbeenso firmly attached to one religion ought now suddenly to be applied toanother. If the first disciples of Jesus really departed so radically fromtheirMaster, thenthebetterterminologywouldprobably leadus tosaysimply that Jesuswas not the founder of Christianity, but of a simple,non-doctrinal religion, long forgotten,butnow rediscoveredbymodernmen.Evenso,thecontrastbetweenliberalismandChristianitywouldstillappear.

Butasamatteroffact,suchastrangestateofaffairsdoesnotprevailatall.ItisnottruethatinbasingChristianityuponaneventthedisciplesofJesus were departing from the teaching of their Master. For certainlyJesusHimself did the same thing. Jesus did not content Himself withenunciatinggeneralprinciplesofreligionandethics;thepictureofJesusasasagesimilartoConfucius,utteringwisemaximsaboutconduct,maysatisfy Mr. H. G.Wells, as he trips along lightly over the problems ofhistory, but it disappears so soonas one engages seriously in historicalresearch."Repent,"saidJesus,"fortheKingdomofHeavenisathand."The gospel which Jesus proclaimed in Galilee consisted in theproclamation of a coming Kingdom. But clearly Jesus regarded thecomingoftheKingdomasanevent,orasaseriesofevents.NodoubtHealso regarded theKingdomas a present reality in the souls ofmen;nodoubtHerepresentedtheKingdominonesenseasalreadypresent.Weshallnotreallysucceedingettingalongwithoutthisaspectofthematterin our interpretation of Jesus' words. But we shall also not get alongwithouttheotheraspect,accordingtowhichthecomingoftheKingdomdepended upon definite and catastrophic events. But if Jesus regardedthecomingoftheKingdomasdependentuponadefiniteevent,thenHisteachingwassimilaratthedecisivepointtothatoftheprimitiveChurch;neither He nor the primitive Church enunciated merely general andpermanentprinciplesofreligion;bothofthem,onthecontrary,madethemessagedependuponsomethingthathappened.Only,intheteachingofJesusthehappeningwasrepresentedasbeingstillinthefuture,whileinthatoftheJerusalemChurchthefirstactofitatleastlayalreadyinthepast.Jesusproclaimedtheeventascoming;thedisciplesproclaimedpartof it at leastasalreadypast;but the important thing is thatbothJesus

and thedisciplesdidproclaimanevent.Jesuswascertainlynotamereenunciatorofpermanenttruths,likethemodernliberalpreacher;onthecontraryHewasconsciousof standingat the turning-pointof theages,whenwhathadneverbeenwasnowtocometobe.

ButJesusannouncednotonlyanevent;Heannouncedalsothemeaningof the event. It is natural, indeed, that the fullmeaning could bemadeclearonlyafter theeventhadtakenplace. IfJesusreallycame, then, toannounce,andtobringabout,anevent,thediscipleswerenotdepartingfromHispurpose, if they set forth themeaningof theeventmorefullythanitcouldbesetforthduringthepreliminaryperiodconstitutedbytheearthly ministry of theirMaster. But Jesus Himself, though by way ofprophecy,didsetforththemeaningofthegreathappeningthatwastobeatthebasisofthenewera.

CertainlyHedidso,andgrandly,ifthewordsattributedtoHiminalloftheGospelsarereallyHis.ButeveniftheFourthGospelberejected,andevenifthemostradicalcriticismbeappliedtotheotherthree,itwillstillbeimpossibletogetridofthiselementinJesus'teaching.Thesignificantwords attributed to Jesus at the Last Supper with regard to Hisapproachingdeath,andtheutteranceofJesusinMk.x.45("TheSonofMancamenottobeministereduntobuttominister,andtogiveHislifearansomformany"),haveindeedbeenthesubjectofvigorousdebate.ItisdifficulttoacceptsuchwordsasauthenticandyetmaintainthemodernviewofJesusatall.Yetitisalsodifficulttogetridofthemonanycriticaltheory.Whatwe are now concernedwith, however, is somethingmoregeneralthantheauthenticityevenofthesepreciouswords.WhatwearenowconcernedtoobserveisthatJesuscertainlydidnotcontentHimselfwith the enunciation of permanent moral principles; He certainly didannounceanapproachingevent;andHecertainlydidnotannouncetheeventwithoutgivingsomeaccountofitsmeaning.ButwhenHegaveanaccount of themeaning of the event, nomatter how brief that accountmay have been, He was overstepping the line that separates anundogmaticreligion,orevenadogmaticreligionthatteachesonlyeternalprinciples,fromonethatisrootedinthesignificanceofdefinitehistoricalfacts;Hewasplacinga great gulf betweenHimself and thephilosophicmodernliberalismwhichtodayincorrectlybearsHisname.

InanotherwayalsotheteachingofJesuswasrootedindoctrine.Itwasrootedindoctrinebecause itdependeduponastupendouspresentationofJesus'ownPerson.Theassertionisoftenmade,indeed,thatJesuskeptHis own Person out of His gospel, and came forward merely as thesupreme prophet of God. That assertion lies at the very root of themodernliberalconceptionofthelifeofChrist.Butcommonasitis,itisradicallyfalse.Anditisinterestingtoobservehowtheliberalhistoriansthemselves,sosoonastheybegintodealseriouslywiththesources,areobligedtoadmitthattherealJesuswasnotallthattheycouldhavelikedJesustobe.AHoustonStewartChamberlain,[5]indeed,canconstructaJesuswhowastheadvocateofapure,"formless,"non-doctrinalreligion;buttrainedhistorians,despitetheirowndesires,areobligedtoadmitthattherewasanelement in therealJesuswhichrefuses tobepressed intoany such mold. There is to the liberal historians, as Heitmuller hassignificantlysaid,"somethingalmostuncanny"aboutJesus.[6]

This"uncanny"elementinJesusisfoundinHisMessianicconsciousness.Thestrangefactisthatthispureteacherofrighteousnessappealedtobymodern liberalism, this classical exponent of the non-doctrinal religionwhichissupposedtounderlieallthehistoricalreligionsastheirreducibletruth remaining after the doctrinal accretions have been removed--thestrange fact is that thissupremerevealerofeternal truthsupposed thatHe was to be the chief actor in a world catastrophe and was to sit injudgment upon thewhole earth. Such is the stupendous form inwhichJesusappliedtoHimselfthecategoryofMessiahship.

It is interesting to observe how modern men have dealt with theMessianic consciousness of Jesus. Some, like Mr. H. G. Wells, havepractically ignored it. Without discussing the question whether it behistoricalornottheyhavepracticallytreateditasthoughitdidnotexist,andhavenotallowedittodisturbthematallintheirconstructionofthesageofNazareth.TheJesusthusreconstructedmaybeusefulasinvestingmodernprogramswiththesanctityofHishallowedname;Mr.Wellsmayfind it edifying to associate Jesus with Confucius in a brotherhood ofbeneficent vagueness. But what ought to be clearly understood is thatsuch a Jesus has nothing to do with history. He is a purely imaginaryfigure,asymbolandnotafact.

Others,moreseriously,haverecognizedtheexistenceoftheproblem,buthavesought toavoid itbydenying thatJesusever thought thatHewastheMessiah,andbysupportingtheirdenial,notbymereassertions,butbyacriticalexaminationofthesources.Suchwastheeffort,forexample,ofW.Wrede,[7]andabrillianteffortitwas.Butithasresultedinfailure.TheMessianicconsciousnessofJesusisnotmerelyrootedinthesourcesconsideredasdocuments,butitliesattheverybasisofthewholeedificeoftheChurch.If,asJ.Weisshaspertinentlysaid,thedisciplesbeforethecrucifixionhadmerelybeentoldthattheKingdomofGodwascoming,ifJesushad reallykept altogether in thebackgroundHisownpart in theKingdom, then why when despair finally gave place to joy did thedisciples not merely say, "Despite Jesus' death, the Kingdom that Heforetoldwill truly come"?Whydid they say rather, "DespiteHisdeath,He is theMessiah"? [8] From no point of view, then, can the fact bedeniedthatJesusdidclaimtobetheMessiah--neitherfromthepointofviewofacceptanceoftheGospelwitnessasawhole,norfromthepointofviewofmodernnaturalism.

AndwhentheGospelaccountofJesusisconsideredclosely,itisfoundtoinvolvetheMessianicconsciousnessthroughout.EventhosepartsoftheGospelswhichhavebeenregardedasmostpurelyethicalarefoundtobebasedaltogetheruponJesus'loftyclaims.TheSermonontheMountisastrikingexample.ItisthefashionnowtoplacetheSermonontheMountincontrastwiththerestoftheNewTestament."Wewillhavenothingtodowith theology,"men say in effect, "wewill have nothing to do withmiracles,withatonement,orwithheavenorwithhell.ForustheGoldenRuleisasufficientguideoflife;inthesimpleprinciplesoftheSermonontheMount we discover a solution of all the problems of society." It isindeed rather strange that men can speak in this way. Certainly it isratherderogatorytoJesustoassertthatneverexceptinonebriefpartofHisrecordedwordsdidHesayanythingthatisworthwhile.ButevenintheSermonontheMountthereisfarmorethansomemensuppose.Mensaythatitcontainsnotheology)inrealityitcontainstheologyofthemoststupendous kind. In particular, it contains the loftiest possiblepresentation of Jesus' own Person. That presentation appears in thestrangenoteofauthoritywhichpervadesthewholediscourse;itappearsintherecurrentwords,"ButIsayuntoyou."JesusplainlyputsHisown

wordsonanequalitywithwhatHecertainlyregardedasthedivinewordsofScripture;HeclaimedtherighttolegislatefortheKingdomofGod.Letitnotbeobjectedthatthisnoteofauthorityinvolvesmerelyapropheticconsciousness in Jesus, amere right to speak in God's name as God'sSpiritmightlead.Forwhatpropheteverspokeinthisway?Theprophetssaid, "Thus saith the Lord," but Jesus said, "I say." We have no mereprophet here, no mere humble exponent of the will of God; but astupendous Person speaking in a manner which for any other personwouldbeabominableandabsurd.ThesamethingappearsinthepassageMatt. vii. 21-23: "Not everyonewho says tome Lord, Lord, shall enterintotheKingdomofHeaven,buthewhodoesthewillofmyFatherwhois inheaven.Manyshallsaytomeinthatday:Lord,Lord,havewenotprophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out demons, and in thyname done many mighty works? And then I shall confess to them, 'Ineverknewyou;departfromme,yethatworklawlessness."'Thispassageis in some respects a favorite with modern liberal teachers; for it isinterpreted--falsely, it is true, yet plausibly--as meaning that all that aman needs to attain standing with God is an approximately rightperformanceofhisdutiestohisfellowmen,andnotanyassenttoacreedor even any direct relation to Jesus. But have those who quote thepassage 80 triumphantly in this way ever stopped to reflect upon theother side of the picture--upon the stupendous fact that in this samepassagetheeternaldestiniesofmenaremadedependentuponthewordofJesus?JesushererepresentsHimselfasseatedonthejudgment-seatof all the earth, separatingwhomHewill forever from the bliss that isinvolvedinbeingpresentwithHim.CouldanythingbefurtherremovedthansuchaJesusfromthehumbleteacherofrighteousnessappealedtobymodern liberalism?Clearly it is impossible to escape from theology,eveninthechosenprecinctsoftheSermonontheMount.Astupendoustheology,withJesus'ownPersonatthecenterofit,isthepresuppositionofthewholeteaching.

Butmay not that theology still be removed?Maywe not get rid of thebizarre, theological element which has intruded itself even into theSermon on the Mount, and content ourselves merely with the ethicalportionofthediscourse?Thequestion,fromthepointofviewofmodernliberalism,isnatural.Butitmustbeansweredwithanemphaticnegative.

Forthefactisthattheethicofthediscourse,takenbyitself,willnotworkat all. The Golden Rule furnishes an example. "Do unto others as youwould have others do unto you"--is that rule a rule of universalapplication, will it really solve all the problems of society? A littleexperienceshowsthatsuchisnotthecase.Helpadrunkardtogetridofhis evil habit, and you will soon come to distrust the moderninterpretation of the Golden Rule. The trouble is that the drunkard'scompanionsapplytheruleonlytoowell;theydountohimexactlywhattheywouldhavehimdountothem--bybuyinghimadrink.TheGoldenRulebecomesapowerfulobstacle in thewayofmoraladvance.Butthetroubledoesnotlieintheruleitself;itliesinthemoderninterpretationoftherule.TheerrorconsistsinsupposingthattheGoldenRule,withtherestof theSermonontheMount, isaddressedtothewholeworld.Asamatter of fact the whole discourse is expressly addressed to Jesus'disciples;andfromthemthegreatworldoutside isdistinguished in theplainestpossibleway.ThepersonstowhomtheGoldenRuleisaddressedarepersons inwhomagreatchangehasbeenwrought--achangewhichfits themforentrance intotheKingdomofGod.Suchpersonswillhavepuredesires;they,andtheyonly,cansafelydountoothersastheywouldhaveothersdountothem,forthethingsthattheywouldhaveothersdountothemarehighandpure.

Soitiswiththewholeofthediscourse.ThenewlawoftheSermonontheMount, in itself, can only produce despair. Strange indeed is thecomplacencywithwhichmodernmencansaythattheGoldenRuleandthehighethicalprinciplesofJesusareallthattheyneed.Inreality,iftherequirements for entrance into the Kingdom of God are what Jesusdeclaresthemtobe,weareallundone;wehavenotevenattainedtotheexternal righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, and how shall weattain to that righteousness of the heart which Jesus demands ? TheSermon on the Mount, rightly interpreted, then, makes man a seekeraftersomedivinemeansofsalvationbywhichentranceintotheKingdomcanbeobtained.EvenMoseswastoohighforus;butbeforethishigherlawofJesuswhoshallstandwithoutbeingcondemned?TheSermonontheMount, like all the rest of the New Testament, really leads a manstraighttothefootoftheCross.

Even the disciples, towhom the teaching of Jesus was first addressed,knew well that they needed more than guidance in the way that theyshouldgo.ItisonlyasuperficialreadingoftheGospelsthatcanfindinthe relation which the disciples sustained to Jesus a mere relation ofpupiltoMaster.WhenJesussaid,"Comeuntome,allyethat laborandare heavy laden, and I will give you rest," he was speaking not as aphilosopher calling pupils to his school) but as One who was inpossession of rich stores of divine grace. And this much at least thedisciplesknew.Theyknewwell intheirheartofheartsthattheyhadnorighttostandintheKingdom;theyknewthatonlyJesuscouldwinthementrancethere.TheydidnotyetknowfullyhowJesuscouldmakethemchildrenofGod;buttheydidknowthatHecoulddoitandHealone.Andin that trust all the theology of the great Christian creeds was inexpectationcontained.

Atthispoint,anobjectionmayarise.Maywenot--themodernliberalwillsay--maywenotnowreturntothatsimpletrustofthedisciples?Maywenot cease to ask how Jesus saves;maywe not simply leave theway toHim?Whatneedisthere,then,ofdefining"effectualcalling,"whatneedofenumerating"justification,adoptionandsanctificationandtheseveralbenefitswhichinthislifedoeitheraccompanyorflowfromthem"?Whatneed even of rehearsing the steps in the saving work of Christ as theywere rehearsed by the Jerusalem Church; what need of saying that"ChristdiedforoursinsaccordingtotheScriptures,thathewasburied,that he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"?Shouldnotour trustbe inaPersonrather than inamessage; in Jesus,rather than inwhat Jesusdid; in Jesus' character rather than in Jesus'death?

Plausible words these are--plausible, and pitifully vain. Can we reallyreturntoGalilee;arewereallyinthesamesituationasthosewhocametoJesuswhenHewasonearth?CanwehearHimsaytous,"Thysinsareforgiventhee"?Theseareseriousquestions,andtheycannotpossiblybeignored. The plain fact is that Jesus of Nazareth died these nineteenhundred years ago. It was possible for the men of Galilee in the firstcentury to trustHim; for to themHeextendedHisaid.For them, life'sproblemwaseasy.Theyneededonlytopushinthroughthecrowdorbe

loweredthroughsomeCapernaumroofandthelongsearchwasover.Butwe are separated by nineteen centuries from the One who alone couldgiveus aid.How canwebridge the gulf of time that separates us fromJesus?

Some persons would bridge the gulf by the mere use of the historicalimagination."Jesus isnotdead,"weare told, "but liveson throughHisrecordedwordsanddeeds;wedonotneedeventobelieve itall;evenapartissufficient;thewonderfulpersonalityofJesusshinesoutclearfromtheGospelstory.Jesus,inotherwords,maystillbeknown;letussimply--withouttheology,withoutcontroversy,withoutinquiryaboutmiracles--abandonourselvestoHisspell,andHewillhealus."

Thereisacertainplausibilityaboutthat.ItmayreadilybeadmittedthatJesuslivesonintheGospelrecord.Inthatnarrativeweseenotmerelyalifelesspicture,butreceivetheimpressionofalivingPerson.Wecanstill,as we read, share the astonishment of those who listened to the newteaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.We can sympathize with thefaithanddevotionofthelittlebandofdiscipleswhowouldnotleaveHimwhen others were offended at the hard saying. We feel a sympatheticthrillofjoyattheblessedreliefwhichwasgiventothosewhowereillinbodyandinmind.WecanappreciatethewonderfulloveandcompassionofHimwhowassenttoseekandtosavethatwhichwaslost.Awonderfulstoryitisindeed--notdead,butpulsatingwithlifeateveryturn.

CertainlytheJesusoftheGospelsisareal,alivingPerson.Butthatisnotthe only question.We are going forward far too fast. Jesus lives in theGospels--so much may freely be admitted--but we of the twentiethcentury,howmaywecomeintovitalrelationtoHim?Hediednineteenhundredyearsago.ThelifewhichHenowlivesintheGospelsissimplytheoldlifelivedoverandoveragain.Andinthatlifewehavenoplace;inthat lifewe are spectators, not actors. The lifewhich Jesus lives in theGospelsisafterallforusbutthespuriouslifeofthestage.WesitsilentintheplayhouseandwatchtheabsorbingGospeldramaofforgivenessandhealing and love and courage and high endeavor; in rapt attention wefollowthefortunesofthosewhocametoJesuslaboringandheavyladenandfoundrest.Foratimeourowntroublesareforgotten.Butsuddenlythecurtainfalls,withtheclosingofthebook,andoutwegoagainintothe

coldhumdrumofourownlives.Gonearethewarmthandgladnessofanideal world, and "in their stead a sense of real things comes doublystrong."WearenolongerlivingoveragainthelivesofPeterandJamesand John. Alas, we are living our own lives once more, with our ownproblemsandourownmiseryandourownsin.AndstillweareseekingourownSavior.

Let us not deceive ourselves. A Jewish teacher of the first century cannever satisfy the longing of our souls. Clothe Him with all the art ofmodernresearch,throwuponHimthewarm,deceptivecalcium-lightofmodernsentimentality;anddespiteitallcommonsensewillcometoitsrightsagain,andforourbriefhourofself-deception--asthoughwehadbeen with Jesus--will wreak upon us the revenge of hopelessdisillusionment.

But, says themodern preacher, are we not, in being satisfied with the"historical"Jesus,thegreatteacherwhoproclaimedtheKingdomofGod,merely restoring the simplicity of the primitive gospel?No,we answer,youarenot,but,temporallyat least,youarenotsoveryfarwrong.Youare really returning to a very primitive stage in the life of the Church.Only,thatstageisnottheGalileanspringtime.ForinGalileemenhadalivingSavior.Therewasone timeandone timeonlywhen thediscipleslived, like you,merely on thememory of Jesus.Whenwas it? Itwas agloomy, desperate time. Itwas the three sad days after the crucifixion.ThenandthenonlydidJesus'disciplesregardHimmerelyasablessedmemory."Wetrusted,"theysaid,"thatithadbeenhewhichshouldhaveredeemed Israel." "We trusted"--but now our trust is gone. Shall weremain,withmodernliberalism,foreverinthegloomofthosesaddays?OrshallwepassoutfromittothewarmthandjoyofPentecost?

Certainlyweshallremainforeverinthegloomifweattendmerelytothecharacter of Jesus and neglect the thing thatHe has done, ifwe try toattend to the Person and neglect the message. We may have joy forsadnessandpowerforweakness;butnotbyeasyhalf-waymeasures,notby avoidance of controversy, not by trying to hold on to Jesus and yetrejectthegospel.Whatwasitthatwithinafewdaystransformedabandofmourners into the spiritual conquerors of theworld? It was not thememory of Jesus' life; itwasnot the inspirationwhich came frompast

contactwithHim.But itwas themessage, "He is risen." Thatmessagealonegave to the disciples a living Savior and it alone can give to us aliving Savior today.We shall never have vital contact with Jesus if weattendtoHispersonandneglectthemessage;foritisthemessagewhichmakesHimours.

But the Christian message contains more than the fact of theresurrection. [9] It is not enough to know that Jesus is alive; it is notenoughtoknowthatawonderfulPersonlivedinthefirstcenturyoftheChristianeraandthatPersonstilllives,somewhereandsomehow,today.Jesus lives,and that iswell;butwhatgood is it tous?Weare like theinhabitantsoffar-offSyriaorPhoeniciainthedaysofHisflesh.ThereisawonderfulPersonwhocanhealeveryillofbodyandmind.But,alas,weare not with Him, and the way is far. How shall we come into Hispresence?HowshallcontactbeestablishedbetweenusandHim?Forthepeople of ancient Galilee contact was established by a touch of Jesus'handorawordfromHislips.Butforustheproblemisnotsoeasy.WecannotfindHimby the lake shoreor in crowdedhouses;we cannotbelowered intoanyroomwhereHesitsamid scribesandPharisees. Ifweemploy only our ownmethods of search, we shall find ourselves on afruitlesspilgrimage.Surelyweneedguidance,ifwearetofindourSavior.

And in theNewTestamentwe find guidance full and free--guidance socomplete as to remove all doubt, yet so simple that a child canunderstand. Contact with Jesus according to the New Testament isestablishedbywhatJesusdoes,notforothers,butforus.TheaccountofwhatJesusdid forothers is indeednecessary.ByreadinghowHewentabout doing good, how He healed the sick and raised the dead andforgavesins,welearnthatHeisaPersonwhoisworthyoftrust.ButsuchknowledgeistotheChristianmannotanendinitself,butameanstoanend.ItisnotenoughtoknowthatJesusisaPersonworthyoftrust;itisalsonecessarytoknowthatHeiswillingtohaveustrustHim.It isnotenoughthatHesavedothers;weneedtoknowalsothatHehassavedus.ThatknowledgeisgiveninthestoryoftheCross.ForusJesusdoesnotmerelyplaceHisfingersintheearsandsay,"Beopened'';forusHedoesnotmerelysay"Ariseandwalk."ForusHehasdoneagreaterthing--forusHe died. Our dreadful guilt, the condemnation of God's law--it was

wipedoutbyanactofgrace.ThatisthemessagewhichbringsJesusneartous,andmakesHimnotmerely theSaviorof themenofGalilee longago,buttheSaviorofyouandme.

Itisvain,then,tospeakofreposingtrustinthePersonwithoutbelievingthemessage.Fortrustinvolvesapersonalrelationbetweentheonewhotrustsandhiminwhomthetrustisreposed.AndinthiscasethepersonalrelationissetupbytheblessedtheologyoftheCross.WithouttheeighthchapterofRomans, themerestoryof theearthly lifeofJesuswouldberemoteanddead;for it isthroughtheeighthchapterofRomans,orthemessage which that chapter contains, that Jesus becomes our Saviortoday.

The truth is that when men speak of trust in Jesus' Person, as beingpossible without acceptance of the message of His death andresurrection,theydonotreallymeantrustatall.Whattheydesignateastrust is really admiration or reverence. They reverence Jesus as thesupremePersonofallhistoryandthesupremerevealerofGod.ButtrustcancomeonlywhenthesupremePersonextendsHissavingpowertous."Hewentaboutdoinggood,""Hespakewordssuchasnevermanspake,""He is the express image ofGod"--that is reverence; "He lovedme andgaveHimselfforme"--thatisfaith.

But thewords "He lovedmeandgaveHimself forme"are inhistoricalform;theyconstituteanaccountof something thathappened.And theyaddtothefactthemeaningofthefact;theycontaininessencethewholeprofoundtheologyof redemption throughthebloodofChrist.Christiandoctrine liesat theveryrootsof faith.Itmustbeadmitted, then,that ifwe are to have a nondoctrinal religion, or a doctrinal religion foundedmerely on general truth, we must give up not only Paul, not only theprimitiveJerusalemChurch,butalsoJesusHimself.Butwhat ismeantbydoctrine?Ithasbeeninterpretedhereasmeaninganypresentationofthe facts which lie at the basis of the Christian religion with the truemeaningofthefacts.Butisthattheonlysenseoftheword?Maythewordnotalsobetakeninanarrowersense?Mayitnotalsomeanasystematicandminuteandone-sidedlyscientificpresentationofthefacts?Andiftheword is taken in this narrower sense,maynot themodernobjection todoctrine involve merely an objection to the excessive subtlety of

controversialtheology,andnotatallanobjectiontotheglowingwordsofthe New Testament, an objection to the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturiesandnotatalltothefirstcentury?Undoubtedlythewordissotaken bymany occupants of the pews when they listen to themodernexaltationof "life"at theexpenseof "doctrine."Thepioushearer laborsunder the impression that he is merely being asked to return to thesimplicityoftheNewTestament,insteadofattendingtothesubtletiesofthe theologians. Since it has never occurred to him to attend to thesubtleties of the theologians, he has that comfortable feeling whichalways comes to the churchgoer when some one else's sins are beingattacked. It is no wonder that the modern invectives against doctrineconstituteapopulartypeofpreaching.Atanyrate,anattackuponCalvinor Turrettin or theWestminster divines does not seem to the modernchurchgoer tobe a verydangerous thing. Inpointof fact, however, theattack upon doctrine is not nearly so innocent a matter as our simplechurchgoer supposes; for the things Objected to in the theology of theChurcharealsoat theveryheartof theNewTestament.Ultimately theattack isnot against the seventeenth century,but against theBible andagainstJesusHimself.

Even if it were an attack not upon the Bible but only upon the greathistoricpresentationsofBiblicalteaching,itwouldstillbeunfortunate.IftheChurchwereledtowipeoutofexistenceallproductsofthethinkingofnineteenChristiancenturiesandstartfresh,theloss,eveniftheBiblewereretained,wouldbeimmense.Whenitisonceadmittedthatabodyof facts lies at thebasisof theChristian religion, theeffortswhichpastgenerationshavemadetowardtheclassificationofthefactswillhavetobe treatedwith respect. Innobranchofsciencewould therebeanyrealadvanceifeverygenerationstartedfreshwithnodependenceuponwhatpastgenerationshaveachieved.Yetintheology,vituperationofthepastseemstobethoughtessentialtoprogress.Anduponwhatbaseslandersthe vituperation is based! After listening tomodern tirades against thegreatcreedsoftheChurch,onereceivesratherashockwhenoneturnstotheWestminsterConfession, forexample,ortothattenderestandmosttheological of books, the "Pilgrim's Progress" of John Bunyan, anddiscoversthatindoingsoonehasturnedfromshallowmodernphrasestoa "deadorthodoxy" that is pulsatingwith life in everyword. In such

orthodoxythereislifeenoughtosetthewholeworldaglowwithChristianlove.

Asamatteroffact,however,inthemodernvituperationof"doctrine,"itis not merely the great theologians or the great creeds that are beingattacked, but the New Testament and our Lord Himself. In rejectingdoctrine,theliberalpreacherisrejectingthesimplewordsofPaul'"WholovedmeandgaveHimself forme," justasmuchas thehomoousionofthe Nicene Creed. For the word "doctrine" is really used not in itsnarrowest, but in its broadest sense. The liberal preacher is reallyrejectingthewholebasisofChristianity,whichisareligionfoundednoton aspirations, but on facts. Here is found the most fundamentaldifferencebetweenliberalismandChristianity--liberalismisaltogetherinthe imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphantindicative;liberalismappealstoman'swill,whileChristianityannounces,first,agraciousactofGod.

In maintaining the doctrinal basis of Christianity, we are particularlyanxiousnottobemisunderstood.Therearecertainthingsthatwedonotmean.

In the firstplace,wedonotmean that ifdoctrine is sound itmakesnodifferenceabout life.On the contrary, itmakesall thedifference in theworld. From the beginning,Christianitywas certainly away of life; thesalvationthatitofferedwasasalvationfromsin,andsalvationfromsinappearednotmerely in ablessedhopebut also in an immediatemoralchange. The early Christians, to the astonishment of their neighbors,lived a strange new kind of life--a life of honesty, of purity and ofunselfishness.And from theChristian community all other typesof lifewereexcluded in thestrictestway.FromthebeginningChristianitywascertainlyalife.

Buthowwasthelifeproduced?Itmightconceivablyhavebeenproducedbyexhortation.Thatmethodhadoftenbeentriedintheancientworld;intheHellenisticagethereweremanywanderingpreacherswhotoldmenhow they ought to live. But such exhortation proved to be powerless.Although the ideals of the Cynic and Stoic preachers were high, thesepreachersneversucceededtransformingsociety.Thestrangethingabout

Christianity was that it adopted an entirely different method. Ittransformedthelivesofmennotbyappealingtothehumanwill,butbytellingastory;notbyexhortation,butbythenarrationofanevent.Itisnowonderthatsuchamethodseemedstrange.Couldanythingbemoreimpractical than the attempt to influence conduct by rehearsing eventsconcerningthedeathofareligiousteacher?ThatiswhatPaulcalled"thefoolishnessofthemessage."Itseemedfoolishtotheancientworld,anditseems foolish to liberalpreachers today.But thestrange thing is that itworks. The effects of it appear even in this world. Where the mosteloquentexhortationfails,thesimplestoryofaneventsucceeds;thelivesofmenaretransformedbyapieceofnews.

It is especially by such transformation of life, today as always, that theChristianmessageiscommendedtotheattentionofmen.Certainly,then,it doesmake an enormousdifferencewhether our lives be right. If ourdoctrinebetrue,andourlivesbewrong,howterribleisoursin!Forthenwe have brought despite upon the truth itself. On the other hand,however,itisalsoverysadwhenmenusethesocialgraceswhichGodhasgiventhem,andthemoralmomentumofagodlyancestry,tocommendamessagewhichisfalse.Nothingintheworldcantaketheplaceoftruth.

Inthesecondplace,wedonotmean,ininsistinguponthedoctrinalbasisof Christianity, that all points of doctrine are equally important. It isperfectly possible for Christian fellowship to be maintained despitedifferencesofopinion.

One such difference of opinion, which has been attaining increasingprominence in recent years, concerns theorder of events in connectionwith theLord's return.A largenumber ofChristianpeoplebelieve thatwhenevilhasreacheditsclimaxintheworld,theLordJesuswillreturnto this earth in bodily presence to bring about a reignof righteousnesswhichwilllastathousandyears,andthatonlyafterthatperiodtheendoftheworldwillcome.Thatbelief,intheopinionofthepresentwriter,isanerror,arrivedatbyafalseinterpretationoftheWordofGod;wedonotthinkthatthepropheciesoftheBiblepermitsodefiniteamapping-outoffutureevents.TheLordwillcomeagain,anditwillbenomere"spiritual"coming in themodernsense--somuch is clear--but that so littlewillbeaccomplishedbythepresentdispensationoftheHolySpiritandsomuch

will be left to be accomplished by the Lord in bodily presence--such aviewwecannotfindtobejustifiedbythewordsofScripture.Whatisourattitude, then, with regard to this debate? Certainly it cannot be anattitude of indifference. The recrudescence of "Chiliasm" or"premillennialism"inthemodernChurchcausesusseriousconcern;itiscoupled,wethink,withafalsemethodofinterpretingScripturewhichinthelongrunwillbeproductiveofharm.Yethowgreatisouragreementwith thosewho hold the premillennial view! They share to the full ourreverence for the authority of the Bible, and differ from us only in theinterpretationoftheBible;theyshareourascriptionofdeitytotheLordJesus,andoursupernaturalisticconceptionbothoftheentranceofJesusinto the world and of the consummation when He shall come again.Certainly,then,fromourpointofview,theirerror,seriousthoughitmaybe,isnotdeadlyerror;andChristianfellowship,withloyaltynotonlytothe Bible but to the great creeds of the Church, can still unite us withthem. It is thereforehighlymisleadingwhenmodern liberals representthepresentissueintheChurch,bothinthemissionfieldandathome,asbeing an issue between premillennialism and the opposite view. It isreallyanissuebetweenChristianity,whetherpremillennialornot,ontheoneside,andanaturalisticnegationofallChristianityontheother.

AnotherdifferenceofopinionwhichcansubsistinthemidstofChristianfellowship is thedifferenceofopinionabout themodeofefficacyof thesacraments.Thatdifferenceisindeedserious,andtodenyitsseriousnessisafargreatererrorthantotakethewrongsideinthecontroversyitself.ItisoftensaidthatthedividedconditionofChristendomisanevil,andsoitis.Buttheevilconsistsintheexistenceoftheerrorswhichcausethedivisionsandnotatallintherecognitionofthoseerrorswhenoncetheyexist.Itwasagreatcalamitywhenatthe"MarburgConference"betweenLutherandtherepresentativesoftheSwissReformation,LutherwroteonthetablewithregardtotheLord'sSupper,"Thisismybody,"andsaidtoZwingliandOecolampadius,"Youhaveanotherspirit."Thatdifferenceofopinion led to the breach between the Lutheran and the Reformedbranches of the Church, and caused Protestantism to losemuch of theground thatmight otherwise have been gained. Itwas a great calamityindeed.Butthecalamitywasdueto the fact thatLuther(aswebelieve)waswrongabouttheLord'sSupper;anditwouldhavebeenafargreater

calamity ifbeingwrongabouttheSupperhehadrepresentedthewholequestionasatriflingaffair.LutherwaswrongabouttheSupper,butnotnearlysowrongashewouldhavebeenif,beingwrong,hehadsaidtohisopponents:"Brethren,thismatterisatrifle;anditmakesreallyverylittledifference what a man thinks about the table of the Lord." Suchindifferentism would have been far more deadly than all the divisionsbetween the branches of the Church. A Luther who would havecompromisedwithregardtotheLord'sSupperneverwouldhavesaidattheDietofWorms, "Here I stand, I cannotdootherwise,Godhelpme,Amen."Indifferentismaboutdoctrinemakesnoheroesofthefaith.

Stillanotherdifferenceofopinionconcerns thenatureandprerogativesoftheChristianministry.AccordingtoAnglicandoctrine,thebishopsareinpossessionofanauthoritywhichhasbeenhandeddown to them,bysuccessive ordination, from the apostles of the Lord, andwithout suchordinationthereisnovalidpriesthood.Otherchurchesdenythisdoctrineof"apostolicsuccession,"andholdadifferentviewoftheministry.Hereagain, thedifference isnotrifle,andwehave littlesympathywiththosewhointhemereinterestsofChurchefficiencytrytoinduceAnglicanstolet down the barrierwhich their principles have led them to erect. Butdespitetheimportanceofthisdifference,itdoesnotdescendtotheveryroots.EventotheconscientiousAnglicanhimself,thoughheregardsthemembers of other bodies as in schism, Christian fellowship withindividualsinthoseotherbodiesisstillpossible;andcertainlythosewhorejecttheAnglicanviewoftheministrycanregardtheAnglicanChurchasagenuineandverynoblememberinthebodyofChrist.

AnotherdifferenceofopinionisthatbetweentheCalvinisticorReformedtheologyandtheArminianismwhichappearsintheMethodistChurch.Itis difficult to see how any onewho has really studied the question canregard that difference as an unimportant matter. On the contrary' ittouchesverycloselysomeoftheprofoundestthingsoftheChristianfaith.ACalvinist is constrained to regard theArminian theology as a seriousimpoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of divine grace, and equallyseriousistheviewwhichtheArminianmustholdastothedoctrineoftheReformed Churches. Yet here again, true evangelical fellowship ispossible between those who hold, with regard to some exceedingly

importantmatters,sharplyopposingviews.

Farmore serious still is the division between the Church of Rome andevangelicalProtestantism inall its forms.Yethowgreat is the commonheritagewhichunitestheRomanCatholicChurch,withitsmaintenanceof the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the greatearlycreeds, todevoutProtestantstoday!Wewouldnot indeedobscurethedifferencewhichdividesusfromRome.Thegulfisindeedprofound.But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abysswhich stands between us andmanyministers of our own Church. TheChurchofRomemayrepresentaperversionoftheChristianreligion;butnaturalisticliberalismisnotChristianityatall.

Thatdoesnotmeanthatconservativesandliberalsmustliveinpersonalanimosity.Itdoesnotinvolveanylackofsympathyonourpartforthosewho have felt obliged by the current of the times to relinquish theirconfidenceinthestrangemessageoftheCross.Manyties--tiesofblood,of citizenship, of ethical aims, of humanitarian endeavor--unite us tothosewhohaveabandonedthegospel.Wetrustthatthosetiesmayneverbe weakened, and that ultimately theymay serve some purpose in thepropagation of the Christian faith. But Christian service consistsprimarily in the propagation of a message, and specifically Christianfellowship exists only between those towhom themessagehas becometheverybasisofalllife.

ThecharacterofChristianityasfoundeduponamessageissummedupinthewordsoftheeighthverseofthefirstchapterofActs--"YeshallbemywitnessesbothinJerusalem,andinallJudeaandSamaria,anduntotheuttermost part of the earth." It is entirely unnecessary, for the presentpurpose, to argue about the historical value of the Book of Acts or todiscussthequestionwhetherJesusreallyspokethewordsjustquoted.InanycasetheversemustberecognizedasanadequatesummaryofwhatisknownaboutprimitiveChristianity.FromthebeginningChristianitywasa campaign of witnessing. And the witnessing did not concern merelywhatJesuswasdoingwithin the recessesof the individual life.To takethewordsofActsinthatwayistodoviolencetothecontextandtoalltheevidence.Onthecontrary,theEpistlesofPaulandallthesourcesmakeitabundantlyplainthatthetestimonywasprimarilynotto innerspiritual

facts but to what Jesus had done once for all in His death andresurrection.

Christianityisbased,then,uponanaccountofsomethingthathappened,and the Christian worker is primarily a witness. But if so, it is ratherimportant that theChristianworker should tell the truth.When amantakeshisseatuponthewitnessstand,itmakeslittledifferencewhatthecut of his coat is, or whether his sentences are nicely turned. Theimportantthingisthathetellthetruth,thewholetruth,andnothingbutthe truth. If we are to be truly Christians, then, it does make a vastdifferencewhatour teachingsare,and it isbynomeansaside fromthepoint to set forth the teachings of Christianity in contrast with theteachingsofthechiefmodernrivalofChristianity.

ThechiefmodernrivalofChristianityis"liberalism."Anexaminationoftheteachingsof liberalismincomparisonwith thoseofChristianitywillshow that at every point the two movements are in direct opposition.Thatexaminationwillnowbeundertaken,thoughmerelyinasummaryandcursoryway.

Notes

1.SeeTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921,p.168.Itisnotmaintainedthatdoctrine forPaul comes temporallybefore life,butonly that itcomeslogicallyfirst.HereistobefoundtheanswertotheobjectionwhichDr.LymanAbbottraisedagainsttheassertioninTheOriginofPaul'sReligion.SeeTheOutlook,vol.132,1922,pp.104f.

2. Some recount of these attempts has been given by the presentwriterinTheOriginofPaul''Religion,1921.

3. Compare "History and Faith," 1915 (reprinted from PrincetonTheologicalReviewforJuly,1915),pp.10f.

4.CompareARapidSurveyof theLiteratureandHistoryofNewTestament Times, published by the Presbyterian Board ofPublicationandSabbathSchoolWork,Student'sTextBook,pp.42f.

5. Mensch und Gott, 1921. Compare the review in PrincetonTheologicalReview,xx,1922pp.327-329.

6.Heitmuller,Jesus,1913,p. 71. SeeTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921,p.157.

7.Da'MessiasgeheimnisindenEvangelien,1901.

8. J. Weiss, "Des Problem der Entstehung des Christentums," inArchivfurReligionswissenschaft?xvi.1913,p.466.SeeTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921,p.156.

9. For what follows compare A Rapid Survey of the History andLiteratureofNewTestamentTimes,publishedby thePresbyterianBoard of Publication and Sabbath SchoolWork, Teacher'sManual,pp.44f.

GodandMan

Chapter2

Ithasbeenobservedinthe lastchapterthatChristianity isbasedonanaccountof something thathappened in the first centuryofourera.Butbefore that account can be received, certain presuppositions must beaccepted.TheChristiangospelconsists inanaccountofhowGodsavedman, and before that gospel can be understood something must beknown (1) aboutGod and (2) aboutman. The doctrine ofGod and thedoctrine of man are the two great presuppositions of the gospel.Withregard to these presuppositions, as with regard to the gospel itself,modernliberalismisdiametricallyopposedtoChristianity.

It isopposedtoChristianity, in the firstplace, in itsconceptionofGod.But at this point we are met with a particularly insistent form of thatobjection to doctrinalmatterswhich has already been considered. It isunnecessary,wearetold,tohavea"conception"ofGod;theology,ortheknowledgeofGod,itissaid,isthedeathofreligion;weshouldnotseektoknowGod,butshouldmerelyfeelHispresence.

With regard to this objection, it ought to be observed that if religionconsistsmerelyinfeelingthepresenceofGod, it isdevoidofanymoralquality whatever. Pure feeling, if there be such a thing, is non-moral.Whatmakesaffectionforahumanfriend,forexample,suchanennoblingthing is theknowledgewhichwepossessof the characterofourfriend.Human affection, apparently so simple, is really just bristling withdogma.Itdependsuponahostofobservationstreasuredupinthemindwithregardtothecharacterofourfriends.Butifhumanaffectionisthusreallydependentuponknowledge,whyshould itbeotherwisewith thatsupreme personal relationship which is at the basis of religion ? Whyshouldwebeindignantaboutslandersdirectedagainstahumanfriend,whileatthesametimewearepatientaboutthebasestslandersdirectedagainstourGod?Certainly itdoesmakethegreatestpossibledifferencewhat we think about God; the knowledge of God is the very basis of

religion.

How,then,shallGodbeknown;howshallwebecomesoacquaintedwithHim that personal fellowship may become possible? Some liberalpreacherswouldsay thatwebecomeacquaintedwithGodonly throughJesus. That assertion has an appearance of loyalty to our Lord, but inreality it is highly derogatory to Him. For Jesus Himself plainlyrecognizedthevalidityofotherwaysofknowingGod,andtorejectthoseotherwaysistorejectthethingsthatlayattheverycenterofJesus'life.JesusplainlyfoundGod'shandinnature;theliliesofthefieldrevealedtoHimtheweaving ofGod.He foundGod also in themoral law; the lawwritten in the hearts of men was God's law, which revealed Hisrighteousness.FinallyJesusplainlyfoundGodrevealedintheScriptures.HowprofoundwasourLord'suseofthewordsofprophetsandpsalmists!TosaythatsuchrevelationofGodwasinvalid,orisuselesstoustoday,istododespitetothingsthatlayclosesttoJesus'mindandheart.

But,asamatterof fact,whenmensay thatweknowGodonlyasHe isrevealed inJesus, theyaredenyingall realknowledgeofGodwhatever.ForunlesstherebesomeideaofGodindependentofJesus,theascriptionofdeitytoJesushasnomeaning.Tosay,"JesusisGod,"ismeaninglessunlesstheword"God"hasanantecedentmeaningattachedtoit.Andtheattachingofameaningtotheword"God"isaccomplishedbythemeanswhichhavejustbeenmentioned.WearenotforgettingthewordsofJesusintheGospelofJohn,"HethathathseenmehathseentheFather."Butthesewordsdonotmeanthatifamanhadneverknownwhattheword"God"means,hecouldcometoattachanideatothatwordmerelybyhisknowledge of Jesus' character. On the contrary, the disciples to whomJesus was speaking had already a very definite conception of God; aknowledgeoftheonesupremePersonwaspresupposedinallthatJesussaid. But the disciples desired not only a knowledge of God hut alsointimate,personalcontact.AndthatcamethroughtheirintercoursewithJesus. Jesus revealed, in a wonderfully intimate way, the character ofGod,butsuchrevelationobtainedits truesignificanceonlyonthebasisbothoftheOldTestamentheritageandofJesus'ownteaching.Rationaltheism,theknowledgeofoneSupremePerson,MakerandactiveRuleroftheworld,isattheveryrootofChristianity.

But,themodernpreacherwillsay,itisincongruoustoattributetoJesusan acceptance of "rational theism"; Jesus had a practical, not atheoretical,knowledgeofGod.Thereisasenseinwhichthesewordsaretrue.CertainlynopartofJesus'knowledgeofGodwasmerelytheoretical;everythingthatJesusknewaboutGodtouchedHisheartanddeterminedHisactions. In thatsense,Jesus'knowledgeofGodwas"practical."Butunfortunately that is not the sense in which the assertion of modernliberalismismeant.Whatisfrequentlymeantbya"practical"knowledgeofGodinmodernparlanceisnotatheoreticalknowledgeofGodthatisalso practical, but a practical knowledge which is not theoretical --inother words, a knowledge which gives no information about objectivereality, a knowledge which is no knowledge at all. And nothing couldpossibly bemoreunlike the religion of Jesus than that. The relation ofJesus to His heavenly Father was not a relation to a vague andimpersonalgoodness,itwasnotarelationwhichmerelyclotheditselfinsymbolic, personal form. On the contrary, it was a relation to a realPerson,whoseexistencewasjustasdefiniteandjustasmuchasubjectoftheoreticknowledgeastheexistenceoftheliliesofthefieldthatGodhadclothed.TheverybasisofthereligionofJesuswasatriumphantbeliefintherealexistenceofapersonalGod.

And without that belief no type of religion can rightly appeal to Jesustoday. Jesus was a theist, and rational theism is at the basis ofChristianity.Jesusdidnot,indeed,supportHistheismbyargument;Hedid not provide in advance answers to the Kantian attack upon thetheisticproofs.But thatmeansnot thatHewas indifferent to thebeliefwhich is the logical result of those proofs, but that the belief stood sofirm, both toHim and toHis hearers, that inHis teaching it is alwayspresupposed.SotodayitisnotnecessaryforallChristianstoanalyzethelogical basis of their belief in God; the human mind has a wonderfulfacultyforthecondensationofperfectlyvalidarguments,andwhatseemslike an instinctive belief may turn out to be the result of many logicalsteps.Or,rather'itmaybethatthebeliefinapersonalGodistheresultofa primitive revelation, and that the theistic proofs are only the logicalconfirmation ofwhatwas originally arrived at by a differentmeans. Atanyrate,thelogicalconfirmationofthebeliefinGodisavitalconcerntotheChristian;atthispointasatmanyothersreligionandphilosophyare

connectedinthemostintimatepossibleway.Truereligioncanmakenopeacewithafalsephilosophy,anymorethanwithasciencethatisfalselyso-called; a thing cannot possibly be true in religion and false inphilosophyorinscience.Allmethodsofarrivingattruth,iftheybevalidmethods, will arrive at a harmonious result. Certainly the atheistic oragnostic Christianity which sometimes goes under the name of a"practical"religionisnoChristianityatall.AttheveryrootofChristianityisthebeliefintherealexistenceofapersonalGod.

Strangely enough, at the very timewhenmodern liberalism is decryingthe theistic proofs, and taking refuge in a "practical" knowledge whichshall somehow be independent of scientifically or philosophicallyascertainedfacts,theliberalpreacherlovestouseonedesignationofGodwhichisnothingifnottheistic;helovestospeakofGodas"Father."ThetermcertainlyhasthemeritofascribingpersonalitytoGod.Bysomeofthosewhouseit,indeed,itisnotseriouslymeant;bysomeitisemployedbecauseitisuseful,notbecauseitistrue.Butnotallliberalsareabletomakethesubtledistinctionbetweentheoreticjudgmentsandjudgmentsof value; some liberals, though perhaps a decreasing number, are truebelieversinapersonalGod.AndsuchmenareabletothinkofGodtrulyasaFather.

The term presents a very lofty conception of God. It is not indeedexclusivelyChristian;theterm"Father"hasbeenappliedtoGodoutsideof Christianity. It appears, for example, in the widespread belief in an"All- Father," which prevails amongmany races even in companywithpolytheism;itappearshereandthereintheOldTestament,andinpre-ChristianJewishwritingssubsequenttotheOldTestamentperiod.Suchoccurrencesofthetermarebynomeansdevoidofsignificance.TheOldTestament usage, in particular, is a worthy precursor of our Lord'steaching;foralthoughintheOldTestamenttheword"Father"ordinarilydesignatesGod in relationnot to the individual,but to thenationor tothe king, yet the individual Israelite, because of his part in the chosenpeople,felthimselftobeinapeculiarlyintimaterelationtothecovenantGod. But despite this anticipation of the teaching of our Lord, Jesusbroughtsuchanincomparableenrichmentoftheusageoftheterm,thatit is a correct instinct which regards the thought of God as Father as

somethingcharacteristicallyChristian.

Modernmenhavebeen somuch impressedwith this element in Jesus'teachingthattheyhavesometimesbeeninclinedtoregarditastheverysum and substance of our religion.We are not interested, they say, inmany things for which men formerly gave their lives; we are notinterested in the theology of the creeds; we are not interested in thedoctrines of sin and salvation; we are not interested in atonementthrough the blood of Christ: enough for us is the simple truth of thefatherhoodofGodanditscorollary,thebrotherhoodofman.Wemaynotbe very orthodox in the theological sense, they continue, but of courseyouwillrecognizeusasChristiansbecauseweacceptJesus' teachingastotheFatherGod.

Itisverystrangehowintelligentpersonscanspeakinthisway.ItisverystrangehowthosewhoacceptonlytheuniversalfatherhoodofGodasthesumandsubstanceofreligioncanregardthemselvesasChristiansorcanappeal to Jesus of Nazareth. For the plain fact is that this moderndoctrineof theuniversal fatherhoodofGodformednopartwhateverofJesus' teaching.Where is it thatJesusmaybe supposed tohave taughttheuniversalfatherhoodofGod?CertainlyitisnotintheparableoftheProdigal Son. For in the first place, the publicans and sinners whoseacceptancebyJesusformedtheoccasionbothofthePharisees'objectionandofJesus'answertothembymeansoftheparable,werenotanymenanywhere,butweremembersofthechosenpeopleandassuchmightbedesignatedassonsofGod.Inthesecondplace,aparableiscertainlynottobepressed in itsdetails.Soherebecause the joyof the father in theparable is like the joyofGodwhenasinner receives salvationatJesus'hand, it does not follow that the relation which God sustains to stillunrepentantsinnersisthatofaFathertohischildren.Whereelse,then,cantheuniversalfatherhoodofGodbefound?SurelynotintheSermonontheMount; for throughout theSermonontheMount thosewhocancall God Father are distinguished in the most emphatic way from thegreat world of the Gentiles outside. One passage in the discourse hasindeed been urged in support of themodern doctrine: "But I say untoyou,loveyourenemiesandprayforthemthatpersecuteyou;thatyemaybesonsofyourFatherwhoisinheaven;forHemakethHissuntoriseon

evilandgoodandsendethrainonjustandunjust"(Matt.v.44,45).Butthepassagecertainlywillnotbeartheweightwhichishunguponit.Godisindeedrepresentedhereascaringforallmenwhetherevilorgood,butHeiscertainlynotcalledtheFatherofall.IndeeditmightalmostbesaidthatthepointofthepassagedependsonthefactthatHeisnottheFatherofall.HecaresevenforthosewhoarenotHischildrenbutHisenemies;so His children, Jesus' disciples, ought to imitate Him by loving eventhose who are not their brethren but their persecutors. The moderndoctrine of the universal fatherhood of God is not to be found in theteachingofJesus.And it isnot tobe found in theNewTestament.Thewhole New Testament and Jesus Himself do indeed represent God asstanding in a relation to all men, whether Christians or not, which isanalogous to that in which a father stands to his children. He is theAuthorofthebeingofall,andassuchmightwellbecalledtheFatherofall.Hecaresforall,andforthatreasonalsomightbecalledtheFatherofall.Hereandtherethefigureoffatherhoodseemstobeusedtodesignatethis broader relationship which God sustains to all men or even to allcreatedbeings.SoinanisolatedpassageinHebrews,Godisspokenofasthe"Fatherofspirits"(Heb.xii.9).HereperhapsitistherelationofGod,ascreator,tothepersonalbeingswhomHehascreatedwhichisinview.One of the clearest instances of the broader use of the figure offatherhoodisfoundinthespeechofPaulatAthens,Actsxvii.28:"ForwearealsoHisoffspring."HereitisplainlytherelationinwhichGodstandsto allmen,whetherChristians ornot,which is inmind.But thewordsformpartofanhexameterlineandaretakenfromapaganpoet;theyarenot represented as part of the gospel, but merely as belonging to thecommonmeeting-groundwhichPauldiscoveredinspeakingtohispaganhearers. This passage is only typical ofwhat appears,with respect to auniversal fatherhood of God, in the New Testament as a whole.Something analogous to a universal fatherhood ofGod is taught in theNew Testament. Here and there the terminology of fatherhood andsonship is even used to describe this general relationship. But suchinstancesareextremelyrare.Ordinarilytheloftyterm"Father"isusedtodescribe a relationship of a farmore intimate kind, the relationship inwhichGodstandstothecompanyoftheredeemed.

Themoderndoctrineof theuniversal fatherhoodofGod, then,which is

being celebrated as "the essence of Christianity," really belongs at bestonlytothatvaguenaturalreligionwhichformsthepresuppositionwhichtheChristianpreachercanusewhenthegospelistobeproclaimed;andwhen it is regarded as a reassuring, all-sufficient thing, it comes intodirect opposition to the New Testament. The gospel itself refers tosomething entirely different; the really distinctive New TestamentteachingaboutthefatherhoodofGodconcernsonlythosewhohavebeenbroughtintothehouseholdoffaith.

There is nothing narrow about such teaching; for the door of thehouseholdof faith is openwide to all.Thatdoor is the "newand livingway"whichJesusopenedbyHisblood.And ifwereally loveour fellowmen,weshallnotgoabouttheworld,withtheliberalpreacher,tryingtomakemensatisfiedwiththecoldnessofavaguenaturalreligion.Butbythepreachingofthegospelweshallinvitethemintothewarmthandjoyof the house of God. Christianity offers men all that is offered by themodernliberalteachingabouttheuniversalfatherhoodofGod;but it isChristianityonlybecauseitoffersalsoinfinitelymore.

ButtheliberalconceptionofGoddiffersevenmorefundamentallyfromtheChristianviewthaninthedifferentcircleofideasconnectedwiththeterminologyof fatherhood.The truth is that liberalismhas lost sight oftheverycenterandcoreoftheChristianteaching.IntheChristianviewofGodassetforthintheBible,therearemanyelements.ButoneattributeofGodisabsolutelyfundamentalintheBible;oneattributeisabsolutelynecessaryinordertorenderintelligiblealltherest.Thatattributeis theawful transcendence of God. From beginning to end the Bible isconcernedtosetforththeawfulgulfthatseparatesthecreaturefromtheCreator.Itistrue,indeed,thataccordingtotheBibleGodisimmanentinthe world. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him. But he isimmanent intheworldnotbecauseHe is identifiedwith theworld,butbecauseHeisthefreeCreatorandUpholderof it.BetweenthecreatureandtheCreatoragreatgulfisfixed.

Inmodernliberalism,ontheotherhand,thissharpdistinctionbetweenGodandtheworldisbrokendown,andthename"God"isappliedtothemightyworldprocess itself.We findourselves in themidst of amightyprocess, which manifests itself in the indefinitely small and in the

indefinitelygreat--inthe infinitesimal lifewhich is revealed through themicroscopeand in thevastmovementsof theheavenlyspheres.To thisworld-process, of which we ourselves form a part, we apply the dreadnameof"God."God,therefore,itissaidineffect,isnotapersondistinctfromourselves;onthecontraryourlifeisapartofHis.ThustheGospelstory of the Incarnation, according tomodern liberalism, is sometimesthought of as a symbol of the general truth thatmanat his best is onewithGod.

Itisstrangehowsucharepresentationcanberegardedasanythingnew,forasamatterof fact,pantheism isaveryancientphenomenon. Ithasalways been with us, to blight the religious life of man. And modernliberalism, even when it is not consistently pantheistic, is at any ratepantheizing.IttendseverywheretobreakdowntheseparatenessbetweenGodandtheworld,andthesharppersonaldistinctionbetweenGodandman.Eventhesinofmanonthisviewoughtlogicallytoberegardedaspart of the life ofGod. Very different is the living and holyGod of theBibleandofChristianfaith.

Christianity differs from liberalism, then, in the first place, in itsconceptionofGod.But it alsodiffers in its conceptionofman.Modernliberalismhas lostall senseof thegulf that separates thecreature fromthe Creator; its doctrine of man follows naturally from its doctrine ofGod. But it is not only the creature limitations of mankind which aredenied. Even more important is another difference. According to theBible,manisasinnerunderthejustcondemnationofGod;accordingtomodernliberalism,thereisreallynosuchthingassin.Attheveryrootofthemodernliberalmovementisthelossoftheconsciousnessofsin.[1]

Theconsciousnessofsinwasformerlythestarting-pointofallpreaching;buttodayitisgone.Characteristicofthemodernage,aboveallelse,isasupreme confidence in human goodness; the religious literature of thedayisredolentofthatconfidence.Getbeneaththeroughexteriorofmen,wearetold,andweshalldiscoverenoughself-sacrificetofounduponitthehopeofsociety;theworld'sevil, itissaid,canbeovercomewiththeworld'sgood;nohelpisneededfromoutsidetheworld.

What has produced this satisfaction with human goodness? What has

become of the consciousness of sin? The consciousness of sin hascertainlybeenlost.Butwhathasremoveditfromtheheartsofmen?

In the first place, the war has perhaps had something to do with thechange.Intimeofwar,ourattentioniscalledsoexclusivelytothesinsofother people that we are sometimes inclined to forget our own sins.Attentiontothesinsofotherpeopleis,indeed,sometimesnecessary.Itisquite right tobe indignantagainstanyoppressionof theweakwhichisbeing carried on by the strong. But such a habit of mind, if madepermanent,ifcarriedoverintothedaysofpeace,hasitsdangers.Itjoinsforceswiththecollectivismofthemodernstatetoobscuretheindividual,personalcharacterofguilt.IfJohnSmithbeatshiswifenowadays,nooneissoold-fashionedas toblameJohnSmith for it.On thecontrary, it issaid,JohnSmithisevidentlythevictimofsomemoreofthatBolshevisticpropaganda;CongressoughttobecalledinextrasessioninordertotakeupthecaseofJohnSmithinanalienandseditionlaw.

Butthelossoftheconsciousnessofsinisfardeeperthanthewar;ithasits roots in amighty spiritualprocesswhichhasbeenactiveduring thepast seventy-five years. Like other great movements, that process hascome silently--so silently that its results have been achieved before theplainmanwasevenawareofwhatwastakingplace.Nevertheless,despiteallsuperficialcontinuity,aremarkablechangehascomeaboutwithinthelastseventy-fiveyears.ThechangeisnothinglessthanthesubstitutionofpaganismforChristianityasthedominantviewoflife.Seventy-fiveyearsago,Westerncivilization,despiteinconsistencies,wasstillpredominantlyChristian;todayitispredominantlypagan.

Inspeakingof"paganism,"wearenotusingatermofreproach.AncientGreece was pagan, but it was glorious, and the modern world has noteven begun to equal its achievements. What, then, is paganism? Theanswerisnotreallydifficult.Paganismisthatviewoflifewhichfindsthehighest goal of human existence in the healthy and harmonious andjoyous development of existing human faculties. Very different is theChristian ideal. Paganism is optimistic with regard to unaided humannature'whereasChristianityisthereligionofthebrokenheart.

InsayingthatChristianityis thereligionof thebrokenheart,wedonot

meanthatChristianityendswiththebrokenheart;wedonotmeanthatthecharacteristicChristianattitudeisacontinualbeatingonthebreastoracontinualcryingof"Woeisme."Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthefact.On the contrary, Christianitymeans that sin is faced once for all, andtheniscast,bythegraceofGod,foreverintothedepthsofthesea.Thetrouble with the paganism of ancient Greece, as with the paganism ofmoderntimes,wasnotinthesuperstructure,whichwasglorious,butinthe foundation, which was rotten. There was always something to becovered up; the enthusiasm of the architect was maintained only byignoring the disturbing fact of sin. In Christianity, on the other hand,nothingneedstobecoveredup.Thefactofsinisfacedsquarelyonceforall, and is dealtwith by the grace of God. But then, after sin has beenremoved by the grace of God, the Christian can proceed to developjoyously every faculty that God has given him. Such is the higherChristian humanism--a humanism founded not upon human pride butupondivinegrace.

But although Christianity does not end with the broken heart, it doesbegin with the broken heart; it begins with the consciousness of sin.Withouttheconsciousnessofsin,thewholeofthegospelwillseemtobeanidletale.Buthowcantheconsciousnessofsinberevived?SomethingnodoubtcanbeaccomplishedbytheproclamationofthelawofGod,forthelawrevealstransgressions.Thewholeofthelaw,moreover,shouldbeproclaimed. It will hardly be wise to adopt the suggestion (recentlyofferedamongmanysuggestionsastothewaysinwhichweshallhavetomodify our message in order to retain the allegiance of the returningsoldiers)thatwemuststoptreatingthelittlesinsasthoughtheywerebigsins.Thatsuggestionmeansapparentlythatwemustnotworrytoomuchaboutthelittlesins,butmustletthemremainunmolested.

Withregardtosuchanexpedient,itmayperhapsbesuggestedthatinthemoralbattlewearefightingagainstaveryresourcefulenemy,whodoesnotreveal thepositionofhisgunsbydesultoryartilleryactionwhenheplansagreatattack.Inthemoralbattle,as intheGreatEuropeanWar,thequietsectorsareusuallythemostdangerous.Itisthroughthe"littlesins" thatSatangainsanentrance intoour lives.Probably, therefore, itwillbeprudent towatchall sectorsof the frontand loseno timeabout

introducingtheunityofcommand.

Butiftheconsciousnessofsinistobeproduced,thelawofGodmustbeproclaimedinthelivesofChristianpeopleaswellasinword.Itisquiteuselessforthepreachertobreatheoutfireandbrimstonefromthepulpit,ifatthesametimetheoccupantsofthepewsgoontakingsinverylightlyandbeingcontentwith themore' standardsof theworld.The rankandfileoftheChurchmustdotheirpartinsoproclaimingthelawofGodbytheirlivesthatthesecretsofmen'sheartsshallberevealed.

Allthesethings,however,areinthemselvesquiteinsufficienttoproducethe consciousness of sin. The more one observes the condition of theChurch,themoreonefeelsobligedtoconfessthattheconvictionofsinisa great mystery' which can be produced only by the Spirit of God.Proclamation of the law, in word and in deed, can prepare for theexperience,but theexperience itself comes fromGod.Whenamanhasthatexperience,whenamancomesundertheconvictionofsin,hiswholeattitudetoward life is transformed;hewondersathis formerblindness,andthemessageofthegospel,whichformerlyseemedtobeanidletale,becomesnowinstinctwithlight.ButitisGodalonewhocanproducethechange.Only,letusnottrytodowithouttheSpiritofGod.

ThefundamentalfaultofthemodernChurchisthatsheisbusilyengagedinanabsolutelyimpossibletask--sheisbusilyengagedincallingtherighteoustorepentance.ModernpreachersaretryingtobringmenintotheChurchwithoutrequiringthemtorelinquishtheirpride;theyaretryingtohelpmenavoidtheconvictionofsin.Thepreachergetsupintothepulpit,openstheBible,andaddressesthecongregationsomewhatasfollows:"Youpeopleareverygood,"hesays;"yourespondtoeveryappealthatlookstowardthewelfareofthecommunity.NowwehaveintheBible--especiallyinthelifeofJesus--somethingsogoodthatwebelieveitisgoodenoughevenforyougoodpeople."Suchismodernpreaching.ItisheardeverySundayinthousandsofpulpits.Butitisentirelyfutile.EvenourLorddidnotcalltherighteoustorepentance,andprobablyweshallbenomoresuccessfulthanHe.

Notes

1. For what follows, see "The Church In the War," in ThePresbyterianforMay29,1919,pp.10f.

TheBible

Chapter3

Modernliberalism, ithasbeenobservedsofar,has lostsightof thetwogreatpresuppositionsof theChristianmessage--the livingGod, and thefactofsin.TheliberaldoctrineofGodandtheliberaldoctrineofmanareboth diametrically opposite to the Christian view. But the divergenceconcerns not only the presuppositions of the message, but also themessageitself.

TheChristianmessagehascometousthroughtheBible.WhatshallwethinkaboutthisBookinwhichthemessageiscontained?

According to the Christian view, the Bible contains an account of arevelationfromGodtoman,whichisfoundnowhereelse.Itistrue,theBible also contains a confirmation and a wonderful enrichment of therevelationswhicharegivenalsobythethingsthatGodhasmadeandbythe conscience ofman. "Theheavensdeclare the glory ofGod; and thefirmament showeth his handiwork"--these words are a confirmation oftherevelationofGodinnature;"allhavesinnedandfallshortofthegloryof God"--these words are a confirmation of what is attested by theconscience. But in addition to such reaffirmations of what mightconceivablybe learned elsewhere--as amatter of fact, becauseofmen'sblindness, even so much is learned elsewhere only in comparativelyobscurefashion--theBiblealsocontainsanaccountofarevelationwhichisabsolutelynew.ThatnewrevelationconcernsthewaybywhichsinfulmancancomeintocommunionwiththelivingGod.

The way was opened, according to the Bible, by an act of God, when,almostnineteenhundredyearsago,outside thewalls of Jerusalem, theeternal Son was offered as a sacrifice for the sins ofmen. To that onegreateventthewholeOldTestamentlooksforward,andinthatoneeventthewholeoftheNewTestamentfindsitscenterandcore.Salvationthen,according to the Bible, is not something that was discovered, but

somethingthathappened.HenceappearstheuniquenessoftheBible.Allthe ideasofChristianitymightbediscoveredinsomeotherreligion,yetthere would be in that other religion no Christianity. For Christianitydepends,notuponacomplexofideas,butuponthenarrationofanevent.Without thatevent, theworld, in theChristianview, is altogetherdark,andhumanityislostundertheguiltofsin.Therecanbenosalvationbythediscoveryofeternaltruth,foreternaltruthbringsnaughtbutdespair,becauseofsin.ButanewfacehasbeenputuponlifebytheblessedthingthatGoddidwhenHeofferedupHisonlybegottenSon.

AnobjectionissometimesofferedagainstthisviewofthecontentsoftheBible.[1]Mustwe,it issaid,dependuponwhathappenedso longago?Does salvation wait upon the examination of musty records? Is thetrained student of Palestinianhistory themodern priestwithoutwhosegracious intervention no one can see God? Canwe not find, instead, asalvationthatisindependentofhistory,asalvationthatdependsonlyonwhatiswithushereandnow?

Theobjection isnotdevoidofweight.But it ignoresoneof theprimaryevidences for the truth of the gospel record. That evidence is found inChristian experience. Salvation does depend uponwhat happened longago,buttheeventoflongagohaseffectsthatcontinueuntiltoday.WearetoldintheNewTestamentthatJesusofferedHimselfasasacrificeforthesinsofthosewhoshouldbelieveonHim.Thatisarecordofapastevent.Butwecanmaketrialof it today,andmakingtrialof itwefindit tobetrue.Weare told in theNewTestament thatonacertainmorning longagoJesusrosefromthedead.Thatagainisarecordofapastevent.Butagainwecanmaketrialofit,andmakingtrialofitwediscoverthatJesusistrulyalivingSaviortoday.

Butat thispointa fatalerror lies inwait. It isoneof the rooterrorsofmodern liberalism.Christian experience,we have just said, is useful asconfirming the gospelmessage. But because it is necessary,manymenhave jumped to the conclusion that it is all that is necessary.Having apresentexperienceofChristintheheart,maywenot,itissaid,holdthatexperiencenomatterwhathistorymaytellusastotheeventsofthefirstEastermorning?Maywenotmakeourselvesaltogether independentoftheresultsofBiblicalcriticism?Nomatterwhatsortofmanhistorymay

tell us Jesus ofNazareth actuallywas, nomatterwhat historymay sayabout the real meaning of His death or about the story of His allegedresurrection,maywenotcontinuetoexperiencethepresenceofChristinoursouls?

The trouble is that the experience thus maintained is not Christianexperience. Religious experience it may be, but Christian experience itcertainly is not. For Christian experience depends absolutely upon anevent.TheChristiansaystohimself:"IhavemeditatedupontheproblemofbecomingrightwithGod,Ihavetriedtoproducearighteousnessthatwill stand inHis sight; butwhen I heard the gospelmessage I learnedthatwhatIhadweaklystriventoaccomplishhadbeenaccomplishedbytheLordJesusChristwhenHediedformeontheCrossandcompletedHisredeemingworkbythegloriousresurrection.Ifthethinghasnotyetbeendone,ifImerelyhaveanideaofitsaccomplishment,thenIamofallmenmostmiserable, for I am still inmy sins.My Christian life, then,dependsaltogetheruponthetruthoftheNewTestamentrecord."

Christian experience is rightly used when it confirms the documentaryevidence. But it can never possibly provide a substitute for thedocumentary evidence. We know that the gospel story is true partlybecause of the early date of the documents in which it appears, theevidenceas to theirauthorship, the internalevidenceof their truth, theimpossibilityofexplainingthemasbeingbasedupondeceptionoruponmyth.Thisevidenceisgloriouslyconfirmedbypresentexperience,whichadds to the documentary evidence that wonderful directness andimmediacy of conviction which delivers us from fear. Christianexperience is rightly usedwhen it helps to convince us that the eventsnarratedintheNewTestamentactuallydidoccur;butitcanneverenableustobeChristianswhethertheeventsoccurredornot.Itisafairflower,and should be prized as a gift of God. But cut it from its root in theblessedBook,anditsoonwithersawayanddies.

Thus the revelation of which an account is contained in the Bibleembraces not only a reaffirmation of eternal truths--itself necessarybecausethetruthshavebeenobscuredbytheblindingeffectofsin--butalsoarevelationwhichsetsforththemeaningofanactofGod.

The contents of theBible, then, are unique.But another fact about theBible is also important. The Bible might contain an account of a truerevelationfromGod,andyettheaccountbefulloferror.BeforethefullauthorityoftheBiblecanbeestablished,therefore,itisnecessarytoaddto the Christian doctrine of revelation the Christian doctrine ofinspiration. The latter doctrine means that the Bible not only is anaccountofimportantthings,butthattheaccountitselfistrue,thewritershavingbeensopreservedfromerror,despiteafullmaintenanceof theirhabitsofthoughtandexpression,thattheresultingBookisthe"infallibleruleoffaithandpractice."

This doctrine of "plenary inspiration" has been made the subject ofpersistent misrepresentation. Its opponents speak of it as though itinvolvedamechanical]theoryoftheactivityoftheHolySpirit.TheSpirit,it issaid, isrepresentedinthisdoctrineasdictatingtheBibletowriterswho were really little more than stenographers. But of course all suchcaricatures are without basis in fact, and it is rather surprising thatintelligentmenshouldbesoblindedbyprejudiceaboutthismatterasnoteventoexamineforthemselvestheperfectlyaccessibletreatisesinwhichthe doctrine of plenary inspiration is set forth. It is usually consideredgoodpracticetoexamineathingforone'sselfbeforeechoingthevulgarridiculeof it.But inconnectionwith theBible,suchscholarlyrestraintsare somehow regarded as out of place. It is somuch easier to contentone'sselfwithafewopprobriousadjectivessuchas"mechanical,"orthelike.Whyengagec:inseriouscriticismwhenthepeoplepreferridicule?Why attack a real opponent when it is easier to knock down aman ofstraw?[2]

Asamatteroffact,thedoctrineofplenaryinspirationdoesnotdenytheindividuality of the Biblical writers; it does not ignore their use ofordinarymeansforacquiringinformation;itdoesnotinvolveanylackofinterestinthehistoricalsituationswhichgaverisetotheBiblicalbooks.WhatitdoesdenyisthepresenceoferrorintheBible.ItsupposesthattheHoly Spirit so informed theminds of the Biblical writers that theywerekeptfromfallingintotheerror"thatmarallotherbooks.TheBiblemight contain an account of a genuine revelation of God, and yet notcontaina trueaccount.Butaccordingto thedoctrineof inspiration, the

accountisasamatteroffactatrueaccount;theBibleisan"infallibleruleoffaithandpractice."

Certainlythatisastupendousclaim,anditisnowonderthatithasbeenattacked.Butthetroubleisthattheattackisnotalwaysfair.Iftheliberalpreacher objected to the doctrine of plenary inspiration on the groundthatasamatteroffactthereareerrorsintheBible,hemightberightandhemightbewrong,butatanyratethediscussionwouldbeconductedonthe proper ground. But too often the preacher desires to avoid thedelicate question of errors in the Bible--a question which might giveoffense to the rank and file--and prefers to speak merely against"mechanical" theories of inspiration, the theory of "dictation," the"superstitioususeoftheBibleasatalisman,"orthelike.Itallsoundstothe plain man as though it were very harmless. Does not the liberalpreachersaythattheBible is"divine"--indeedthat it is themoredivinebecauseitisthemorehuman?Whatcouldbemoreedifyingthanthat?Butofcoursesuchappearancesaredeceptive.ABiblethatisfulloferroriscertainlydivineinthemodernpantheizingsenseof"divine,"accordingtowhichGodisjustanothernameforthecourseoftheworldwithallitsimperfectionsandallitssin.ButtheGodwhomtheChristianworshipsisaGodoftruth.

ItmustbeadmittedthattherearemanyChristianswhodonotacceptthedoctrineofplenaryinspiration.Thatdoctrineisdeniednotonlybyliberalopponents of Christianity, but also bymany true Christianmen. TherearemanyChristianmeninthemodernChurchwhofindintheoriginofChristianity no mere product of evolution but a real entrance of thecreative power of God, who depend for their salvation, not at all upontheir own efforts to lead the Christ life, but upon the atoning blood ofChrist--therearemanymen in themodernChurchwho thusaccept thecentralmessageoftheBibleandyetbelievethatthemessagehascometous merely on the authority of trustworthy witnesses unaided in theirliteraryworkbyanysupernaturalguidanceoftheSpiritofGod.TherearemanywhobelievethattheBibleisrightatthecentralpoint,initsaccountof the redeemingwork of Christ, and yet believe that it containsmanyerrors.Suchmenarenotreallyliberals,butChristians;becausetheyhaveacceptedas true themessageuponwhichChristianity depends.A great

gulf separates them from thosewho reject the supernatural act of GodwithwhichChristianitystandsorfalls.

Itisanotherquestion,however,whetherthemediatingviewoftheBiblewhich is thusmaintained is logically tenable, the troublebeing thatourLordHimselfseemstohaveheldthehighviewoftheBiblewhichisherebeingrejected.Certainlyitisanotherquestion--andaquestionwhichthepresent writer would answer with an emphatic negative--whether thepanic about the Bible, which gives rise to such concessions, is at alljustified by the facts. If the Christian make full use of his Christianprivileges, he finds the seat of authority in the whole Bible, which heregardsasnomerewordofmanbutastheveryWordofGod.

Very different is the view of modern liberalism. The modern liberalrejectsnotonlythedoctrineofplenaryinspiration,butevensuchrespectfortheBibleaswouldbeproperoveragainstanyordinarilytrustworthybook.ButwhatissubstitutedfortheChristianviewoftheBible?Whatistheliberalviewastotheseatofauthorityinreligion?[3]

The impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberalsubstitutes for the authority of the Bible the authority of Christ. Hecannotaccept,hesays,whatheregardsastheperversemoralteachingoftheOldTestamentor thesophisticalargumentsofPaul.ButheregardshimselfasbeingthetrueChristianbecause,rejectingtherestoftheBible,hedependsuponJesusalone.

This impression, however, is utterly false. Themodern liberal does notreallyholdtotheauthorityofJesus.Evenifhedidso,indeed,hewouldstill be impoverishing greatly his knowledge of God and of the way ofsalvation.ThewordsofJesus,spokenduringHisearthlyministry,couldhardlycontainallthatweneedtoknowaboutGodandaboutthewayofsalvation;forthemeaningofJesus'redeemingworkcouldhardlybefullysetforthbeforethatworkwasdone.Itcouldbesetforthindeedbywayofprophecy,andasamatteroffactitwassosetforthbyJesuseveninthedaysofHis flesh.But the full explanationcouldnaturallybegivenonlyaftertheworkwasdone.Andsuchwasactuallythedivinemethod.It isdoingdespite,notonlytotheSpiritofGod,butalsotoJesusHimself,toregardtheteachingoftheHolySpirit,giventhroughtheapostles,asatall

inferiorinauthoritytotheteachingofJesus.

Asamatteroffact,however,themodernliberaldoesnotholdfasteventotheauthorityofJesus.CertainlyhedoesnotacceptthewordsofJesusastheyarerecordedintheGospels.ForamongtherecordedwordsofJesusaretobefoundjustthosethingswhicharemostabhorrenttothemodernliberalChurch, and inHis recordedwordsJesus alsopoints forward tothe fuller revelation which was afterwards to be given through Hisapostles. Evidently, therefore, those words of Jesus which are to beregarded as authoritative by modern liberalism must first be selectedfrom themass of the recordedwords by a critical process. The criticalprocessiscertainlyverydifficult,andthesuspicionoftenarisesthatthecritic is retaining as genuine words of the historical Jesus only thosewordswhichconformtohisownpreconceived ideas.Butevenafter thesiftingprocess has been completed, the liberal scholar is still unable toacceptasauthoritativeallthesayingsofJesus;hemustfinallyadmitthateven the "historical" Jesus as reconstructed by modern historians saidsomethingsthatareuntrue.

So much is usually admitted. But, it is maintained, although noteverythingthatJesussaidistrue,Hiscentral"life-purpose"isstilltoberegardedasregulativefortheChurch.Butwhatthenwasthelife-purposeofJesus?Accordingtotheshortest,andifmoderncriticismbeaccepted'the earliest of the Gospels, the Son ofMan came not to beministeredunto, but tominister, and to givehis life a ransom formany" (Markx.45).Here thevicariousdeath isputas the"life-purpose"ofJesus.Suchan utterance must of course be pushed aside by the modern liberalChurch.Thetruthisthatthelife-purposeofJesusdiscoveredbymodernliberalismisnotthelifepurposeoftherealJesus,butmerelyrepresentsthose elements in the teaching of Jesus--isolated and misinterpreted--whichhappen toagreewith themodernprogram. It isnotJesus, then,whoistherealauthority,butthemodernprinciplebywhichtheselectionwithinJesus' recorded teachinghasbeenmade.Certain isolatedethicalprinciplesof theSermonon theMountare accepted,not at all becausetheyareteachingsofJesus,butbecausetheyagreewithmodernideas.

It is not true at all, then, that modern liberalism is based upon theauthority of Jesus. It is obliged to reject a vast deal that is absolutely

essential in Jesus' example and teaching--notablyHis consciousness ofbeing theheavenlyMessiah.The realauthority, for liberalism, can onlybe"theChristianconsciousness"or"Christianexperience."ButhowshallthefindingsoftheChristianconsciousnessbeestablished?SurelynotbyamajorityvoteoftheorganizedChurch.Suchamethodwouldobviouslydo awaywith all liberty of conscience.The only authority, then, canbeindividualexperience;truthcanonlybethatwhich"helps"theindividualman. Such an authority is obviously no authority at all; for individualexperienceisendlesslydiverse,andwhenoncetruthisregardedonlyasthatwhichworksatanyparticulartime,itceasestobetruth.Theresultisanabysmalskepticism.

TheChristianman,ontheotherhand,findsintheBibletheveryWordofGod. Let it not be said that dependence upon a book is a dead or anartificial thing. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was foundedupontheauthorityoftheBible,yet itsettheworldaflame.Dependenceuponawordofmanwouldbeslavish,butdependenceuponGod'swordis life.Darkandgloomywouldbe theworld, ifwewere left toourowndevicesandhadnoblessedWordofGod.TheBible, to theChristian isnotaburdensomelaw,buttheveryMagnaChartaofChristianliberty.

Itisnowonder,then,thatliberalismistotallydifferentfromChristianity,forthefoundationisdifferent.ChristianityisfoundedupontheBible.ItbasesupontheBiblebothitsthinkinganditslife.Liberalismontheotherhandisfoundedupontheshiftingemotionsofsinfulmen.

Notes

1.ForwhatfollowscompareHistoryandFaith,1915,pp.13-15.

2.ItisnotdeniedthattherearesomepersonsinthemodernChurchwhodoneglectthecontextofBiblequotationsandwhodoignorethehuman characteristics of the Biblical writers. But in an entirelyUnwarrantable manner this defective way of using the Bible isattributed,byinsinuationatleast,tothegreatbodyofthosewhoYeheldtotheinspirationofScripture.

3. For what follows, compare "For Christ or AgainstHim," in The

Presbyterian,forJanuary20,1921,p.9.

Christ

Chapter4

ThreepointsofdifferencebetweenliberalismandChristianityhavebeennoticed so far. The two religions are different with regard to thepresuppositionsoftheChristianmessage,theviewofGodandtheviewofman;andtheyarealsodifferentwithregardtotheirestimateoftheBookinwhich themessage is contained. It is not surprising, then, that theydiffer fundamentally with regard to the message itself. But before themessage is considered, we must consider the Person upon whom themessageisbased.ThePersonisJesus.AndintheirattitudetowardJesus,liberalismandChristianityaresharplyopposed.

The Christian attitude toward Jesus appears in the whole NewTestament. In examining the New Testament witness it has becomecustomary in recent years to begin with the Epistles of Paul. [1] Thiscustom is sometimesbaseduponerror; it is sometimesbasedupon theviewthattheEpistlesofPaulare"primary"sourcesofinformation,whiletheGospelsareconsideredtobeonly"secondary."Asamatteroffact,theGospels, as well as the Epistles, are primary sources of the highestpossible value. But the custom of beginning with Paul is at leastconvenient. Its convenience is due to the large measure of agreementwhich prevails with regard to the Pauline Epistles About the date andauthorship of the Gospels there is debate; but with regard to theauthorship and approximate date of the principal epistles of Paul allserious historians,whetherChristian or non-Christian, are agreed. It isuniversallyadmittedthatthechiefoftheextantepistlesattributedtoPaulwere reallywrittenby amanof the firstChristiangeneration,whowashimselfacontemporaryofJesusandhadcomeintopersonalcontactwithcertain of Jesus' intimate friends.What, then, was the attitude of thisrepresentativeofthefirstChristiangenerationtowardJesusofNazareth?

The answer cannot be at all in doubt. The apostle Paul clearly stoodalways toward Jesus in a truly religious relationship. Jesuswasnot for

Paulmerelyanexampleforfaith;HewasprimarilytheobjectoffaithThereligionofPauldidnotconsistinhavingfaithinGodlikethefaithwhichJesushadinGod;itconsistedratherinhavingfaithinJesus.Anappealto theexampleofJesus isnot indeedabsent from thePaulineEpistles,andcertainlyitwasnotabsentfromPaul'slife.TheexampleofJesuswasfound by Paul, moreover, not merely in the acts of incarnation andatonementbuteven in thedaily life of Jesus inPalestine.Exaggerationwithregardtothismattershouldbeavoided.PlainlyPaulknewfarmoreaboutthelifeofJesusthanintheEpistleshehasseenfittotell;plainlytheEpistles do not begin to contain all the instructionwhich Paul hadgiven to theChurchesat the commencementof theirChristian life.Butevenafterexaggerationshavebeenavoided,thefactissignificantenough.TheplainfactisthatimitationofJesus,importantthoughitwasforPaul,wasswallowedupbysomethingfarmoreimportantstill.Nottheexampleof Jesus, but the redeeming work of Jesus, was the primary thing forPaul.ThereligionofPaulwasnotprimarilyfaithinGodlikeJesus'faith;itwasfaithinJesus;PaulcommittedtoJesuswithoutreservetheeternaldestiniesofhissoul.ThatiswhatwemeanwhenwesaythatPaulstoodinatrulyreligiousrelationtoJesus.

But Paul was not the first to stand in this religious relation to Jesus.Evidently, at this decisive point, he was only continuing an attitudetoward Jesuswhich had already been assumed by thosewho had beenChristiansbeforehim.Paulwasnotindeedledtoassumethatattitudebythe persuasions of the earlier disciples; he was converted by the LordHimself on the road to Damascus. But the faith so induced was inessentials like the faith which had already prevailed among the earlierdisciples. Indeed, an account of the redeeming work of Christ isdesignatedbyPaulassomethingthathehad"received";andthataccounthadevidentlybeenaccompaniedalreadyintheprimitiveChurchbytrustin the Redeemer. Paul was not the first who had faith in Jesus, asdistinguishedfromfaithinGodlikethefaithwhichJesushad;PaulwasnotthefirsttomakeJesustheobjectoffaith.

Somuchwillnodoubtbeadmittedbyall.Butwhowerethepredecessorsof Paul in making Jesus the object of faith? The obvious answer hasalwaysbeenthattheyweretheprimitivedisciplesinJerusalem,andthat

answerreallystandsabundantlyfirm.Astrangeattempthasindeedbeenmadeinrecentyears,byBoussetandHeitmuller, tocastdoubtuponit.WhatPaul"received," ithasbeensuggested,wasreceived,not fromtheprimitiveJerusalemChurch,butfromsuchChristiancommunitiesastheoneatAntioch.ButthisattemptatinterposinganextralinkbetweentheJerusalem Church and Paul has resulted in failure. The Epistles reallyprovide abundant information as to Paul's relations to Jerusalem. Paulwas deeply interested in the Jerusalem Church; in opposition to hisJudaizingopponents,whohadincertainmattersappealedtotheoriginalapostles against him, he emphasizes his agreement with Peter and therest. But even the Judaizers had had no objection to Paul's way ofregardingJesusastheobjectoffaith;aboutthatmatterthereisnotintheEpistlestheleastsuspicionofanydebate.AbouttheplaceoftheMosaiclawintheChristianlifetherewasdiscussion,thoughevenwithregardtothat matter the Judaizers were entirely unjustified in appealing to theoriginal apostles against Paul But with regard to the attitude towardJesustheoriginalapostleshadevidentlygivennoteventheslightestcolorforanappeal to themagainst theteachingofPaul.Evidently inmakingJesustheobjectofreligiousfaith--thethingthatwastheheartandsoulofPaul's religion--Paulwas in no disagreement with those who had beenapostlesbeforehim.Hadtherebeensuchdisagreement,the"righthandof fellowship," which the pillars of the Jerusalem Church gave to Paul(Gal. ii. 9), would have been impossible. The facts are really too plain.The whole of early Christian history is a hopeless riddle unless theJerusalem Church, as well as Paul, made Jesus the object of religiousfaith. Primitive Christianity certainly did not consist in the mereimitationofJesus.

Butwas this"faith inJesus" justifiedby the teachingofJesusHimself?ThequestionhasreallybeenansweredinChapter2.ItwasthereshownthatJesusmostcertainlydidnotkeepHisPersonoutofHisgospel,buton the contrary presented Himself as the Savior of men. Thedemonstration of that fact was the highest merit of the late JamesDenney.Hisworkon"JesusandtheGospel"isfaultyinsomerespects;itis marred by an undue concessiveness toward some modern types ofcriticism. But just because of its concessiveness with regard to manyimportantmatters,itsmainthesisstandsall themorefirm.Denneyhas

shownthatnomatterwhatviewbe takenof thesourcesunderlying theGospels, and no matter what elements in the Gospels be rejected assecondary,stilleventhesupposed"historicalJesus,"asHeisleftafterthecritical process is done, plainly presented Himself, not merely as anexampleforfaith,butastheobjectoffaith.

Itmay be added,moreover, that Jesus did not invite the confidence ofmenbyminimizing the loadwhichHeoffered to bear.Hedidnot say:"TrustmetogiveyouacceptancewithGod,becauseacceptancewithGodis not difficult; God does not regard sin so seriously after all." On thecontraryJesuspresented thewrathofGod inamoreawfulway than itwas afterwards presented by His disciples; it was Jesus--Jesus whommodern liberals represent as a mild-mannered exponent of anundiscriminatinglove--itwasJesuswhospokeoftheouterdarknessandthe everlasting fire, of the sin that shall not be forgiven either in thisworld or in that which is to come. There is nothing in Jesus' teachingabout the character of God which in itself can evoke trust. On thecontrarytheawfulpresentationcangiverise,intheheartsofussinners,only to despair. Trust arises only when we attend to God's way ofsalvation. And that way is found in Jesus. Jesus did not invite theconfidenceofmenbyaminimizingpresentationofwhatwasnecessaryinorderthatsinnersmightstandfaultlessbeforetheawful throneofGod.On the contrary, he invited confidence by the presentation of His ownwondrousPerson.Greatwastheguiltofsin,butJesuswasgreaterstill.God,accordingtoJesus,wasalovingFather;butHewasalovingFather,notofthesinfulworld,butofthosewhomHeHimselfhadbroughtintoHis Kingdom through the Son. The truth is, the witness of the NewTestament, with regard to Jesus as the object of faith, is an absolutelyunitary witness. The thing is rooted far too deep in the records ofprimitive Christianity ever to be removed by any critical process. TheJesus spoken of in the New Testament was no mere teacher ofrighteousness, nomere pioneer in a new type of religious life, butOnewhowasregarded,andregardedHimself,astheSaviorwhommencouldtrust.

But by modern liberalism He is regarded in a totally different way.ChristiansstandinareligiousrelationtoJesus;liberalsdonotstandina

religiousrelationtoJesus--whatdifferencecouldbemoreprofoundthanthat?ThemodernliberalpreacherreverencesJesus;hehasthenameofJesusforeveronhislips;hespeaksofJesusasthesupremerevelationofGod;he enters, or tries to enter, into the religious life of Jesus.Buthedoes not stand in a religious relation to Jesus. Jesus for him is anexampleforfaith,nottheobjectoffaith.Themodernliberaltriestohavefaith inGod like the faithwhichhe supposes Jesushad inGod;buthedoesnothavefaithinJesus.

Accordingtomodernliberalism, inotherwords,Jesuswas theFounderof Christianity because He was the first Christian, and ChristianityconsistsinmaintenanceofthereligiouslifewhichJesusinstituted.

ButwasJesusreallyaChristian?Or,toputthesamequestioninanotherway,areweableoroughtweasChristianstoenterineveryrespectintothe experience of Jesus and make Him in every respect our example?Certaindifficultiesarisewithregardtothisquestion

ThefirstdifficultyappearsintheMessianicconsciousnessofJesus.ThePersonwhomweareaskedtotakeasourexamplethoughtthatHewastheheavenlySonofManwhowastobethefinalJudgeofall theearth.Can we imitate Him there? The trouble is not merely that Jesusundertook a special mission which can never be ours. That difficultymightconceivablybeovercome;wemightstilltakeJesusasourexamplebyadaptingtoourstationinlifethekindofcharacterwhichHedisplayedinHis.Butanotherdifficultyismoreserious.TherealtroubleisthattheloftyclaimofJesus,if,asmodernliberalismisconstrainedtobelieve,theclaimwasunjustified,placesamoral stainuponJesus' character.Whatshall be thought of a human beingwho lapsed so far from the path ofhumility and sanity as tobelieve that the eternal destinies of theworldwerecommittedintoHishands?Thetruth is that ifJesusbemerelyanexample,Heisnotaworthyexample;forHeclaimedtobefarmore.

Againstthisobjectionmodernliberalismhasusuallyadoptedapolicyofpalliation. The Messianic consciousness, it is said, arose late in theexperience of Jesus, and was not really fundamental. What was reallyfundamental, the liberal historians continue, was the consciousness ofsonship toward God--a consciousness which may be shared by every

humbledisciple.TheMessianicconsciousness,onthisview,aroseonlyasanafterthought.Jesuswasconscious,itissaid,ofstandingtowardGodinarelationofuntroubledsonship.ButHediscoveredthatthisrelationwasnotsharedbyothers.Hebecameaware,therefore,ofamissiontobringothers into the place of privilege which He Himself already occupied.ThatmissionmadeHimunique,andtogiveexpressiontoHisuniquenessHe adopted, late in His life and almost against His will, the faultycategoryofMessiahship.

ManyaretheformsinwhichsomesuchpsychologicalreconstructionofthelifeofJesushasbeensetforthinrecentyears.Themodernworldhasdevoted its very best literary efforts to this task. But the efforts haveresulted in failure. In the first place, there is no real evidence that thereconstructed Jesus is historical. The sources know nothing of a JesuswhoadoptedthecategoryofMessiahshiplateinlifeandagainstHiswill.OnthecontrarytheonlyJesusthattheypresentisaJesuswhobasedthewholeofHisministryuponHis stupendous claim. In the secondplace,evenif themodernreconstructionwerehistorical itwouldnotsolvetheproblematall.Theproblemisamoralandpsychologicalproblem.Howcan a human being who lapsed so far from the path of rectitude as tothinkHimself to be the judge of all the earth--how can such a humanbeingberegardedasthesupremeexampleformankind?Itisabsolutelyno answer to the objection to say that Jesus accepted the category ofMessiahshipreluctantlyandlate in life.NomatterwhenHesuccumbedtotemptationtheoutstandingfactisthat,onthisview,Hedidsuccumb;and thatmoral defeat places an indelible stain uponHis character. NodoubtitispossibletomakeexcusesforHim,andmanyexcusesareasamatteroffactmadebytheliberalhistorians.Butwhathasbecomethenof the claim of liberalism to be truly Christian? Can a man for whomexcuseshavetobemadeberegardedasstandingtohismoderncriticsinarelationshipevenremotelyanalogoustothatinwhichtheJesusoftheNewTestamentstandstotheChristianChurch?

ButthereisanotherdifficultyinthewayofregardingJesusassimplythefirst Christian. This second difficulty concerns the attitude of Jesustowardsin.IfJesusisseparatedfromusbyhisMessianicconsciousness,HeisseparatedfromusevenmorefundamentallybytheabsenceinHim

ofasenseofsin.

With respect to the sinlessness of Jesusmodern liberal historians findthemselves in a quandary. To affirm that He was sinless means torelinquish much of that ease of defending liberal religion which theliberal historians are anxious to preserve, and involves hazardousassumptions with regard to the nature of sin. For if sin is merelyimperfection,howcananabsolutenegationofitbeventureduponwithina process of nature which is supposed to be ever changing and everadvancing? The very idea of "sinlessness,"muchmore the reality of it,requires us to conceive of sin as transgression of a fixed lawor a fixedstandard, and involves the conception of an absolute goodness. But tothatconceptionofanabsolutegoodnessthemodernevolutionaryviewoftheworldproperly speakinghasno right..At any rate, if such absolutegoodness is to be allowed to intrude at a definite point in the presentworld-process,weareinvolvedinthatsupernaturalismwhich,aswillbeobserved later, is the very thing that the modern reconstruction ofChristianityismostanxioustoavoid.OnceaffirmthatJesuswassinlessandallothermensinful,andyouhaveenteredintoirreconcilableconflictwith the whole modern point of view. On the other hand, if there arescientificobjections,fromtheliberalpointofview,againstanaffirmationofthesinlessnessofJesus,therearealsoveryobviousreligiousobjectionsagainstanoppositeaffirmationofHissinfulness--difficultiesformodernliberalismaswellasforthetheologyofthehistoricChurch.IfJesuswassinfullikeothermen,thelastremnantofhisuniquenesswouldseemtohave disappeared, and all continuity with the previous development ofChristianitywouldseemtobedestroyed.

In the face of this quandary themodern liberal historian is inclined toavoid rash assertions. He will not be sure that when Jesus taught Hisdisciplestosay,"Forgiveusourdebts,"Hedidnotpraythatprayerwiththem;on theotherhandhewillnotreally face theresults that logicallyfollow from his doubt. In his perplexity, he apt to be content with theassertion that whether Jesus was sinless or not He was at any rateimmeasurably above the rest of us. Whether Jesus was "sinless" is anacademicquestion,weshallprobablybetold,thatconcernsthemysteriesoftheabsolute;whatweneedtodoistobowinsimplereverencebeforea

holinesswhichcomparedwithour impurity isasawhite light inadarkplace.

That such avoidance of the difficulty is unsatisfactory hardly requiresproof; obviously the liberal theologian is trying to obtain the religiousadvantagesofanaffirmationofsinlessnessinJesusatthesametimethathe obtains the supposed scientific advantages of its denial. But just forthemomentwe are not concernedwith the question at all; we are notconcernedtodeterminewhetherasamatteroffactJesuswassinlessorno.WhatweneedtoobservejustnowisthatwhetherJesuswassinfulorsinlessatanyrateintherecordofHislifewhichhasactuallycomeintoourhandsHedisplaysnoconsciousnessofsin.Even if thewords"Whycallestthoumegood?"meantthatJesusdeniedtheattributeofgoodnesstoHimself--whichtheydonot--itwouldstillremaintruethatHeneverinHisrecordedwordsdealsinanyintelligiblewaywithsininHisownlife.In the account of the temptation we are told how He kept sin fromentering, but never how He dealt with it after its entrance had beeneffected. The religious experience of Jesus, as it is recorded in theGospels,inotherwords,givesusnoinformationaboutthewayinwhichsinshallberemoved.

Yet in the Gospels Jesus is represented constantly as dealing with theproblem of sin. He always assumes that other men are sinful; yet HeneverfindssininHimself.AstupendousdifferenceisfoundherebetweenJesus' experience and ours. That differences prevents the religiousexperienceofJesusfromservingasthesolebasisoftheChristianlife.Forclearly ifChristianity isanything it isawayofgettingridofsin.Atanyrate,ifitisnotthatitisuseless;forallmenhavesinned.Andasamatterof fact it was that from the very beginning. Whether the beginning ofChristian preaching be put on the day of Pentecost orwhen Jesus firsttaught in Galilee, in either case one of its first words was "Repent."Throughout thewholeNewTestament theChristianity of the primitiveChurch is represented clearly as a way of getting rid of sin. But ifChristianityisawayofgettingridofsin,thenJesuswasnotaChristian;forJesus,sofaraswecansee,hadnosintogetridof.

WhythendidtheearlyChristianscallthemselvesdisciplesofJesus,whydidtheyconnectthemselveswithHisname?Theanswerisnotdifficult.

They connected themselves with His name not because He was theirexample in theirriddingthemselvesofsin,butbecausetheirmethodofriddingthemselvesofsinwasbymeansofHim.ItwaswhatJesusdidforthem,andnotprimarily theexampleofHisown life,whichmadethemChristians.Suchisthewitnessofallourprimitiverecords.Therecordisfullest, as has already been observed, in the case of the Apostle Paul;clearlyPaulregardedhimselfassavedfromsinbywhatJesusdidforhimonthecross.ButPauldidnotstandalone."Christdiedforoursin`"wasnotsomething that Paul had originated; it was something he had"received." The benefits of that savingwork of Christ, according to theprimitive Church, were to be received by faith; even if the classicformulation of this conviction should prove to be due to Paul, theconviction itself clearly goes back to the very beginning. The primitiveChristiansfelt themselves inneedofsalvation.How,theyasked,shouldtheloadofsinberemoved?Theiranswerisperfectlyplain.TheysimplytrustedJesustoremoveit.Inotherwordstheyhad"faith"inHim.

Hereagainwearebroughtfacetofacewiththesignificantfactwhichwasnoticed at the beginning of this chapter; the early Christians regardedJesusnotmerely as an example for faith but primarily as the object offaith.Christianityfromthebeginningwasameansofgettingridofsinbytrust inJesusofNazareth.But ifJesuswas thus theobjectofChristianfaith,HeHimselfwasnomoreaChristianthanGodisareligiousbeing.Godistheobjectofallreligion,Heisabsolutelynecessarytoallreligion;butHeHimself is the only being in the universewho cannever inHisownnaturebereligious.So it iswithJesusasrelatedtoChristianfaith.Christian faith is trust reposed inHimfor the removalof sin;Hecouldnot repose trust (in the sense with which we are here concerned) inHimself;thereforeHewascertainlynotaChristian.Ifwearelookingfora complete illustration of the Christian life we cannot find it in thereligiousexperienceofJesus.

Thisconclusionneedstobeguardedagainsttwoobjections.

Inthefirstplace,itwillbesaid,arewenotfailingtodojusticetothetruehumanityofJesus,whichisaffirmedbythecreedsoftheChurchaswellas by the modern theologians? When we say that Jesus could notillustrateChristianfaithanymorethanGodcanbereligious,arewenot

denyingtoJesusthatreligiousexperiencewhichisanecessaryelementintruehumanity?MustnotJesus,ifHebetrueman,havebeenmorethantheobjectofreligiousfaith;mustHenothavehadareligionofHisown?Theanswerisnotfartoseek.CertainlyJesushadareligionofHisown;Hisprayerwasrealprayer,Hisfaithwasrealreligiousfaith.HisrelationtoHisheavenlyFatherwasnotmerelythatofachildtoa father; itwasthatof aman tohisGod.CertainlyJesushada religion;without itHishumanitywouldindeedhavebeenbutincomplete.WithoutdoubtJesushad a religion; the fact is of the utmost importance. But it is equallyimportant. To observe that that religion which Jesus had was notChristianity. Christianity is a way of getting rid of sin, and Jesus waswithoutsin.HisreligionwasareligionofParadise,notareligionofsinfulhumanity.Itwasareligiontowhichwemayperhapsinsomesortattaininheaven,whentheprocessofourpurificationiscomplete(thougheventhenthememoryofredemptionwillneverleaveus);butcertainlyitisnotareligionwithwhichwecanbegin.ThereligionofJesuswasareligionofuntroubledsonship;ChristianityisareligionoftheattainmentofsonshipbytheredeemingworkofChrist.

Butifthatbetrue,itmaybeobjected,inthesecondplace,thatJesusisbeingremovedfarfromus,thatonourviewHeisnolongerourBrotherand our Example. The objection is welcome, since it helps us to avoidmisunderstandingsandexaggerations.

CertainlyifourzealforthegreatnessanduniquenessofJesusledussotoseparateHimfromusthatHecouldnolongerbetouchedwiththefeelingof our infirmities, the result would be disastrous; Jesus' comingwouldlosemuchofitssignificance.Butitoughttobeobservedthatlikenessisnot always necessary to nearness. The experience of a father in hispersonalrelationtohissonisquitedifferentfromthatofthesoninhisrelationtohisfather;butjustthatverydifferencebindsfatherandsonallthemore closely together. The father cannot share the specifically filialaffection of the son, and the son cannot share the specifically paternalaffectionofthefather:yetnomererelationshipofbrotherhood,perhaps,couldbequite80close.Fatherhoodandsonshipare complementary toeach other; hence the dissimilarity, but hence also the closeness of thebond. Itmay be somewhat the same in the case of our relationship to

Jesus. IfHewereexactly thesameasourselves, ifHeweremerelyour,Brother, we should not be nearly so close to Him as we are when HestandstousintherelationshipofaSavior.

Nevertheless Jesus as a matter of fact is a Brother to us as well as aSavior--an elder Brother whose steps we may follow. The imitation ofJesushasa fundamentalplace inChristian life; it isperfectlycorrect torepresentHimasoursupremeandonlyperfectexample.

Certainlysofarasthefieldofethicsisconcernedtherecanbenodispute.NomatterwhatviewmaybetakenofHisoriginandHishighernature,Jesuscertainlyledatruehumanlife,andinitHecameintothosevariedhumanrelationshipswhichprovideopportunity formoral achievement.Hislifeofperfectpuritywasledinnocoldaloofnessfromthethrongandpress;Hisunselfishlovewasexercisednotmerelyinmightydeeds,butinactsofkindnesswhichthehumblestofushasthepower,ifonlywehadthewill, to imitate.Moreeffective, too, thanalldetail is the indefinableimpression of thewhole; Jesus is felt to be far greater than any ofHisindividualwordsordeeds.Hiscalmness,unselfishnessandstrengthhavebeenthewonderoftheages;theworldcanneverlosetheinspirationofthatradiantexample.

Jesus is an example,moreover, notmerely for the relations ofman tomanbutalsofortherelationofmantoGod;imitationofHimmayextendandmust extend to the sphere of religion as well as to that of ethics.Indeed religion and ethics in Him were never separated; no singleelementinHislifecanbeunderstoodwithoutreferencetoHisheavenlyFather.Jesuswasthemostreligiousmanwhoeverlived;HedidnothingandsaidnothingandthoughtnothingwithoutthethoughtofGod.IfHisexamplemeans anything at all itmeans that a human life without theconscious presence of God--even though it be a life of humanitarianserviceoutwardlyliketheministryofJesus--isamonstrousperversion.Ifwe would follow truly in Jesus' steps, we must obey the firstcommandmentaswellasthesecondthatislikeuntoit;wemustlovetheLord our Godwith all our heart and soul andmind and strength. ThedifferencebetweenJesusandourselvesservesonly toenforce, certainlynot to invalidate, the lesson. If the One to whom all power was givenneededrefreshmentandstrengtheninginprayer,wemore;iftheOneto

whomthe lilies of the field revealed the glory ofGod yetwent into thesanctuary,surelyweneedsuchassistanceevenmorethanHe;ifthewiseandholyOnecouldsay"Thywillbedone,"surelysubmissionisyetmoreinplaceforuswhosewisdomisasthefoolishnessofchildren.

ThusJesusisthesupremeexampleformen.ButtheJesuswhocanserveasanexampleisnottheJesusofmodernliberalreconstruction,butonlythe Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of modern liberalismadvanced stupendous claims which were not founded upon fact--suchconductoughtnevertobemadeanorm.TheJesusofmodernliberalismall throughHisministryemployed languagewhichwasextravagantandabsurd--anditisonlytobehopedthatimitationofHimwillnotleadtoanequalextravaganceinHismoderndisciples.IftheJesusofnaturalisticreconstruction were really taken as an example, disaster would soonfollow.As amatter of fact, however, themodern liberaldoesnot reallytakeashisexampletheJesusoftheliberalhistorians;whathereallydoesinpracticeistomanufactureashisexampleasimpleexponentofanon-doctrinalreligionwhomtheablerhistoriansevenofhisownschoolknownevertohaveexistedexceptintheimaginationofmodernmen.

Very different is the imitation of the real Jesus--the Jesus of the NewTestamentwhoactually lived in the first centuryof our era.That Jesusadvanced lofty claims; butHis claims, instead of being the extravagantdreams of an enthusiast, were sober truth. On His lips, therefore,languagewhichinthereducedJesusofmodernreconstructionwouldbefrenzied or absurd becomes fraught with blessing for mankind. JesusdemandedthatthosewhofollowedHimshouldbewillingtobreakeventheholiestties--Hesaid,"Ifamancomethtomeandhatethnothisfatherandmother. . .hecannotbemydisciple,"and"Letthedeadburytheirdead."Comingfromthemereprophetconstructedbymodernliberalism,thosewordswouldbemonstrous; coming from the real Jesus, they aresublime.Howgreatwasthemissionofmercywhichjustifiedsuchwords!AndhowwonderfulthecondescensionoftheeternalSon!Howmatchlessan example for the children of men! Well might Paul appeal to theexampleoftheincarnateSavior;wellmighthesay,"LetthesamemindbeinyouwhichwasalsoinChristJesus."TheimitationoftherealJesuswillneverleadamanastray.

ButtheexampleofJesusisaperfectexampleonlyifHewasjustifiedinwhat He offered to men. And He offered, not primarily guidance, butsalvation;HepresentedHimselfastheobjectofmen'sfaith.Thatofferisrejectedbymodernliberalism,butitisacceptedbyChristianmen.

Thereisaprofounddifference,then,intheattitudeassumedbymodernliberalismandbyChristianitytowardJesustheLord.LiberalismregardsHimasanExampleandGuide;Christianity,asaSavior:liberalismmakesHimanexampleforfaith;Christianity,theobjectoffaith.

This difference in the attitude toward Jesus depends upon a profounddifferencesastothequestionwhoJesuswas.IfJesuswasonlywhattheliberalhistorianssupposethatHewas,thentrustinHimwouldbeoutofplace;ourattitude towardHimcouldbe thatofpupils to aMaster andnothingmore.ButifHewaswhattheNewTestamentrepresentsHimasbeing, then we can safely commit to Him the eternal destinies of oursouls. What then is the difference between liberalism and ChristianitywithregardtothepersonofourLord?

Theanswermightbedifficulttosetforthindetail.Buttheessentialthingcanbeputalmostinaword--liberalismregardsJesusasthefairestflowerofhumanity;ChristianityregardsHimasasupernaturalPerson.

The conception of Jesus as a supernatural Person runs all through theNew Testament. In the Epistles of Paul, of course, it is quite clear.WithouttheslightestdoubtPaulseparatedJesusfromordinaryhumanityandplacedHimonthesideofGod.ThewordsinGal.i.1,"notfrommennor through aman but through Jesus Christ and God the Father whoraisedHimfromthedead,"areonlytypicalofwhatappearseverywherein the Epistles. The same contrast between Jesus Christ and ordinaryhumanityiseverywherepresupposed.PauldoesindeedcallJesusChristaman.But theway inwhichhespeaksofJesusasamanonlydeepensthe impression which has already been received. Paul speaks of thehumanity of Jesus apparently as though the fact that Jesuswas amanwere something strange, something wonderful. At any rate, the reallyoutstanding fact is that in the Epistles of Paul, Jesus is everywhereseparated from ordinary humanity; the deity of Christ is everywherepresupposed. It is a matter of small consequence whether Paul ever

appliestoJesustheGreekwordwhichistranslated"God"intheEnglishBible;certainly it isverydifficult, inviewofRom. ix.5, todenythathedoes. However that may be, the term "Lord," which is Paul's regulardesignationofJesus,isreallyjustasmuchadesignationofdeityasistheterm"God."ItwasadesignationofdeityeveninthepaganreligionswithwhichPaul'sconvertswerefamiliar;and(whatisfarmoreimportant)intheGreek translationof theOldTestamentwhichwascurrent inPaul'sdayandwasusedbytheApostlehimself,thetermwasusedtotranslatethe "Jahwe"of theHebrew text.AndPauldoesnothesitate toapply toJesus stupendouspassages in theGreekOldTestamentwhere the termLord thus designates the God of Israel. But what is perhaps mostsignificantofall fortheestablishmentofthePaulineteachingaboutthePerson of Christ is that Paul everywhere stands in a religious attitudetoward Jesus. He who is thus the object of religious faith is surely nomereman,butasupernaturalPerson,andindeedaPersonwhowasGod.

Thus Paul regarded Jesus as a supernatural Person. The fact would besurprisingifitstoodalone.PaulwasacontemporaryofJesus.WhatmustthisJesushavebeenthatHeshouldbeliftedthusquicklyabovethelimitsofordinaryhumanityandplaceduponthesideofGod?

Butthereissomethingfarmoresurprisingstill.ThetrulysurprisingthingisthattheviewwhichPaulhadofJesuswasalsotheviewwhichwasheldby Jesus' intimate friends. [2] The fact appears in the PaulineEpistlesthemselves to say nothing of other evidence. Clearly the Epistlespresupposea fundamentalunitybetweenPauland theoriginalapostleswithregardtothePersonofChrist;foriftherehadbeenanycontroversyabout this matter it would certainly have been mentioned. Even theJudaizers,thebitteropponentsofPaul,seemtohavehadnoobjectiontoPaul's conception of Jesus as a supernatural Person. The reallyimpressive thing about Paul's view of Christ is that it is not defended.IndeeditishardlypresentedintheEpistlesinanysystematicway.Yetitis everywhere presupposed. The inference is perfectly plain--Paul'sconceptionofthePersonofChristwasamatterofcourseintheprimitiveChurch.WithregardtothismatterPaulappearsinperfectharmonywithall Palestinian Christians. The men who had walked and talked withJesus and had seenHim subject to the petty limitations of earthly life

agreedwithPaulfullyinregardingHimasasupernaturalPerson,seatedonthethroneofallBeing.

Exactly the same account of Jesus as thatwhich is presupposedby thePauline Epistles appears in the detailed narrative of the Gospels. TheGospels agree with Paul in presenting Jesus as a supernatural Person,and the agreement appearsnot in oneor twoof theGospels, but in allfour.Thedayislongpast,ifthereeverwassuchaday,whentheGospelofJohn,aspresentingadivineJesus,couldbecontrastedwiththeGospelofMark,aspresentingahumanJesus.Onthecontrary,allfourGospelsclearlypresentaPerson lifted farabove the levelofordinaryhumanity;andtheGospelofMark,theshortestandaccordingtomoderncriticismthe earliest of the Gospels, renders particularly prominent Jesus'superhumanworksofpower.InallfourGospelsJesusappearspossessedofasovereignpowerovertheforcesofnature; inall fourGospels,as inthewholeNewTestament,HeappearsclearlyasasupernaturalPerson.[3]

But what is meant by a "supernatural Person"; what is meant by thesupernatural?

The conception of the "supernatural" is closely connected with that of"miracle";amiracleisthesupernaturalmanifestingitselfintheexternalworld. But what is the supernatural? Many definitions have beenproposed.Butonlyonedefinitionisreallycorrect.Asupernaturaleventisonethattakesplacebytheimmediate,asdistinguishedfromthemediate,power of God. The possibility of the supernatural, if supernatural bedefined in this way, presupposes two things--it presupposes (1) theexistence of a personal God, and (2) the existence of a real order ofnature. Without the existence of a personal God, there could be nopurposive entrance of God's power into the order of the world; andwithout the real existence of an order of nature there could be nodistinction betweennatural events and those that are above nature--alleventswouldbe supernatural, or rather theword "supernatural"wouldhave no meaning at all. The distinction between "natural" and"supernatural"doesnotmean,indeed,thatnatureisindependentofGod;it does not mean that while God brings to pass supernatural events,natural events are not brought to pass by Him. On the contrary, the

believerinthesupernaturalregardseverythingthatisdoneasbeingtheworkofGod.Only,hebelievesthatintheeventscallednatural,Godusesmeans,whereasintheeventscalledsupernaturalHeusesnomeans,butputs forthHis creative power. The distinction between the natural andthesupernatural,inotherwords,issimplythedistinctionbetweenGod'sworksofprovidenceandGod'sworkof creation;amiracle is aworkofcreationjustastrulyasthemysteriousactwhichproducedtheworld.

This conception of the supernatural depends absolutely upon a theisticviewofGod.Theismistobedistinguished(1) fromdeismand(2) frompantheism.

Accordingtothedeisticview,Godsettheworldgoinglikeamachineandthenleft it independentofHimself.Suchaviewis inconsistentwiththeactualityofthesupernatural;themiraclesoftheBiblepresupposeaGodwhoisconstantlywatchingoverandguidingthecourseofthisworld.Themiracles of the Bible are not arbitrary intrusions of a Power that iswithout relation to theworld, but are evidently intended toaccomplishresults within the order of nature. Indeed the natural and thesupernaturalareblended, in themiraclesof theBible, inawayentirelyincongruouswiththedeisticconceptionofGod.Inthefeedingofthefivethousand, for example,who shall saywhatpart the five loavesand twofisheshadintheevent;whoshall saywhere thenatural leftoffand thesupernaturalbegan?Yetthatevent, ifany,surelytranscendedtheorderofnature.ThemiraclesoftheBible,then,arenottheworkofaGodwhohas no part in the course of nature; they are the work of a God whothrough His works of providence is "preserving and governing all Hiscreaturesandalltheiractions."

But the conception of the supernatural is inconsistent, not only withdeism, but also with pantheism. Pantheism identifies God with thetotalityofnature. It is inconceivable, then,on thepantheistic view thatanything shouldenter into the courseofnature fromoutside.A similarincongruity with the supernatural appears also in certain forms ofidealism,whichdenyrealexistencetotheforcesofnature.Ifwhatseemsto be connected in nature is really only connected in the divinemind,thenitisdifficulttomakeanydistinctionbetweenthoseoperationsofthedivinemindwhichappearasmiraclesandthosewhichappearasnatural

events.Again,ithasoftenbeensaidthatalleventsareworksofcreation.On this view, it is only a concession to popular phraseology to say thatone body is attracted toward another in accordance with a law ofgravitation;what reallyought tobe said is thatwhen twobodiesare inproximity under certain conditions they come together. Certainphenomenainnature,onthisview,arealwaysfollowedbycertainotherphenomena, and it is really only this regularity of sequence which isindicatedbytheassertionthattheformerphenomena"cause"thelatter;theonlyrealcauseisinallcasesGod.Onthebasisofthisview,therecanbenodistinctionbetweeneventswroughtbytheimmediatepowerofGodandthosethatarenot;foronthisviewalleventsaresowrought.Againstsuch a view, those who accept our definition of miracle will naturallyaccept the commonsensenotionof cause.God is always the first cause,but there are truly second causes; and they are the means which Goduses,intheordinarycourseoftheworld,fortheaccomplishmentofHisends. It is the exclusionof such secondcauseswhichmakesanevent amiracle.

Itissometimessaidthattheactualityofmiracleswoulddestroythebasisofscience.Science,itissaid,isfoundedupontheregularityofsequences;itasumesthatifcertainconditionswithinthecourseofnaturearegiven,certain other conditions will always follow. But if there is to be anyintrusionofeventswhichbytheirverydefinitionare independentofallpreviousconditions,then,it issaid,theregularityofnatureuponwhichscience bases itself is broken up. Miracle, in other words, seems tointroduce an element of arbitrariness and unaccountability into thecourseoftheworld.

The objection ignores what is really fundamental the Christianconceptionofmiracle.AccordingtotheChristianconception,amiracleiswroughtbytheimmediatepowerofGod.Itisnotwroughtbyanarbitraryand fantastic despot, but by the very God to whom the regularity ofnature itself is due--by the God, moreover, whose character is knownthroughtheBible.SuchaGod,wemaybesure,willnotdodespitetothereason that He has given to His creatures; His interposition willintroducenodisorderintotheworldthatHehasmade.Thereisnothingarbitraryaboutamiracle,accordingtotheChristianconception.Itisnot

anuncausedevent,butanevent that iscausedbytheverysourceofalltheorder that is in theworld. It isdependentaltogetherupon the leastarbitraryandthemostfirmlyfixedofallthethingsthatare--namelyuponthecharacterofGod.

The possibility of miracle, then, is indissolubly joined with "theism."Once admit the existence of a personal God, Maker and Ruler of theworld, and no limits, temporal or otherwise, can be set to the creativepower of such aGod.Admit thatGod once created theworld, and youcannotdenythatHemightengage increationagain.But itwillbe said,theactualityofmiraclesisdifferentfromthepossibilityofthem.Itmaybeadmittedthatmiraclesconceivablymightoccur.Buthavetheyactuallyoccurred?

Thisquestionloomsverylargeinthemindsofmodernmen.Theburdenofthequestionseemstorestheavilyevenuponmanywhostillacceptthemiraclesof theNewTestament.Themiraclesusedtoberegardedasanaid to faith, it isoftensaid,butnowtheyareahindrance tofaith; faithusedtocomeonaccountofthemiracles,butnowitcomesindespiteofthem;men used to believe in Jesus because He wroughtmiracles, butnowweaccept themiraclesbecauseonothergroundswehavecome tobelieveinHim.

A strange confusion underlies this common way of speaking. In onesense,certainly,miraclesareahindrancetofaith--butwhoeverthoughtthe contrary? It may certainly be admitted that if the New Testamentnarrativehadnomiraclesinit,itwouldbefareasiertobelieve.Themorecommonplace a story is, the easier it is to accept it as true. Butcommonplace narratives have little value. The New Testament withoutthemiracleswouldbefareasiertobelieve.Butthetroubleis,itwouldnotbe worth believing. Without the miracles the New Testament wouldcontainanaccountofaholyman--notaperfectman,itistrue,forHewasledtomakeloftyclaimstowhichHehadnoright--butamanatleastfarholierthantherestofmen.Butofwhatbenefitwouldsuchaman,andthedeathwhichmarkedHisfailure,betous?TheloftierbetheexamplewhichJesusset,thegreaterbecomesoursorrowatourfailuretoattaintoit;andthegreaterourhopelessnessundertheburdenofsin.ThesageofNazarethmaysatisfy thosewhohavenever faced theproblemofevil in

their own lives; but to talk about an ideal to those who are under thethralldomofsinisacruelmockery.YetifJesuswasmerelyamanliketherestofmen,thenanidealisallthatwehaveinHim.Farmoreisneededbyasinfulworld.Itissmallcomforttobetoldthattherewasgoodnessinthe world, when what we need is goodness triumphant over sin. Butgoodnesstriumphantoversininvolvesanentranceofthecreativepowerof God, and that creative power of God ismanifested by themiracles.Withoutthemiracles,theNewTestamentmightbeeasiertobelieve.Butthe thing that would be believed would be entirely different from thatwhichpresents itself tousnow.Without themiraclesweshouldhaveateacher;withthemiracleswehaveaSavior.

Certainlyit isamistaketoisolatethemiraclesfromtherestoftheNewTestament. It isamistake todiscuss thequestionof the resurrectionofJesusasthoughthatwhichistobeprovedweresimplytheresurrectionofa certainmanof the first century inPalestine.Nodoubt theexistingevidence for such an event, strong as the evidence is, might beinsufficient. The historian would indeed be obliged to say that nonaturalistic explanation of the origin of the Church has yet beendiscovered,and that the evidence for themiracle is exceedingly strong;butmiraclesare,tosaytheleast,extremelyunusualevents,andthereisatremendous hostile presumption against accepting the hypothesis ofmiracleinanygivencase.Butasamatteroffact,thequestioninthiscasedoe. not concern the resurrection of a man about whom we knownothing;itconcernstheresurrectionofJesus.AndJesuswascertainlyavery extraordinary Person. The uniqueness of the character of Jesusremoves the hostile presumption against miracle; it was extremelyimprobablethatanyordinarymanshouldrise fromthedead,butJesuswaslikenoothermanthateverlived.

But theevidence for themiraclesof theNewTestament issupported inyetanotherway;itissupportedbytheexistenceofanadequateoccasion.It has been observed above that amiracle is an event produced by theimmediatepowerofGod,andthatGodisaGodoforder.Theevidenceofamiracleisthereforeenormouslystrengthenedwhenthepurposeofthemiracle can be detected. That does notmean that within a complex ofmiraclesanexactreasonmustbeassignedtoeveryone;itdoesnotmean

thatintheNewTestamentweshouldexpecttoseeexactlywhyamiraclewas wrought in one case and not in another. But it does mean thatacceptance of a complex of miracles is made vastly easier when anadequatereasoncanbedetectedforthecomplexasawhole.

In the caseof theNewTestamentmiracles, suchanadequate reason isnotdifficult to find. It is found in theconquestof sin.According to theChristian view, as set forth in theBible,mankind is under the curse ofGod'sholy law,and thedreadfulpenalty includes thecorruptionofourwhole nature. Actual transgressions proceed from the sinful root, andservetodeepeneveryman'sguiltinthesightofGod.Onthebasisofthatview,soprofound,sotruetotheobservedfactsoflife, it isobviousthatnothingnaturalwillmeetourneed.Naturetransmitsthedreadfultaint;hopeistobesoughtonlyinacreativeactofGod.

And that creative act of God--so mysterious, so contrary to allexpectation, yet so congruous with the character of the God who isrevealedastheGodoflove--isfoundintheredeemingworkofChrist.Noproduct of sinful humanity could have redeemed humanity from thedreadfulguiltor liftedasinfulrace fromthesloughofsin.ButaSaviorhas come from God. There lies the very root of the Christian religion;thereisthereasonwhythesupernaturalistheverygroundandsubstanceoftheChristianfaith.

Buttheacceptanceofthesupernaturaldependsuponaconvictionoftherealityofsin.WithouttheconvictionofsintherecanbenoappreciationoftheuniquenessofJesus;itisonlywhenwecontrastoursinfulnesswithHis holiness thatwe appreciate the gulfwhich separatesHim from therestofthechildrenofmen.AndwithouttheconvictionofsintherecanbenounderstandingoftheoccasionforthesupernaturalactofGod;withoutthe convictionof sin, thegoodnewsof redemption seems tobe an idletale.SofundamentalistheconvictionofsinintheChristianfaiththatitwillnotdotoarriveatitmerelybyaprocessofreasoning;itwillnotdotosay merely: All men (as I have been told) are sinners; I am a man;therefore I suppose I must be a sinner too. That is all the supposedconviction of sin amounts to sometimes. But the true conviction is farmore immediate than that. It depends indeed upon information thatcomesfromwithout;itdependsupontherevelationofthelawofGod;it

dependsupontheawfulveritiessetforthintheBibleastotheuniversalsinfulnessofmankind.But itaddstotherevelation thathascomefromwithout a conviction of the whole mind and heart, a profoundunderstanding of one's own lost condition, an illumination of thedeadened conscience which causes a Copernican revolution in one'sattitude toward the world and toward God. When a man has passedthrough that experience, he wonders at his former blindness. Andespeciallydoeshewonderathis formerattitude toward themiraclesofthe New Testament, and toward the supernatural Person who is thererevealed.Thetrulypenitentmangloriesinthesupernatural,forheknowsthat nothing natural wouldmeet his need; the world has been shakenonceinhisdownfall,andshakenagainitmustbeifheistobesaved.

Yet an acceptance of the presuppositions of miracle does not renderunnecessary the plain testimony to the miracles that have actuallyoccurred. And that testimony is exceedingly strong. [4] The Jesuspresented in the New Testament was clearly an historical Person--somuchisadmittedbyallwhohavereallycometogripswiththehistoricalproblems at all. But just as clearly the Jesus presented in the NewTestament was a supernatural Person. Yet for modern liberalism asupernaturalperson isneverhistorical.Aproblemarises then for thosewhoadopt the liberalpointof view--theJesusof theNewTestament ishistorical,Heissupernatural,andyetwhatissupernatural,ontheliberalhypothesis,canneverbehistorical.TheproblemcouldbesolvedonlybytheseparationofthenaturalfromthesupernaturalintheNewTestamentaccountofJesus,inorderthatwhatissupernaturalmightberejectedandwhatisnaturalmightberetained.Buttheprocessofseparationhasneverbeensuccessfullycarriedout.Manyhavebeentheattempts--themodernliberalChurchhasputitsveryheartandsoulintotheeffort,sothatthereisscarcelyanymorebrilliantchapter in thehistoryof thehumanspiritthanthis"questofthehistoricalJesus"--butalltheattemptshavefailed.ThetroubleisthatthemiraclesarefoundnottobeanexcrescenceintheNewTestamentaccountofJesus,butbelongtotheverywarpandwoof.TheyareintimatelyconnectedwithJesus'loftyclaims;theystandorfallwiththeundoubtedpurityofHischaracter;theyrevealtheverynatureofHismissionintheworld.

Yet miracles are rejected by the modern liberal Church, and with themiracles the entirety of the supernaturalPersonof ourLord.Not somemiracles are rejected, but all. It is amatter of no importancewhateverthat some of the wonderful works of Jesus are accepted by the liberalChurch; itmeansabsolutelynothingwhensomeoftheworksofhealingare regarded as historical. For those works are no longer regarded bymodern liberalism as supernatural, but merely as faith-cures of anextraordinary kind. And it is the presence or absence of the truesupernaturalwhichisthereallyimportantthing.Suchconcessionsastofaith-cures,moreover,carryusatbestbutaveryshortway--disbelieversinthesupernaturalmustsimplyrejectaslegendaryormythicalthegreatmassofthewonderfulworks.

The question, then, does not concern the historicity of this miracle orthat;itconcernsthehistoricityofallmiracles.Thatfactisoftenobscured,and theobscurationof itoften introducesanelementof something likedisingenuousness into the advocacy of the liberal cause. The liberalpreacher singles out some onemiracle and discusses that as though itweretheonlypointat issue.Themiraclewhich isusuallysingledout isthe Virgin Birth. The liberal preacher insists on the possibility ofbelievinginChristnomatterwhichviewbeadoptedastothemannerofHisentranceintotheworld.IsnotthePersonthesamenomatterhowHewasborn?TheimpressionisthusproducedupontheplainmanthatthepreacherisacceptingthemainoutlinesoftheNewTestamentaccountofJesus, but merely has difficulties with this particular element in theaccount. But such an impression is radically false. It is true that somemen have denied the Virgin Birth and yet have accepted the NewTestamentaccountofJesusasasupernaturalPerson.Butsuchmenareexceedinglyfewandfarbetween.Itmightbedifficulttofindasingleoneof any prominence living today, so profoundly and so obviouslycongruousistheVirginBirthwiththewholeNewTestamentpresentationofChrist.TheoverwhelmingmajorityofthosewhorejecttheVirginBirthreject also the whole supernatural content of the New Testament, andmake of the "resurrection" just what the word "resurrection" mostemphaticallydidnotmean--apermanenceoftheinfluenceofJesusoramerespiritualexistenceofJesusbeyondthegrave.Oldwordsmayherebeused,butthethingthattheydesignateisgone.Thedisciplesbelieved

in the continued personal existence of Jesus even during the three saddays after the crucifixion; they were not Sadducees; they believed thatJesuslivedandwouldriseatthelastday.ButwhatenabledthemtobegintheworkoftheChristianChurchwasthattheybelievedthebodyofJesusalready to have been raised from the tomb by the power of God. Thatbeliefinvolvestheacceptanceofthesupernatural;andtheacceptanceofthe supernatural is thus the veryheart and soul of the religion thatweprofess.

Whatever decision ismade, the issue should certainlynot be obscured.The issue does not concern individual miracles, even so important amiracle as the Virgin Birth. It really concerns all miracles. And thequestionconcerningallmiraclesissimplythequestionoftheacceptanceor rejection of the Savior that the New Testament presents. Reject themiraclesandyouhaveinJesusthefairestflowerofhumanitywhomadesuchanimpressionuponHisfollowersthatafterHisdeaththeycouldnotbelieve that He had perished but experienced hallucinations in whichtheythoughttheysawHimrisenfromthedead;acceptthemiracles,andyouhaveaSaviorwhocamevoluntarilyintothisworldforoursalvation,suffered for our sins upon the Cross, rose again from the dead by thepowerofGod,andeverlivestomakeintercessionforus.Thedifferencebetween those two views is the difference between two totally diversereligions. It is high time that this issue shouldbe faced; it is high timethatthemisleadinguseoftraditionalphrasesshouldbeabandonedandmenshouldspeaktheir fullmind.Shallweaccept theJesusof theNewTestamentasourSavior,orshallwerejectHimwiththeliberalChurch?

Atthispointanobjectionmayberaised.Theliberalpreacher,itmaybesaid,isoftenreadytospeakofthe"deity''ofChrist;heisoftenreadytosaythat"JesusisGod."Theplainmanismuchimpressed.Thepreacher,hesays,believesinthedeityofourLord;obviouslythenhisunorthodoxymust concern only details; and thosewho object to his presence in theChurcharenarrowanduncharitableheresy-hunters.

Butunfortunatelylanguageisvaluableonlyastheexpressionofthought.TheEnglishword"God"hasnoparticularvirtue in itself; it isnotmorebeautiful thanotherwords.Its importancedependsaltogetheruponthemeaning which is attached to it. When, therefore, the liberal preacher

says that "Jesus is God," the significance of the utterance dependsaltogetheruponwhatismeantby"God."

Andithasalreadybeenobservedthatwhentheliberalpreacherusestheword"God,"hemeanssomethingentirelydifferent fromthatwhich theChristianmeansbythesameword.God,atleastaccordingtothelogicaltrendofmodernliberalism,isnotapersonseparatefromtheworld,butmerelytheunitythatpervadestheworld.Tosay,therefore,thatJesusisGodmeansmerelythatthelifeofGod,whichappearsinallmen,appearswith special clearness or richness in Jesus. Such an assertion isdiametricallyopposedtotheChristianbeliefinthedeityofChrist.

EquallyopposedtoChristianbeliefisanothermeaningthatissometimesattachedtotheassertionthatJesusisGod.Theword"God"issometimesused todenote simply the supremeobject ofmen's desires, thehighestthingthatmenknow.Wehavegivenupthenotion,itissaid,thatthereisaMakerandRuleroftheuniverse;suchnotionsbelongto"metaphysics,"andarerejectedbythemodernman.Buttheword"God,"thoughitcannolongerdenotetheMakeroftheuniverse,isconvenientasdenotingtheobjectofmen's emotionsanddesires.Of somemen, it canbe said thattheir God is mammon--mammon is that for which they labor, and towhich their hearts are attached. In a somewhat similarway, the liberalpreachersaysthatJesusisGod.HedoesnotmeanatalltosaythatJesusisidenticalinnaturewithaMakerandRuleroftheuniverse,ofwhomanidea could be obtained apart fromJesus. In such aBeingheno longerbelieves.AllthathemeansisthatthemanJesus--amanhereinthemidstofus,andofthesamenatureasours--isthehighestthingweknow.Itisobvious that such a way of thinking is far more widely removed fromChristian belief than is Unitarianism, at least the earlier forms ofUnitarianism. For the early Unitarianism no doubt at least believed inGod.Themodern liberals,on theotherhand,say thatJesus isGodnotbecausetheythinkhighofJesus,butbecausetheythinkdesperatelylowofGod.

In another way also, liberalism within the "evangelical" churches isinferior toUnitarianism. It is inferior toUnitarianism in thematter ofhonesty.Inordertomaintainthemselvesintheevangelicalchurchesandquiet the fears of their conservative associates, the liberals resort

constantly to adoubleuse of language.A youngman, for example, hasreceiveddisquietingreportsoftheunorthodoxyof8prominentpreacher.Interrogatingthepreacherastohisbelief,hereceivesareassuringreply."Youmaytelleveryone,"saystheliberalpreacherineffect,"thatIbelievethatJesusisGod."Theinquirergoesawaymuchimpressed.

Itmaywell bedoubted,however,whether the assertion, "I believe thatJesus is God," or the like, on the lips of liberal preachers, is strictlytruthful. The liberal preacher attaches indeed a real meaning to thewords,andthatmeaningisverydeartohisheart.Hereallydoesbelievethat "Jesus is God." But the trouble is that he attaches to the words adifferent meaning from that which is attached to them by the simple-mindedpersontowhomheisspeaking.Heoffends,therefore,againstthefundamental principle of truthfulness in language. According to thatfundamental principle, language is truthful, not when the meaningattachedtothewordsbythespeaker,butwhenthemeaningintendedtobe produced in the mind of the particular person addressed, is inaccordance with the facts. Thus the truthfulness of the assertion, "IbelievethatJesusisGod,"dependsupontheaudiencethatisaddressed.If the audience is composed of theologically trained persons, who willattach the samemeaning to theword "God" as that which the speakerattaches to it, then the language is truthful. But if the audience iscomposedofold-fashionedChristians,whohaveneverattachedanythingbut theoldmeaning to theword "God" (themeaningwhich appears inthe first verse of Genesis), then the language is untruthful. And in thelattercase,notal]thepiousmotivesintheworldwillmaketheutteranceright. Christian ethics do not abrogate common honesty; no possibledesireofedifyingtheChurchandofavoidingoffensecanexcusealie.

Atanyrate,thedeityofourLord,inanyrealsenseoftheword"deity,"isofcoursedeniedbymodernliberalism.AccordingtothemodernliberalChurch,Jesusdiffersfromtherestofmenonlyindegreeandnotinkind;Hecanbedivineonlyifallmenaredivine.Butiftheliberalconceptionofthe deity of Christ thus becomes meaningless, what is the Christianconception?WhatdoestheChristianmanmeanwhenheconfessesthat"JesusisGod"?

Theanswerhasbeengiveninwhathasalreadybeensaid.Ithasalready

been observed that the New Testament represents Jesus as asupernatural Person.But if Jesus is a supernatural PersonHe is eitherdivineorelseHeisanintermediateBeing,higherindeedthanman,butlowerthanGod.ThelatterviewhasbeenabandonedformanycenturiesintheChristianChurch,andthere isnotmuchlikelihoodthat itwillberevived; Arianism certainly is dead. The thought of Christ as a super-angelic Being, like God but not God, belongs evidently to paganmythology, and not to theBible or to Christian faith. Itwill usually beadmitted,ifthetheisticconceptionoftheseparatenessbetweenmanandGodbeheld,thatChristiseitherGodorelsesimplyman;Heiscertainlynot a Being intermediate between God and man. If, then, He is notmerelyman,butasupernaturalPerson,theconclusionisthatHeisGod.

In the second place, it has already been observed that in the NewTestamentandinalltrueChristianity,Jesusisnomereexampleforfaith,buttheobjectoffaith.AndthefaithofwhichJesusistheobjectisclearlyreligious faith; theChristianman reposes confidence in Jesus in awaythatwouldbeoutofplaceinthecaseofanyotherthanGod.ItisnolesserthingthatiscommittedtoJesus,buttheeternalwelfareofthesoul.TheentireChristianattitudetowardJesusasitisfoundthroughouttheNewTestamentpresupposesclearly,then,thedeityofourLord.

It is in the light of this central presupposition that the individualassertionsoughttobeapproached.Theindividualpassageswhichattestthe deity of Christ are not excrescences in the New Testament, butnaturalfruitsofafundamentalconceptionwhichiseverywherethesame.Those individualpassagesarenotconfinedtoanyonebookorgroupofbooks. In the Pauline Epistles, of course, the passages are particularlyplain; the Christ of the Epistles appears again and again as associatedonlywiththeFatherandwithHisSpirit.IntheGospelofJohn,also,onedoesnothavetoseekverylong;thedeityofChristisalmostthethemeofthebook.ButthetestimonyoftheSynopticGospelsisnotreallydifferentfromthatwhichappearseverywhereelse.ThewayinwhichJesusspeaksofmyFatherandtheSon--forexample,inthefamouspassageinMatt.xi.27(Lk.x.22):"AllthingshavebeendelivereduntomeofmyFather,andnomanknoweth theSonbut theFather,neitherknowethanyman theFathersavetheSonandHetowhomsoevertheSonwillrevealHim"--this

manner of presenting Jesus' relation to the Father, absolutelyfundamental intheSynopticGospels, involvestheassertionof thedeityof our Lord. The Person who so speaks is represented as being inmysteriousunionwiththeeternalGod.

YettheNewTestamentwithequalclearnesspresentsJesusasaman.TheGospel of John, which contains at the beginning the stupendousutterance,"TheWordwasGod,"anddwellsconstantlyuponthedeityoftheLord,alsorepresentsJesusaswearyatthewellandasthirst, inthehour of agony on the Cross. Scarcely in the Synoptic Gospels can onediscover such drastic touches attesting the humanity of our Savior asthosewhichappearagainandagainintheGospelofJohn.Withregardtothe Synoptic Gospels, of course there can be no debate; the SynoptistsclearlypresentaPersonwholivedagenuinehumanlifeandwasHimselftrueman.

Thetruth is, thewitnessof theNewTestament iseverywherethesame;the New Testament everywhere presents One who was both God andman.Anditisinterestingtoobservehowunsuccessfulhavebeenalltheefforts to reject one part of this witness and retain the rest. TheApollinariansrejectedthefullhumanityoftheLord,butindoingsotheyobtained a Person who was very different from the Jesus of the NewTestament.TheJesusoftheNewTestamentwasclearly,inthefullsense,aman. Others seem to have supposed that the divine and the humanweresoblendedinJesusthattherewasproducedanatureneitherpurelydivinenorpurelyhuman,butatertiumquid.Butnothingcouldbemoreremote from the New Testament teaching than that. According to theNewTestament thedivineandhumannatureswereclearlydistinct; thedivine nature was pure divinity, and the human nature was purehumanity; Jesus was God and man in two distinct natures. TheNestorians,ontheotherhand,80emphasizedthedistinctnessofdivineandhumaninJesusastosupposethattherewereinJesustwoseparatepersons.But suchaGnosticizing view is plainly contrary to the record;theNewTestamentplainlyteachestheunityofthePersonofourLord.

ByeliminationoftheseerrorstheChurcharrivedattheNewTestamentdoctrineoftwonaturesinonePerson;theJesusoftheNewTestamentis"God andman, in two distinct natures, and one Person forever." That

doctrine is sometimes regarded as speculative. But nothing could befurtherfromthefact.Whetherthedoctrineofthetwonaturesistrueorfalse,itwascertainlyproducednotbyspeculation,butbyanattempttosummarize,succinctlyandexactly,theScripturalteaching.

Thisdoctrineisofcourserejectedbymodernliberalism.Anditisrejectedinaverysimpleway--bytheeliminationofthewholehighernatureofourLord.Butsuchradicalismisnotabitmoresuccessfulthantheheresiesofthepast.TheJesuswhoissupposedtobeleftaftertheeliminationofthesupernaturalelementisatbestaveryshadowyfigure;fortheeliminationof the supernatural logically involves the elimination of much thatremains,andthehistorianconstantlyapproachestheabsurdviewwhicheffaces Jesus altogether from the pages of history. But even after suchdangershavebeenavoided,evenafterthehistorian,bysettingarbitrarylimits to his process of elimination, has succeeded in reconstructing apurelyhumanJesus, the Jesus thus constructed is found to be entirelyunreal.Hehas amoral contradiction at the very center ofHis being--acontradiction due to His Messianic consciousness. He was pure andhumbleandstrongandsane,yetHesupposed,withoutbasisinfact,thatHewastobethefinalJudgeofalltheearth!TheliberalJesus,despitealltheeffortsofmodernpsychologicalreconstructiontogalvanizeHimintolife, remains a manufactured figure of the stage. Very different is theJesusoftheNewTestamentandofthegreatScripturalcreeds.ThatJesusisindeedmysterious.WhocanfathomthemysteryofHisPerson?Butthemystery is a mystery in which a man can rest. The Jesus of the NewTestament has at least one advantage over the Jesus of modernreconstruction--Heisreal.Heisnotamanufacturedfiguresuitableasapointofsupportforethicalmaxims,butagenuinePersonwhomamancan love.Menhave lovedHim throughall theChristian centuries. Andthestrange thing is thatdespiteall theefforts to removeHim from thepagesofhistory.TherearethosewholoveHimstill.

Notes

1.ThismethodofapproachhasbeenfollowedbythepresentwriterinTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921.

2.CompareTheOriginofPaul'sReligion,1921,pp.118-137.

3.Compare"HistoryandFaith,"1915,pp.5f.

4.CompareHistoryandFaith,1915,pp.68.

Salvation

Chapter5

It has been observed thus far that liberalism differs from Christianitywithregardtothepresuppositionsofthegospel(theviewofGodandtheviewofman),withregardtotheBookinwhichthegospel iscontained,andwithregardtothePersonwhoseworkthegospelsetsforth.Itisnotsurprising then that it differs from Christianity in its account of thegospel itself; it is not surprising that it presents an entirely differentaccountofthewayofsalvation.Liberalismfindssalvation(sofarasitiswillingtospeakatallof"salvation")inman;ChristianityfindsitinanactofGod.

Thedifferencewithregard to thewayof salvationconcerns, in the firstplace,thebasisofsalvationintheredeemingworkofChrist.AccordingtoChristianbelief, Jesus is our Savior, not by virtue ofwhatHe said, notevenbyvirtueofwhatHewas,butbywhatHedid.HeisourSavior,notbecauseHehasinspiredustolivethesamekindoflifethatHelived,butbecauseHetookuponHimselfthedreadfulguiltofoursinsandbore itinsteadofusonthecross.SuchistheChristianconceptionoftheCrossofChrist. It is ridiculed as being a "subtle theory of the atonement." Inreality, it is the plain teaching of theword ofGod;weknowabsolutelynothingaboutanatonementthatisnotavicariousatonement,forthatistheonlyatonementofwhich theNewTestamentspeaks.AndthisBibledoctrine is not intricate or subtle. On the contrary, though it involvesmysteries, it is itself so simple that a child can understand it. "Wedeserved eternal death, but the Lord Jesus, because He loved us, diedinsteadofusonthecross"--surelythereisnothingsoveryintricateaboutthat. It is not the Bible doctrine of the atonement which is difficult tounderstand--whatarereallyincomprehensiblearetheelaboratemoderneffortstogetridoftheBibledoctrineintheinterestsofhumanpride.[1]

Modernliberalpreachersdoindeedsometimesspeakofthe"atonement."Buttheyspeakofitjustasseldomastheypossiblycan,andonecansee

plainly that their hearts are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross.Indeed, at this point, as at many others, one has the feeling thattraditionallanguageisbeingstrainedtobecometheexpressionoftotallyalien ideas. And when the traditional phraseology has been strippedaway,theessenceofthemodernconceptionofthedeathofChrist,thoughthatconceptionappearsinmanyforms,isfairlyplain.TheessenceofitisthatthedeathofChristhadaneffectnotuponGodbutonlyuponman.Sometimes the effect upon man is conceived of in a very simple way,Christ'sdeathbeingregardedmerelyasanexampleofself-sacrificeforustoemulate.Theuniquenessofthisparticularexample,then,canbefoundonlyinthefactthatChristiansentiment,gatheringaroundit,hasmadeita convenient symbol for all self-sacrifice; it puts in concrete formwhatwould otherwise have to be expressed in colder general terms.Sometimes,again,theeffectofChrist'sdeathuponusisconceivedofinsubtlerways; thedeathofChrist, it issaid,showshowmuchGodhatessin--since sin brought even theHolyOne to thedreadfulCross--andwetoo,therefore,oughttohatesin,asGodhatesit,andrepent.Sometimes,stillagain,thedeathofChrististhoughtofasdisplayingtheloveofGod;itexhibitsGod'sownSonasgivenupforusall.Thesemodern"theoriesoftheatonement"arenotalltobeplaceduponthesameplane;thelastofthem,inparticular,maybejoinedwithahighviewofJesus'Person.Buttheyerrinthattheyignorethedreadfulrealityofguilt,andmakeamerepersuasion of the human will all that is needed for salvation. They doindeedallcontainanelementoftruth:itistruethatthedeathofChristisanexampleofself-sacrificewhichmayinspireself-sacrificeinothers;itistruethatthedeathofChristshowshowmuchGodhatessin;itistruethatthedeathofChristdisplaystheloveofGod.AllofthesetruthsarefoundplainlyintheNewTestament.Buttheyareswallowedupinafargreatertruth--that Christ died instead of us to present us faultless before thethrone ofGod.Without that central truth, all the rest is devoid of realmeaning: an exampleof self-sacrifice is useless to thosewhoareunderboththeguiltandthralldomofsin;theknowledgeofGod'shatredofsincaninitselfbringonlydespair;anexhibitionoftheloveofGodisameredisplayunlesstherewassomeunderlyingreasonforthesacrifice.If theCrossistoberestoredtoitsrightfulplaceinChristianlife,weshallhavetopenetrate farbeneath themodern theories toHimwho lovedusandgaveHimselfforus.

UpontheChristiandoctrineoftheCross,modernliberalsareneverwearyofpouringoutthevialsoftheirhatredandtheirscorn.Evenatthispoint,itistrue,thehopeofavoidingoffenseisnotalwaysabandoned;thewords"vicarious atonement" and the like--of course in a sense totally atvariance from their Christian meaning--are still sometimes used. Butdespite such occasional employment of traditional language the liberalpreachersrevealonlytooclearlywhatisintheirminds.Theyspeakwithdisgust of those who believe "that the blood of our Lord, shed in asubstitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possiblewelcomeforthereturningsinner."[2]AgainstthedoctrineoftheCrosstheyuseeveryweaponofcaricatureandvilification.ThustheypourouttheirscornuponathingsoholyandsopreciousthatinthepresenceofittheChristianheartmeltsingratitudetoodeepforwords.ItneverseemstooccurtomodernliberalsthatinderidingtheChristiandoctrineoftheCross, they are trampling upon human hearts. But the modern liberalattacks upon theChristian doctrine of the Crossmay at least serve thepurposeofshowingwhatthatdoctrineis,andfromthispointofviewtheymaybeexaminedbrieflynow.

Inthefirstplace,then,theChristianwayofsalvationthroughtheCrossofChristiscriticizedbecauseitisdependentuponhistory.Thiscriticismis sometimes evaded; it is sometimes said that as Christians we mayattendtowhatChristdoesnowforeveryChristianratherthantowhatHedidlongagoinPalestine.ButtheevasioninvolvesatotalabandonmentoftheChristianfaith.IfthesavingworkofChristwereconfinedtowhatHedoesnowforeveryChristian,therewouldbenosuchthingasaChristiangospel--an account of an event which put a new face on life.What weshould have left would be simply mysticism, and mysticism is quitedifferentfromChristianity.Itistheconnectionofthepresentexperienceof thebelieverwith an actualhistoric appearanceof Jesus in theworldwhich prevents our religion from being mysticism and causes it to beChristianity. Itmust certainly be admitted, then, that Christianity doesdependuponsomethingthathappened;ourreligionmustbeabandonedaltogetherunlessatadefinitepointinhistoryJesusdiedasapropitiationforthesinsofmen.Christianityiscertainlydependentuponhistory.

But if so, the objection lies very near. Must we really depend for the

welfareofoursoulsuponwhathappenedlongago?Mustwereallywaituntil historians have finished disputing about the value of sources andthe like beforewe can have peacewithGod?Would it not be better tohaveasalvationwhichiswithushereandnow,andwhichdependsonlyuponwhatwecanseeorfeel?

With regard to this objection it should be observed that if religion bemade independent of history there is no such thing as a gospel. For"gospel"means"good news," tidings, information about something thathas happened. A gospel independent of history is a contradiction interms.TheChristiangospelmeans,notapresentationofwhatalwayshasbeen true, but a report of something new-- something that imparts atotally different aspect to the situation of mankind. The situation ofmankindwasdesperatebecauseofsin;butGodhaschangedthesituationbytheatoningdeathofChrist--that isnomere reflectionupon theold,butanaccountof somethingnew.Weare shutup in thisworldas inabeleagueredcamp.Tomaintain our courage, the liberal preacher offersusexhortation.Makethebestofthesituation,hesays,lookonthebrightsideoflife.Butunfortunately,suchexhortationcannotchangethefacts.Inparticular it cannot remove thedreadful factof sin.Verydifferent isthemessage of theChristian evangelist.He offers not reflection on theoldbuttidingsofsomethingnew,notexhortationbutagospel.[3]

It is true that theChristiangospel is anaccount,notof something thathappened yesterday, but of something that happened long ago; but theimportant thing is that it reallyhappened. If it reallyhappened, then itmakes littledifferencewhen ithappened.Nomatterwhen ithappened,whetheryesterdayorinthefirstcentury,itremainsarealgospel,arealpieceofnews.

Thehappeningoflongago,moreover,isinthiscaseconfirmedbypresentexperience.TheChristianmanreceives first theaccountwhich theNewTestamentgivesof theatoningdeathofChrist.Thataccount ishistory.Butiftrueithaseffectsinthepresent,anditcanbetestedbyitseffects.TheChristianmanmakestrialoftheChristianmessage,andmakingtrialofithefindsittobetrue.Experiencedoesnotprovideasubstituteforthedocumentaryevidence,butitdoesconfirmthatevidence.ThewordoftheCross no longer seems to the Christian to be merely a far-off thing,

merely a matter to be disputed about by trained theologians. On thecontrary,itisreceivedintotheChristian'sinmostsoul,andeverydayandhouroftheChristian'slifebringsnewconfirmationofitstruth.

Inthesecondplace,theChristiandoctrineofsalvationthroughthedeathofChristiscriticizedonthegroundthatitisnarrow.ItbindssalvationtothenameofJesus,andtherearemanymenintheworldwhohaveneverinanyeffectivewayheardofthenameofJesus.Whatisreallyneeded,wearetold,isasalvationwhichwillsaveallmeneverywhere,whethertheyhaveheardofJesusornot,andwhatevermaybethetypeoflifetowhichtheyhavebeenreared.Notanewcreed,itissaid,willmeet;theuniversalneed of the world, but somemeans of making effective in right livingwhatevercreedmenmaychancetohave.

This second objection, as well as the first, is sometimes evaded. It issometimes said that although one way of salvation is by means ofacceptance of the gospel theremay be other ways. But this method ofmeeting the objection relinquishes one of the things that are mostobviously characteristic of the Christian message-- namely, itsexclusiveness. What struck the early observers of Christianity mostforcibly was not merely that salvation was offered by means of theChristiangospel,but that all othermeanswere resolutely rejected. TheearlyChristianmissionariesdemandedanabsolutelyexclusivedevotionto Christ. Such exclusiveness ran directly counter to the prevailingsyncretismoftheHellenisticage.Inthatday,manysaviorswereofferedbymanyreligionstotheattentionofmen,butthevariouspaganreligionscouldlivetogetherinperfectharmony;whenamanbecameadevoteeofone god, he did not have to give up the others. But Christianitywouldhave nothing to do with these "courtly polygamies of the soul"; [4] itdemandedanabsolutelyexclusivedevotion;allotherSaviors,itinsisted,must be deserted for the one Lord. Salvation, in other words, was notmerelythroughChrist,butitwasonlythroughChrist.Inthatlittleword"only" lay all the offenseWithout thatword therewould have been nopersecutions; the cultured men of the day would probably have beenwillingtogiveJesusaplace,andanhonorableplace,amongthesaviorsofmankind.Withoutitsexclusiveness,theChristianmessagewouldhaveseemed perfectly inoffensive to the men of that day. So modern

liberalism, placing Jesus alongside other benefactors of mankind, isperfectly inoffensive inthemodernworld.Allmenspeakwellof it. It isentirelyinoffensive.Butitisalsoentirelyfutile.TheoffenseoftheCrossisdoneaway,butsoisthegloryandthepower.

Thus itmust fairlybe admitted thatChristianity does bind salvation tothenameofChrist.ThequestionneednotherebediscussedwhetherthebenefitsofChrist'sdeathareeverappliedtothosewho,thoughtheyhavecome to years of discretion, have not heard or accepted the gospelmessage.CertainlytheNewTestamentholdsoutwith"yardtothismatternoclearhope.AttheverybasisoftheworkoftheapostolicChurchistheconsciousness of a terrible responsibility. The solemessage of life andsalvationhadbeencommittedtomen;thatmessagewasatallhazardstobe proclaimed while yet there was time. The objection as to theexclusiveness of the Christian way of salvation, therefore, cannot beevaded,butmustbemet.

Inanswertotheobjection,itmaybesaidsimplythattheChristianwayofsalvationisnarrowonlyBOlongas theChurchchooses to let it remainnarrow.ThenameofJesusisdiscoveredtobestrangelyadaptedtomenofeveryraceandofeverykindofpreviouseducation.AndtheChurchhasamplemeans,withpromiseofGod'sSpirit,tobringthenameofJesustoall. If, therefore, thisway of salvation is not offered to all, it is not thefaultofthewayofsalvationitself,butthefaultofthosewhofailtousethemeansthatGodhasplacedintheirhands.

But,itmaybesaid,isthatnotastupendousresponsibilitytobeplacedinthehandsofweakandsinfulmen;isitnotmorenaturalthatGodshouldoffersalvationtoallwithoutrequiringthemtoacceptanewmessageandthus to be dependent upon the faithfulness of the messengers? Theanswertothisobjectionisplain.ItiscertainlytruethattheChristianwayof salvation places a stupendous responsibility upon men. But thatresponsibility is like the responsibility which, as ordinary observationshows, God does, as a matter of fact, commit to men. It is like theresponsibility,forexample,oftheparentforthechild.Theparenthasfullpowertomarthesoulaswellasthebodyofthechild.Theresponsibilityisterrible;butitisaresponsibilitywhichunquestionablyexists.SimilaristheresponsibilityoftheChurchformakingthenameofJesusknownto

allmankind.Itisaterribleresponsibility;butitexists,anditisjustliketheotherknowndealingsofGod.

ButmodernliberalismhasstillmorespecificobjectionstotheChristiandoctrineoftheCross.Howcanoneperson,itisasked,sufferforthesinsofanother?Thething,wearetold,isabsurd.Guilt,itissaid,ispersonal;ifIallowanothermantosufferformyfault,myguiltisnottherebyonewhitdiminished.

Ananswertothisobjectionissometimesfoundintheplaininstancesinordinary human lifewhere onepersondoes suffer for another person'ssin. In the war, for example, many men died freely for the welfare ofothers.Here, it is "aid,wehavesomethinganalogous to the sacrifice ofChrist.

Itmustbeconfessed,however,thattheanalogy isveryfaint; for itdoesnottouchthespecificpointat issue.Thedeathofavolunteersoldier inthewarwaslikethedeathofChristinthatitwasasupremeexampleofself-sacrifice.But the thing tobeaccomplishedby the self-sacrificewasentire!',differentfromthethingwhichwasaccomplishedonCalvary.Thedeathof thosewho sacrificed themselves in thewarbroughtpeace andprotectiontothelovedonesathome,butitcouldneveravailtowipeouttheguiltofsin.

The real answer to the objection is to be found not in the similaritybetween thedeathofChrist andother examplesof self-sacrifice, but intheprofounddifference.[5]Whyis it thatmenareno longerwillingtotrustfortheirownsalvationandforthehopeoftheworldtooneactthatwasdonebyoneManof longago?Whyis it thattheyprefertotrusttomillionsof acts of self-sacrificewroughtbymillionsofmenall throughthecenturiesandinourownday?Theanswerisplain.Itisbecausemenhave lost sight of themajesty of Jesus' Person. The, think ofHim as aman like themselves; and if He was a man like themselves, His deathbecomessimplyanexampleofself-sacrifice.Buttherehavebeenmillionsof examples of self-sacrifice. Why then should we pay such exclusiveattentionto this onePalestinian exampleof longago?Menused to saywithreferencetoJesus,"Therewasnoothergoodenoughtopaythepriceof sin."They say sonowno longer.On the contrary, everyman is now

regarded as plenty good enough to pay the price of sin if, whether inpeaceorinwar,hewillonlygobravelyoverthetopinsomenoblecause.

Itisperfectlytruethatnomeremancanpaythepenaltyofanotherman'ssin.But it doesnot follow that Jesus could not do it; for Jesuswas nomeremanbut theeternalSonofGod.Jesus ismasterof the innermostsecretsofthemoralworld.Hehasdonewhatnoneothercouldpossiblydo;Hehasborneoursin.

TheChristiandoctrineoftheatonement,therefore,isaltogetherrootedintheChristiandoctrineofthedeityofChrist.Therealityofanatonementforsindependsaltogetherupon theNewTestamentpresentationof thePersonofChrist.Andeven thehymn"dealingwith theCrosswhichwesinginChurchcanbeplacedinanascendingscaleaccordingastheyarebaseduponalowerorahigherviewofJesus'Person.Attheverybottomofthescaleisthatfamiliarhymn:

Nearer,myGod,tothee,Nearertothee!E'enthoughitbeacrossThatraisethme.

Thatisaperfectlygoodhymn.ItmeansthatourtrialsmaybeadisciplinetobringusnearertoGod.ThethoughtisnotopposedtoChristianity;itisfound in the New Testament. But many persons have the impression,because theword"cross" is found in thehymn, that there is somethingspecificallyChristianabout it, and that it has something todowith thegospel. This impression is entirely false. In reality, the cross that isspokenofisnottheCrossofChrist,butourowncross;theversesimplymeansthatourowncrossesortrialsmaybeameanstobringusnearertoGod.Itisaperfectlygoodthought,butcertainlyitisnotthegospel.Onecanonlybe sorry that thepeopleon theTitanic couldnot findabetterhymn touse in the last solemnhourof their lives.But there is anotherhymninthehymn-book:

InthecrossofChristIglory,Toweringo'erthewrecksoftime;Allthelightofsacredstory

Gathersrounditsheadsublime.

That is certainly better. It is herenot our own crossesbut theCross ofChrist,theactualeventthattookplaceonCalvary,thatisspokenof,andthateventiscelebratedasthecenterofallhistory.CertainlytheChristianman can sing that hymn. But onemisses even there the full Christiansenseof themeaningof theCross; theCross is celebrated,but it isnotunderstood.

Itiswell,therefore,thatthereisanotherhymninourhymnbook:

WhenIsurveythewondrouscrossOnwhichthePrinceofglorydiedMyrichestgainIcountbutloss,Andpourcontemptonallmypride.

There at length are heard the accents of true Christian feeling--"thewondrouscrossonwhichthePrinceofglorydied."WhenwecometoseethatitwasnomeremanwhosufferedonCalvarybuttheLordofGlory,then we shall be willing to say that one drop of the precious blood ofJesusisofmorevalue,forourownsalvationandforthehopeofsociety,than all the rivers of blood that have flowed upon the battlefields ofhistory.

Thus the objection to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ disappearsaltogetherbeforethetremendousChristiansenseofthemajestyofJesus'Person. It is perfectly true that the Christ of modern naturalisticreconstructionnevercouldhavesuffered for thesinsofothers;but it isvery different in the case of the Lord of Glory. And if the notion ofvicariousatonementbesoabsurdasmodernoppositionwouldleadustobelieve,whatshallbesaidoftheChristianexperiencethathasbeenbasedupon it?Themodern liberalChurch is fondof appealing to experience.Butwhereshall trueChristianexperiencebe found ifnot in theblessedpeacewhich comes fromCalvary? That peace comes only when amanrecognizes that all his striving to be right with God, all his feverishendeavor to keep the Law before he can be saved, is unnecessary, andthattheLordJesushaswipedoutthehandwritingthatwasagainsthimbydyinginsteadofhimontheCross.Whocanmeasurethedepthofthe

peaceandjoythatcomesfromthisblessedknowledge?Isita"theoryoftheatonement,"adelusionofman'sfancy?OrisittheverytruthofGod?

Butstillanotherobjectionremainsagainst theChristiandoctrineof theCross. The objection concerns the character of God. What a degradedviewofGoditis,themodernliberalexclaims,whenGodisrepresentedasbeing "alienated" fromman, andaswaiting coldlyuntil a price bepaidbeforeHegrantssalvation!Inreality,wearetold,Godismorewillingtoforgive sin thanwe arewilling to be forgiven; reconciliation, therefore,canhavetodoonlywithman;italldependsuponus;Godwillreceiveusanytimewechoose.

Theobjectiondependsofcourseupontheliberalviewofsin.IfsinissotriflingamatterastheliberalChurchsupposes,thenindeedthecurseofGod's lawcanbe takenvery lightly, andGodcaneasily letby-gonesbebygones

Thisbusinessoflettingbygonesbebygoneshasapleasantsound.Butinrealityitisthemostheartlessthingintheworld.Itwillnotdoatalleveninthecaseofsinscommittedagainstourfellow-men.TosaynothingofsinagainstGod,whatshallbedoneabouttheharmthatwehavewroughttoourneighbor?Sometimes,nodoubt, theharmcanberepaired. Ifwehavedefraudedourneighborofasumofmoney,wecanpaythesumbackwithinterest.Butinthecaseofthemoreseriouswrongssuchrepaymentisusuallyquite impossible.Themore seriouswrongsare those that aredone,nottothebodies,buttothesoulsofmen.Andwhocanthinkwithcomplacencyofwrongsof thatkindwhichhehascommitted?Whocanbeartothink,forexample,oftheharmthathehasdonetothoseyoungerthanhimselfbyabadexample?Andwhatofthosesadwords,spokentothosewelove,thathaveleftscarsnevertobeobliteratedbythehandoftime? In the presence of such memories, we are told by the modernpreacher simply to repent and to let bygones be bygones But what aheartlessthingissuchrepentance!Weescapeintosomehigher,happier,respectablelife.Butwhatofthosewhomwebyourexampleandbyourwordshavehelpedtodragdowntothebrinkofhell?Weforgetthemandletbygonesbebygones!

Such repentance will never wipe out the guilt of sin--not even sin

committedagainstourfellowmen,tosaynothingofsinagainstourGod.Thetrulypenitentmanlongstowipeouttheeffectsofsin,notmerelytoforgetsin.Butwhocanwipeout theeffectsof sin?Othersaresufferingbecauseofourpastsins;andwecanattainnorealpeaceuntilwesufferintheirstead.Welongtogobackintothetangleofourlife,andmakerightthethingsthatarewrong--atleasttosufferwherewehavecausedotherstosuffer.AndsomethinglikethatChristdidforuswhenHediedinsteadofusonthecross;Heatonedforalloursins.

The sorrow for sins committed against one's fellowmen does indeedremainintheChristian'sheart.Andhewill seekbyeverymeans that iswithinhispowertorepairthedamagethathehasdone.Butatonementatleasthasbeenmade--madeastrulyasifthesinnerhimselfhadsufferedwithand for thosewhomhehaswronged.And thesinnerhimself,byamystery of grace, becomes right with God. All sin at bottom is a sinagainstGod. "Against thee, theeonlyhave I sinned" is thecryofa truepenitent.HowterribleisthesinagainstGod!Whocanrecallthewastedmoments and years ? Gone they are, never to return; gone the littleallottedspanoflife;gonethelittledayinwhichamanmustwork.Whocanmeasuretheirrevocableguiltofawastedlife?YetevenforsuchguiltGodhasprovidedafountainofcleansinginthepreciousbloodofChrist.God has clothed us with Christ's righteousness as with a garment; inChristwestandspotlessbeforethejudgmentthrone.

Thustodenythenecessityofatonementistodenytheexistenceofarealmoralorder.And it isstrangehowthosewhoventureuponsuchdenialcanregardthemselvesasdisciplesofJesus;forifonethingisclearintherecordofJesus'lifeitisthatJesusrecognizedthejusticeasdistinguishedfromthelove,ofGod.Godislove,accordingtoJesus,butHeisnotonlylove;Jesusspoke,interriblewords,ofthesinthatshallneverbeforgiveneitherinthisworldorinthatwhichistocome.ClearlyJesusrecognizedtheexistenceofretributivejustice;Jesuswasfarfromacceptingthelightmodernviewofsin.

Butwhat, then, itwillbeobjected,becomesofGod's love?Even if itbeadmitted that justice demands punishment for sin, the modern liberaltheologianwillsay,whatbecomesoftheChristiandoctrinethatjusticeisswallowedupbygrace?IfGodisrepresentedaswaitingforapricetobe

paidbeforesinshallbeforgiven,perhapsHisjusticemayberescued,butwhatbecomesofHislove?

Modernliberalteachersarenevertiredofringingthechangesuponthisobjection.Theyspeakwithhorrorofthedoctrineofan"alienated"oran"angry"God.Inanswer,of course itwouldbeeasy topoint to theNewTestament.TheNewTestament clearly speaks of thewrath ofGod andthewrathofJesusHimself;andall the teachingofJesuspresupposesadivineindignationagainstsin.Withwhatpossibleright,then,canthosewho reject this vital element in Jesus' teaching and example regardthemselvesastruedisciplesofHis?ThetruthisthatthemodernrejectionofthedoctrineofGod'swrathproceedsfromalightviewofsinwhichistotallyatvariancewiththeteachingofthewholeNewTestamentandofJesusHimself.Ifamanhasoncecomeunderatrueconvictionofsin,hewillhavelittledifficultywiththedoctrineoftheCross.

But as a matter of fact the modern objection to the doctrine of theatonementonthegroundthatthatdoctrineiscontrarytotheloveofGod,isbaseduponthemostabysmalmisunderstandingofthedoctrineitself.ThemodernliberalteacherspersistinspeakingofthesacrificeofChristas though it were a sacrificemade by some one other than God. TheyspeakofitasthoughitmeantthatGodwaitscoldlyuntilapriceispaidtoHimbeforeHeforgivessin.Asamatterof fact, itmeansnothingof thekind; the objection ignores thatwhich is absolutely fundamental in theChristian doctrine of the Cross. The fundamental thing is that GodHimself,andnotanother,makesthesacrificeforsin--GodHimselfinthepersonoftheSonwhoassumedournatureanddiedforus,GodHimselfinthePersonoftheFatherwhosparednotHisownSonbutofferedHimupforusall.Salvation isas free forusas theairwebreathe;God's thedreadful cost, ours the gain. "God so loved theworld thatHe gaveHisonly begotten Son." Such love is very different from the complacencyfound in the God of modern preaching; this love is love that did nobcountthecost;itislovethatisloveindeed.

Thisloveandthislovealonebringstruejoytomen.JoyisindeedbeingsoughtbythemodernliberalChurch.Butitisbeingsoughtinwaysthatarefalse.HowmaycommunionwithGodbemadejoyful?Obviously,weare told, by emphasizing the comforting attributes of God--His long-

suffering,Hislove.Letus,itisurged,regardHimnotasamoodyDespot,notasasternlyrighteousJudge,butsimplyasalovingFather.Awaywiththehorrorsof theold theology!Letusworship aGod inwhomwe canrejoice.

Twoquestionsarisewithregardtothismethodofmakingreligionjoyful--inthefirstplace,Doesitwork?andinthesecondplace,Isittrue?

Does itwork? It certainly ought towork.How can anyone be unhappywhen the rulerof theuniverse isdeclared tobe the lovingFatherof allmenwhowillneverpermanentlyinflictpainuponHischildren?Whereisthestingofremorseifallsinwillnecessarilybeforgiven?Yetmenarestrangelyungrateful.Afterthemodernpreacherhasdonehispartwithalldiligence--aftereverythingunpleasanthascarefullybeeneliminatedfromtheconceptionofGod,afterHisunlimitedlovehasbeencelebratedwiththe eloquence that it deserves--the congregation somehow persistentlyrefuses to burst into the old ecstasies of joy. The truth is, the God ofmodern preaching, though He may perhaps be very good, is ratheruninteresting.Nothingissoinsipidasindiscriminategoodhumor.Isthatreally love that costs so little? IfGodwillnecessarily forgive,nomatterwhat we do, why trouble ourselves aboutHim at all? Such a Godmaydeliverus fromthe fearofhell.ButHisheaven, ifHehasany, is fullofsin.

Theotherobjection to themodernencouraging ideaofGod is that it isnottrue.HowdoyouknowthatGodisallloveandkindness?Surelynotthrough nature, for it is full of horrors. Human suffering may beunpleasant,butitisreal,andGodmusthavesomethingtodowithit.Justas surely not through the Bible. For it was from the Bible that the oldtheologians derived that conception of God which you would reject asgloomy."TheLordthyGod,"theBiblesays,"isaconsumingfire."Or isJesusaloneyourauthority?Youarenobetteroff.For itwasJesuswhospokeoftheouterdarknessandtheeverlastingfire,ofthesinthatshallnotbeforgiveneitherinthisageor inthatwhichistocome.Ordoyouappeal,foryourcomfortingideaofGod,toatwentieth-centuryrevelationgrantedimmediatelytoyou?It is tobefearedthatyouwillconvincenoonebutyourself.

Religion cannot bemade joyful simply by looking on the bright side ofGod.Foraone-sidedGodisnotarealGod,andit istherealGodalonewhocansatisfythelongingofoursoul.Godislove,butisHeonlylove?God is love,but is loveGod?Seek joyalone, then, seek joyat any cost,andyouwillnotfindit.Howthenmayitbeattained?

The search for joy in religion seems to have ended in disaster. God isfound to be enveloped in impenetrable mystery, and in awfulrighteousness;manisconfinedintheprisonoftheworld,tryingtomakethebestofhis condition,beautifying theprisonwith tinsel, yetsecretlydissatisfiedwithhisbondage,dissatisfiedwithamerelyrelativegoodnesswhich is no goodness at all, dissatisfiedwith the companionship of hissinful fellows, unable to forget his heavenly destiny and his heavenlyduty, longing for communionwith theHolyOne.There seems tobenohope;Godisseparatefromsinners; there isnoroomfor joy,butonlyacertainfearfullookingforofjudgmentandfieryindignation.

Yet such aGod has at least one advantage over the comfortingGod ofmodernpreaching--Heisalive,Heissovereign,HeisnotboundbyHiscreation or byHis creatures, He can performwonders. CouldHe evensave us if He would? He has saved us--in that message the gospelconsists.Itcouldnothavebeenforetold;stilllesscouldthemannerofithave been foretold. That Birth, that Life, thatDeath--whywas it donejustthusandthenandthere?Itallseemssoverylocal,soveryparticular,soveryunphilosophical, soveryunlikewhatmighthavebeenexpected.Arenotour ownmethods of salvation,men say, better than that? "ArenotAbanaandPharpar,riversofDamascus,betterthanallthewatersofIsrael?"Yetwhat if itwere true? "So, theAll-Greatwere theAll-Lovingtoo"--God's own Son delivered up for us all, freedom from the world,soughtbyphilosophersofalltheages,offerednowfreelytoeverysimplesoul, thingshiddenfromthewiseandprudentrevealeduntobabes, thelong striving over, the impossible accomplished, sin conquered bymysterious grace, communion at length with the holy God, our Fatherwhichartinheaven!

Surelythisandthisaloneisjoy.Butitisajoythatisakintofear.Itisafearful thing to fall into thehandsof the livingGod.Werewenot saferwithaGodofourowndevising--loveandonlylove,aFatherandnothing

else,onebeforewhomwecouldstandinourownmeritwithoutfear?HewhowillmaybesatisfiedwithsuchaGod.Butwe,Godhelpus--sinfulaswe are, we would see Jehovah. Despairing, hoping, trembling, half-doubting and half-believing, trusting all to Jesus, we venture into thepresenceoftheveryGod.AndinHispresencewelive.

The atoning death of Christ, and that alone, has presented sinners asrighteousinGod'ssight;theLordJesushaspaidthefullpenaltyoftheirsins, and clothed them with His perfect righteousness before thejudgmentseatofGod.ButChristhasdoneforChristianseven farmorethanthat.HehasgiventothemnotonlyanewandrightrelationtoGod,butanew life inGod'spresence forevermore.Hehassavedthemfromthepoweraswellas fromtheguiltofsin.TheNewTestamentdoesnotendwiththedeathofChrist;itdoesnotendwiththetriumphantwordsof Jesus on the Cross, "It is finished." The death was followed by theresurrection,andtheresurrectionlikethedeathwasforoursakes.Jesusrosefromthedeadintoanewlifeofgloryandpower,andintothat lifeHebringsthoseforwhomHedied.TheChristian,onthebasisofChrist'sredeemingwork,notonlyhasdieduntosin,butalsolivesuntoGod.

Thuswas completed the redeemingwork ofChrist--thework forwhichHeenteredintotheworld.Theaccountofthatworkis the"gospel," the"goodnews."Itnevercouldhavebeenpredicted,forsindeservesnaughtbuteternaldeath.ButGodtriumphedoversinthroughthegraceofourLordJesusChrist.

But how is the redeeming work of Christ applied to the individualChristianman?TheansweroftheNewTestamentisplain.Accordingtothe New Testament the work of Christ is applied to the individualChristianmanbytheHolySpirit.AndthisworkoftheHolySpiritispartofthecreativeworkofGod.Itisnotaccomplishedbytheordinaryuseofmeans;itisnotaccomplishedmerelybyusingthegoodthatisalreadyinman.Onthecontrary,itissomethingnew.Itisnotaninfluenceuponthelife,butthebeginningofanewlife;itisnotdevelopmentofwhatwehadalready,butanewbirth.AttheverycenterofChristianityarethewords,"Yemustbebornagain."

Thesewordsaredespised today.They involve supernaturalism,and the

modern man is opposed to supernaturalism in the experience of theindividual as much as in the realm of history. A cardinal doctrine ofmodernliberalismisthattheworld'sevilmaybeovercomebytheworld'sgood;nohelpisthoughttobeneededfromoutsidetheworld.

This doctrine is propagated in various ways. It runs all through thepopular literature of our time. It dominates religious literature, and itappears even upon the stage. Some years ago great popularity wasattainedbyaplaywhichtaughtthedoctrineinpowerfulfashion.Theplaybegan with a scene in a London boarding-house. And it was a verydiscouragingscene.Thepersons in thatboardinghousewerenotbyanymeansdesperatecriminals,butonecouldalmosthavewished that theyhad been--they would have been somuchmore interesting. As it was,they were simply sordid, selfish persons, snapping and snarling aboutthings to eat and about creature comforts--the sort of persons aboutwhomone is tempted to say that they have no souls. The scene was apowerfulpictureof thehideousness of the commonplace.Butpresentlythemysteriousstrangerof"thethirdfloorback"entereduponthescene,andallwas changed.Hehadno creed to offer, andno religion.But hesimplyengagedinconversationwitheveryoneinthatboardinghouse,anddiscovered the one good point in every individual life. Somewhere inevery life there was some one good thing--some one true humanaffection, someonenobleambition. Ithad longbeenhiddenbya thickcoating of sordidness and selfishness; its very existence had beenforgotten.Butitwasthere,andwhenitwasbroughttothelightthewholelifewastransformed.Thustheevilthatwasinmanwasovercomebythegoodthatwasalreadythere.

The same thing is taught in more immediately practical ways. Forexample,therearethosewhowouldapplyittotheprisonersinourjails.7he inmates of jails and penitentiaries constitute no doubt unpromisingmaterial.Butitisagreatmistake,itissaid,totellthemthattheyarebad,todiscourage themby insistingupon their sin.On thecontrary,wearetold,whatoughttobedoneistofindthegoodthatisalreadyinthemandbuilduponthat;weoughttoappealtosomelatentsenseofhonorwhichshowsthatevencriminalspossesstheremnantsofourcommonhumannature. Thus again the evil that is in man is to be overcome not by a

foreigngoodbutbyagoodwhichmanhimselfpossesses.

Certainlythereisalargeelementoftruthinthismodernprinciple.ThatelementoftruthisfoundintheBible.TheBibledoescertainlyteachthatthegoodthatisalreadyinmanoughttobefosteredinordertochecktheevil.Whatsoeverthingsaretrueandpureandofgoodreport--weoughttothinkonthose things.Certainly theprincipleofovercoming theworld'sevil by the good already in the world is a great principle. The oldtheologiansrecognizedittothefullintheirdoctrineof"commongrace."There is something in the world even apart from Christianity whichrestrainstheworstmanifestationsofevil.Andthatsomethingoughttobeused.Withouttheuseofit,thisworldcouldnotbelivedinforaday.Theuseof it is certainlyagreatprinciple; itwill certainlyaccomplishman',usefulthings.

Butthereisonethingwhichitwillnotaccomplish.Itwillnotremovethediseaseofsin.Itwillindeedpalliatethesymptomsofthedisease;itwillchange the form of the disease. Sometimes the disease is hidden, andtherearethosewhothinkthatitiscured.Butthenitburstsforthinsomenewway,asin1914,andstartlestheworld.Whatisreallyneededisnotasalvetopalliatethesymptomsofsin,butaremedythatattackstherootofthedisease.

In reality, however, the figure of disease is misleading. The only truefigure--ifindeeditcanbecalledmerelyafigure--istheonewhichisusedintheBible.Manisnotmerelyill,butheisdead,intrespassesandsins,andwhatisreallyneededisanewlife.ThatlifeisgivenbytheHolySpiritin"regeneration"orthenewbirth.

Many are the passages and many are the ways in which the centraldoctrineofthenewbirthistaughtintheWordofGod.OneofthemoststupendouspassagesisGal.ii.20:"IhavebeencrucifiedwithChrist;anditisnolongerIthatlivebutChristlivethinme."Thatpassagewascalledby Bengel the marrow of Christianity. And it was rightly so called. Itrefers to the objective basis of Christianity in the redeeming work ofChrist,anditcontainsalsothesupernaturalismofChristianexperience."It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me"--these areextraordinarywords. "If you look uponChristians," Paul says in effect,

"youseesomanymanifestationsofthelifeofChrist."Undoubtedlyifthewords of Gal. ii. 20 stood alone they might be taken in a mystical orpantheistic sense; they might be taken to involve the merging of thepersonalityoftheChristianinthepersonalityofChrist.ButPaulhadnoreason to fear such a misinterpretation, for he had fortified himselfagainstitbythewholeofhisteaching.ThenewrelationoftheChristiantoChrist,accordingtoPaul,involvesnolossoftheseparatepersonalityoftheChristian;on the contrary, it is everywhere intensely personal; it isnot a merely mystical relationship to the All or the Absolute, but arelationship of love existing between one person and another. JustbecausePaulhadfortifiedhimselfagainstmisunderstanding,hewasnotafraidofanextremeboldnessoflanguage."ItisnolongerIthatlive,butChristlivethinme"--thesewordsinvolveatremendousconceptionofthebreakthatcomesinaman'slifewhenhebecomesaChristian.Itisalmostasthoughhebecameanewperson--sostupendousisthechange.Thesewordswerenotwrittenbyamanwhobelieved thatChristianitymeansmerelytheentranceofanewmotive intothe life;Paulbelievedwithallhismindandheartinthedoctrineofthenewcreationorthenewbirth.

Thatdoctrinerepresentsoneaspectof thesalvationwhichwaswroughtbyChristandisappliedbyHisSpirit.Butthereisanotheraspectof thesame salvation.Regenerationmeans anew life; but there is also anewrelation inwhich the believer stands towardGod. That new relation isinstituted by "justification"--the act of God by which a sinner ispronouncedrighteousinHissightbecauseoftheatoningdeathofChrist.Itisnotnecessarytoaskwhetherjustificationcomesbeforeregenerationor vice versa; in reality they are two aspects of one salvation.And theybothstandat theverybeginningof theChristian life.TheChristianhasnotmerelythepromiseofanewlife,buthehasalreadyanewlife.AndhehasnotmerelythepromiseofbeingpronouncedrighteousinGod'ssight(though theblessedpronouncementwillbe confirmedon the judgmentday), but he is already pronounced righteous here and now. At thebeginningofeveryChristianlifetherestands,notaprocess,butadefiniteactofGod.

ThatdoesnotmeanthateveryChristiancantellexactlyatwhatmomenthewasjustifiedandbornagain.SomeChristians,indeed,arereallyable

togivedayandhouroftheirconversion.Itisagrievoussintoridiculetheexperienceof suchmen.Sometimes, indeed, theyare inclined to ignorethestepsintheprovidenceofGodwhichpreparedforthegreatchange.Buttheyarerightonthemainpoint.Theyknowthatwhenonsuchandsuchadaytheykneeledinprayertheywerestill intheirsins,andwhenthey rose from their knees they were children of God never to beseparated fromHim. Such experience is a very holy thing. But on theotherhand it isamistake todemand that it shouldbeuniversal.Thereare Christians who can give day and hour of their conversion, but thegreatmajoritydonotknowexactlyatwhatmomenttheyweresaved.Theeffectsoftheactareplain,buttheactitselfwasdoneinthequietnessofGod. Such, very often, is the experience of children brought up byChristianparents.Itisnotnecessarythatallshouldpassthroughagoniesof soul before being saved; there are those to whom faith comespeacefullyandeasilythroughthenurtureofChristianhomes.

Buthoweveritbemanifested,thebeginningoftheChristianlifeisanactofGod.ItisanactofGodandnotanactofman.

Thatdoesnotmean,however,thatinthebeginningoftheChristianlifeGoddealswithusaswithsticksorstones,unabletounderstandwhatisbeingdone.OnthecontraryHedealswithusaswithpersons;salvationhas a place in the conscious life of man; God uses in our salvation aconsciousactofthehumansoul--anactwhichthoughitisitselftheworkofGod'sSpirit,isatthesametimeanactofman.ThatactofmanwhichGod produces and employs in salvation is faith. At the center ofChristianityisthedoctrineof"justificationbyfaith."

In exalting faith, we are not immediately putting ourselves incontradictiontomodernthought.Indeedfaithisbeingexaltedveryhighbymenofthemostmoderntype.Butwhatkindoffaith?Thereemergesthedifferenceofopinion.

Faithisbeingexaltedsohightodaythatmenarebeingsatisfiedwithanykindoffaith,justsoitisfaith.Itmakesnodifferencewhatisbelieved,weare told, just so the blessed attitude of faith is there. The undogmaticfaith,itissaid,isbetterthanthedogmatic,becauseitispurerfaith--faithlessweakenedbythealloyofknowledge.

Now it is perfectly clear that such employment of faith merely as abeneficent state of the soul is bringing some results. Faith in themostabsurdthingssometimesproducesthemostbeneficentandfar-reachingresults. But the disturbing thing is that all faith has an object. Thescientificobservermaynotthinkthatitistheobjectthatdoesthework;from his vantage point he may see clearly that it is really the faith,consideredsimplyasapsychologicalphenomenon,thatistheimportantthing,andthatanyotherobjectwouldhaveansweredaswell.Buttheonewhodoesthebelievingisalwaysconvincedjustexactlythatit isnotthefaith,but theobject of the faith,which ishelpinghim.Themomenthebecomesconvincedthatitismerelythefaiththatishelpinghim,thefaithdisappears;forfaithalwaysinvolvesaconvictionoftheobjectivetruthortrustworthinessoftheobject.Iftheobject isnotreallytrustworthythenthefaithisafalsefaith.Itisperfectlytruethatsuchafalsefaithwilloftenhelp aman. Things that are false will accomplish a great many usefulthingsintheworld.IfItakeacounterfeitcoinandbuyadinnerwithit,thedinneriseverybitasgoodasifthecoinwereaproductofthemint.Andwhat a very useful thing a dinner is! But just as I am onmywaydowntowntobuyadinnerforapoorman,anexperttellsmethatmycoinisacounterfeit.Themiserable,heartlesstheorizer!Whileheisgoingintouninteresting, learneddetailsabout theprimitivehistoryof that coin, apoormanisdyingforwantofbread.So it iswith faith.Faith issoveryuseful,theytellus,thatwemustnotscrutinizeitsbasisintruth.But,thegreat trouble is, such an avoidance of scrutiny itself involves thedestructionoffaith.Forfaithisessentiallydogmatic.Despiteallyoucando,youcannotremovetheelementofintellectualassentfromit.Faithistheopinion that somepersonwill do something for you. If that personreallywilldothatthingforyou,thenthefaithistrue.Ifhewillnotdoit,thenthefaithisfalse.Inthelattercase,notallthebenefitsintheworldwill make the faith true. Though it has transformed the world fromdarkness to light, though ithasproduced thousandsofglorioushealthylives, it remains a pathological phenomenon. It is false, and sooner orlateritissuretobefoundout.

Suchcounterfeitsshouldberemoved,notoutofaloveofdestruction,butinordertoleaveroomforthepuregold,theexistenceofwhichisimpliedin thepresenceof thecounterfeits.Faith isoftenbaseduponerror,but

therewouldbenofaithatallunlessitweresometimesbasedupontruth.But ifChristian faith isbasedupon truth, then it isnot the faithwhichsavestheChristianbuttheobjectofthefaith.Andtheobjectofthefaithis Christ. Faith, then, according to the Christian view means simplyreceivingagift.TohavefaithinChristmeanstoceasetryingtowinGod'sfavor by one's own character; the man who believes in Christ simplyaccepts thesacrificewhichChristofferedonCalvary.Theresultofsuchfaith is a new life and all good works; but the salvation itself is anabsolutelyfreegiftofGod.

Very different is the conception of faith which prevails in the liberalChurch.Accordingtomodernliberalism,faith isessentiallythesameas"makingChristMaster"inone'slife;atleastitisbymakingChristMasterinthelifethatthewelfareofmenissought.Butthatsimplymeansthatsalvation is thought to be obtained by our own obedience to thecommandsofChrist.Suchteachingisjustasublimatedformoflegalism.NotthesacrificeofChrist,onthisview,butourownobediencetoGod'slaw,isthegroundofhope.

InthiswaythewholeachievementoftheReformationhasbeengivenup,and there has been a return to the religion of theMiddle Ages. At thebeginningof the sixteenth century,God raisedup8manwhobegan toread theEpistle to theGalatianswithhis own eyes. The resultwas therediscoveryofthedoctrineofjustificationbyfaith.Uponthatrediscoveryhasbeenbased thewholeofourevangelical freedom.AsexpoundedbyLutherandCalvintheEpistletotheGalatiansbecamethe"MagnaChartaof Christian liberty." But modern liberalism has returned to the oldinterpretationofGalatianswhichwasurgedagainsttheReformers.ThusProfessorBurton's elaborate commentary on the Epistle, despite all itsextremely valuable modern scholarship, is in one respect a medievalbook; ithas returned toananti-Reformationexegesis,bywhichPaul isthoughttobeattackingintheEpistleonlythepiecemealmoralityof thePharisees.Inreality,ofcourse,theobjectofPaul'sattackis thethoughtthat in any way man can earn his acceptance with God. What Paul isprimarily interested in is not spiritual religion over againstceremonialism,butthefreegraceofGodoveragainsthumanmerit.

The grace of God is rejected by modern liberalism. And the result is

slavery--the slavery of the law, the wretched bondage by which manundertakestheimpossibletaskofestablishinghisownrighteousnessasaground of acceptancewithGod. Itmay seem strange at first sight that"liberalism,"ofwhichtheverynamemeansfreedom,shouldinrealitybewretched slavery. But the phenomenon is not really so strange.Emancipation from the blessedwill ofGod always involves bondage tosomeworsetaskmaster.

ThusitmaybesaidofthemodernliberalChurch,asoftheJerusalemofPaul'sday,that"sheisinbondagewithherchildren."GodgrantthatshemayturnagaintothelibertyofthegospelofChrist!

The liberty of the gospel depends upon the gift of God by which theChristianlifeisbegun--agiftwhichinvolvesjustification,ortheremovalof theguiltof sinand theestablishmentofa right relationbetween thebelieverandGod,andregenerationorthenewbirth,whichmakesoftheChristianmananewcreature.

Butthereisoneobviousobjectiontothishighdoctrine,andtheobjectionleadsontoafulleraccountoftheChristianwayofsalvation.Theobviousobjectiontothedoctrineofthenewcreationisthatitdoesnotseemtobeinaccordwiththeobservedfact.AreChristiansreallynewcreatures?Itcertainlydoesnotseemso.Theyaresubjecttothesameoldconditionsoflifetowhichtheyweresubjectbefore;ifyoulookuponthemyoucannotnotice any very obvious change. They have the same weaknesses, and,unfortunately,theyhavesometimesthesamesins.Thenewcreation,ifitbereallynew,doesnotseemtobeveryperfect;Godcanhardlylookuponitandsay,asofthefirstcreation,thatitisallverygood.

Thisisaveryrealobjection.ButPaulmeetsitgloriouslyintheverysameverse,alreadyconsidered,inwhichthedoctrineofthenewcreationissoboldlyproclaimed. "It isno longer I that live,butChrist liveth inme"--thatisthedoctrineofthenewcreation.Butimmediatelytheobjectionistakenup;"ThelifewhichInowliveintheflesh,"Paulcontinues,"I livebythefaithwhichisintheSonofGodwholovedmeandgaveHimselfforme.""ThelifewhichInowliveintheflesh"--thereistheadmission.PauladmitsthattheChristiandoeslivealifeintheflesh,subjecttothesameoldearthlyconditionsandwithacontinuedbattleagainstsin."But,"says

Paul(andheretheobjectionisanswered),"thelifewhichInowliveinthefleshIlivebythefaithwhichisintheSonofGodwholovedmeandgaveHimselfforme."TheChristianlifeislivedbyfaithandnotbysight;thegreatchangehasnotyetcometofull fruition;sinhasnotyetbeenfullyconquered; the beginning of the Christian life is a new birth, not animmediatecreationofthefullgrownman.Butalthoughthenewlifehasnotyetcometofullfruition,theChristianknowsthatthefruitionwillnotfail;heisconfidentthattheGodwhohasbegunagoodworkinhimwillcompleteituntothedayofChrist;heknowsthattheChristwhohaslovedhim and givenHimself for himwill not fail him now, but through theHoly Spirit will build him up unto the perfectman. That is what PaulmeansbylivingtheChristianlifebyfaith.

Thus theChristian life, though itbeginsbyamomentaryactofGod, iscontinued by a process. In other words--to use theological language--justificationandregenerationarefollowedbysanctification.InprincipletheChristian isalready free fromthepresentevilworld,but inpracticefreedom must still be attained. Thus the Christian life is not a life ofidleness,butabattle.

That iswhatPaulmeanswhenhe speaksof faithworking through love(Gal.v.6).Thefaiththathemakesthemeansofsalvationisnotanidlefaith, like the faith which is condemned in the Epistle of James, but afaiththatworks.Theworkthatitperformsislove,andwhatloveisPaulexplains in the last section of theEpistle to theGalatians. Love, in theChristian sense, is not amere emotion, but a very practical and a verycomprehensive thing. It involves nothing less than the keeping of thewholelawofGod."Thewholelawisfulfilledinoneword,Ieveninthis:Thoushaltlovethyneighborasthyself."Yetthepracticalresultsof faithdonotmeanthatfaithlitselfisawork.Itisasignificantthingthatinthatlast l "practical" section of Galatians Paul does not say that l faithproducesthelifeoflove;hesaysthattheSpiritofIGodproducesit.TheSpirit, then, in that section is represented as doing exactlywhat in thepregnantwords,"faithworkingthroughlove," isattributedtofaith.Theapparentcontradictionsimplyleadstothetrueconceptionoffaith.Truefaithdoesnotdoanything.Whenitissaidtodosomething(forexample,whenwesaythatitcanremovemountains),thatisonlybyaverynatural

shortnessofexpression.Faith is theexactoppositeofworks; faithdoesnot give, it receives. SowhenPaul says thatwe do something by faith,thatisjustanotherwayofsayingthatofourselveswedonothing;whenitis said that faithworks through love thatmeans that through faith thenecessarybasisofallChristianworkhasbeenobtainedintheremovalofguiltandthebirthof thenewman,andthat theSpiritofGodhasbeenreceived--theSpiritwhoworkswith and through theChristianman forholy living. The forcewhich enters the Christian life through faith andworksitselfoutthroughloveisthepoweroftheSpiritofGod.

ButtheChristianlifeislivednotonlybyfaith;itisalsolivedinhope.TheChristianisinthemidstofasorebattle.Andasfortheconditionoftheworld at large--nothing but the coldest heartlessness could be satisfiedwith that. It is certainly true that the whole creation groaneth andtravailethinpaintogetheruntilnow.EvenintheChristianlifetherearethingsthatweshouldliketoseeremoved;therearefearswithinaswellasfightingswithout;evenwithintheChristianlifetherearesadevidencesofsin.ButaccordingtothehopewhichChristhasgivenus,therewillbefinalvictory,andthestruggleofthisworldwillbefollowedbythegloriesofheaven.ThathoperunsallthroughtheChristianlife;Christianityi.notengrossedbythistransitoryworld,butmeasuresallthingsbythethoughtofeternity.

Butatthispointanobjectionisfrequentlyraised.The"otherworldliness"ofChristianityisobjectedtoasaformofselfishness.TheChristian,itissaid, doeswhat is right because of the hope of heaven, hut howmuchnobleristhemanwhobecauseofdutywalksboldlyintothedarknessofannihilation!

Theobjectionwouldhavesomeweight ifheavenaccording toChristianbeliefweremereenjoyment.ButasamatteroffactheaveniscommunionwithGodandwithHisChrist.ItcanbesaidreverentlythattheChristianlongsforheavennotonlyforhisownsake,butalsoforthesakeofGod.Ourpresent love is so cold,ourpresent service soweak; andwewouldonedayloveandserveHimasHislovedeserves.Itisperfectlytruethatthe Christian is dissatisfied with the present world, but it is a holydissatisfaction;itisthathungerandthirstafterrighteousnesswhichourSaviorblessed.WeareseparatedfromtheSaviornowbytheveilofsense

andby theeffectsof sin,and it isnotselfish to long toseeHimface toface.Torelinquishsuchlongingisnotunselfishness,butislikethecoldheartlessnessofamanwhocouldpartfromfatherormotherorwifeorchildwithoutapang.ItisnotselfishtolongfortheOnewhomnothavingseenwelove.

SuchistheChristianlife--itisalifeofconflictbutitisalsoalifeofhope.Itviewsthisworldundertheaspectofeternity;thefashionofthisworldpassethaway,andallmuststandbeforethejudgmentseatofChrist.

Very different is the "program" of the modern liberal Church. In thatprogram,heaven has little place, and this world is really all in all. Therejection of the Christian hope is not always definite or conscious;sometimes the liberal preacher tries to maintain a belief in theimmortalityofthesoul.Buttherealbasisofthebeliefinimmortalityhasbeen given up by the rejection of the New Testament account of theresurrectionofChrist.And,practically,theliberalpreacherhasverylittleto say about the other world. This world is really the center of all histhoughts;religionitself,andevenGod,aremademerelyameansforthebettermentofconditionsuponthisearth.

Thus religion has become amere function of the community or of thestate. So it is looked upon by themen of the present day. Even hard-headedbusinessmenandpoliticianshavebecomeconvincedthatreligionisneeded.Butitisthoughttobeneededmerelyasameanstoanend.Wehavetriedtogetalongwithoutreligion,itissaid,buttheexperimentwasafailure,andnowreligionmustbecalledintohelp.

Forexample, there is theproblemof the immigrants;greatpopulationshave found a place in our country; they do not speak our language orknowourcustoms;andwedonotknowwhattodowiththem.Wehaveattacked them by oppressive legislation or proposals of legislation, butsuchmeasureshavenotbeenaltogethereffective.Somehowthesepeopledisplayaperverseattachmentto the languagethat they learnedat theirmother'sknee.Itmaybestrangethatamanshouldlovethelanguagethathe learnedathismother'sknee,but thesepeopledo love it,andweareperplexedinoureffortstoproduceaunifiedAmericanpeople.Soreligionis called in to help; we are inclined to proceed against the immigrants

nowwithaBible inonehandandaclub in theotheroffering themtheblessings of liberty. That is what is sometimes meant by "ChristianAmericanization."

Another puzzling problem is the problem of industrial relations. Self-interesthasherebeenappealed to; employers andemployeeshavehadpointedouttothemtheplaincommercialadvantagesofconciliation.Butalltonopurpose.Classclashesstillagainstclassinthedestructivenessofindustrialwarfare.Andsometimesfalsedoctrineprovidesabasisforfalsepractice; the danger of Bolshevism is ever in the air. Here againrepressivemeasureshavebeentriedwithoutavail;thefreedomofspeechand of the press has been radically curtailed. But repressive legislationseems unable to check themarch of ideas. Perhaps, therefore, in thesemattersalso,religionmustbeinvoked.

Still another problem faces the modern world--the problem ofinternationalpeace.Thisproblemalsoseemedatonetimenearlysolved;self-interest seemed likely to be sufficient; there were many whosupposedthatthebankerswouldpreventanotherEuropeanwar.Butallsuch hopes were cruelly shattered in 1914, and there is not a whit ofevidence that they are better founded now than they were then. Hereagain, therefore,self-interest is insufficient; and religionmustbecalledintohelp.

Suchconsiderationshaveledtoarenewedpublic interest inthesubjectof religion; religion is discovered after all to be a useful thing. But thetrouble is that in being utilized religion is also being degraded anddestroyed.Religionisbeingregardedmoreandmoreasameremeanstoahigherend.[6]Thechangecanbedetectedwithespecialclearness inthe way in which missionaries commend their cause. Fifty years ago,missionariesmadetheirappealinthelightofeternity."Millionsofmen,"they were accustomed to say, "are going down to eternal destruction;JesusisaSaviorsufficientforall;sendusoutthereforewiththemessageofsalvationwhileyetthereistime."Somemissionaries,thankGod,stillspeak in that way. But very many missionaries make quite a differentappeal. "We are missionaries to India," they say. "Now India is inferment;Bolshevismiscreepingin;sendusouttoIndiathatthemenacemaybechecked."Orelsetheysay:"WearemissionariestoJapan;Japan

willbedominatedbymilitarismunlesstheprinciplesofJesushavesway;sendusoutthereforetopreventthecalamityofwar."

Thesamegreatchangeappearsincommunitylife.Anewcommunity,letussay,hasbeenformed.Itpossessesmanythingsthatnaturallybelongtoawell-orderedcommunity;ithasadrug-store,andacountryclub,andschool."Butthereisonething,"itsinhabitantssaytothemselves,"thatisstill lacking; we have no church. But a church is a recognized andnecessary part of every healthy community.Wemust therefore have achurch."Andsoanexpertincommunitychurch-buildingissummonedtotakethenecessarysteps.Thepersonswhospeakinthiswayusuallyhavelittleinterestinreligionforitsownsake;ithasneveroccurredtothemtoenterintothesecretplaceofcommunionwiththeholyGod.Butreligionisthoughttobenecessaryforahealthycommunity;andthereforeforthesakeofthecommunitytheyarewillingtohaveachurch.

Whatevermaybethoughtof thisattitude towardreligion, it isperfectlyplainthattheChristianreligioncannotbe treated inanysuchway.ThemomentitissotreateditceasestobeChristian.Forifonethingisplainitis thatChristianity refuses tobe regarded as ameremeans to a higherend.OurLordmadethatperfectlyclearwhenHesaid:"Ifanymancometome,andhatenothisfatherandmother...hecannotbemydisciple"(Luke xiv. 26).Whatever else those stupendouswordsmaymean, theycertainly mean that the relationship to Christ takes precedence of allotherrelationships,eventheholiestofrelationshipslikethosethatexistbetween husband and wife and parent and child. Those otherrelationshipsexistforthesakeofChristianityandnotChristianityforthesakeof them.Christianitywill indeedaccomplishmanyuseful things inthisworld,butifitisacceptedinordertoaccomplishthoseusefulthingsit is not Christianity. Christianity will combat Bolshevism; but if it isaccepted in order to combat Bolshevism, it is not Christianity:Christianitywillproduceaunifiednation,inaslowbutsatisfactoryway;but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is notChristianity: Christianitywill produce a healthy community; but if it isacceptedinordertoproduceahealthycommunity,itisnotChristianity:Christianitywillpromoteinternationalpeace;butifitisacceptedinorderto promote international peace, it is not Christianity. Our Lord said:

"Seekye first theKingdomofGodandHis righteousness, andall thesethingsshallbeaddeduntoyou."ButifyouseekfirsttheKingdomofGodandHisrighteousnessinorderthatallthoseotherthingsmaybeaddeduntoyou,youwillmissboththoseotherthingsandtheKingdomofGodaswell.

But if Christianity be directed toward another world; if it be a way bywhich individuals can escape from the present evil age to some bettercountry, what becomes of "the social gospel"? At this point is detectedone of themost obvious lines of cleavage betweenChristianity and theliberalChurch.Theolderevangelism,says themodern liberalpreacher,sought to rescue individuals, while the newer evangelism seeks totransform the whole organism of society: the old evangelism wasindividual;thenewerevangelismissocial.Thisformulationoftheissueisnot entirely correct, but it contains an element of truth. It is true thathistoricChristianityisinconflictatmanypointswiththecollectivismofthe present day; it does emphasize, against the claims of society, theworthoftheindividualsoul.Itprovidesfortheindividualarefugefromallthefluctuatingcurrentsofhumanopinion,asecretplaceofmeditationwhereamancancomealoneintothepresenceofGod.Itdoesgiveamancourage to stand, if need be, against the world; it resolutely refuses tomakeof the individual ameremeans to anend, amere element in thecompositionofsociety.Itrejectsaltogetheranymeansofsalvationwhichdealswithmen in amass; it brings the individual face to facewithhisGod. In that sense, it is true thatChristianity is individualistic andnotsocial.

ButthoughChristianityisindividualistic,itisnotonlyindividualistic.Itprovidesfullyforthesocialneedsofman.

Inthefirstplace,eventhecommunionoftheindividualmanwithGodisnotreallyindividualistic,butsocial.Amanisnot isolatedwhenhe is incommunionwithGod; he canbe regarded as isolated only by onewhohasforgottentherealexistenceofthesupremePerson.Hereagain,asatmany other places, the line of cleavage between liberalism andChristianityreallyreduces toaprofounddifference in theconceptionofGod. Christianity is earnestly theistic; liberalism is at best buthalfheartedlyso.IfamanoncecomestobelieveinapersonalGod,then

thewowshipofHimwillnotberegardedasselfishisolation,butasthechief end of man. That does not mean that on the Christian view theworshipofGodisevertobecarriedontotheneglectofservicerenderedtoone'sfellowmen"hethatlovethnothisbrotherwhomhehathseen,isnotabletoloveGodwhomhehathnotseen"--butitdoesmeanthattheworship of God has a value of its own. Very different is the prevailingdoctrineofmodern liberalism.AccordingtoChristianbelief,manexistsforthesakeofGod;accordingtotheliberalChurch,inpracticeifnotintheory,Godexistsforthesakeofman.

But the social element in Christianity is found not only in communionbetweenmanandGod,butalso in communionbetweenmanandman.Suchcommunionappearsevenin institutionswhicharenotspecificallyChristian.

Themostimportantofsuchinstitutions,accordingtoChristianteaching,isthefamily.Andthatinstitutionisbeingpushedmoreandmoreintothebackground. It is being pushed into the background by undueencroachmentsofthecommunityandofthestate.Modernlifeistendingmoreandmoretowardthecontractionofthesphereofparentalcontrolandparental influence.The choiceof schools is beingplacedunder thepowerof thestate; the"community" isseizingholdofrecreationandofsocialactivities.Itmaybeaquestionhowfarthesecommunityactivitiesare responsible for the modern breakdown of the home; very possiblytheyareonlytryingtofillavoidwhichevenapartfromthemhadalreadyappeared.Buttheresultatanyrateisplain--thelivesofchildrenarenolongersurroundedby the lovingatmosphereof theChristianhome,butbytheutilitarianismofthestate.ArevivaloftheChristianreligionwouldunquestionablybringareversaloftheprocess;thefamily,asoveragainstallothersocialinstitutions,wouldcometoitsrightsagain.

Butthestate,evenwhenreducedtoitsproperlimits,hasalargeplaceinhuman life, and in the possession of that place it is supported byChristianity. The support,moreover, is independent of the Christian ornon-Christiancharacterofthestate; itwasintheRomanEmpireunderNero that Paul said, "The powers that be are ordained of God."Christianityassumesnonegativeattitude,therefore,towardthestate,butrecognizes,underexistingconditions,thenecessityofgovernment.

The case is similar with respect to those broad aspects of human lifewhich are associated with industrialism The "otherworldliness" ofChristianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; ourLordHimself, withHis stupendousmission, lived in themidst of life'sthrongandpress.Plainly, then, theChristianmanmaynot simplifyhisproblembywithdrawingfromthebusinessoftheworld,butmust learntoapplytheprinciplesofJesuseventothecomplexproblemsofmodernindustrial life.At thispointChristian teaching is in fullaccordwith themodern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to hisprofessionifheleaveshisChristianitybehindhimonMondaymorning.On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of socialrelations,mustbemadeobedient to the lawof love.TheChristianmancertainlyshoulddisplaynolackofinterestin"appliedChristianity."

Only--and here emerges the enormous difference of opinion--theChristianmanbelieves that there canbeno appliedChristianity unlessthere be "aChristianity to apply." [7] That iswhere theChristianmandiffers from the modern liberal. The liberal believes that appliedChristianityisallthereisofChristianity,Christianitybeingmerelyawayoflife;theChristianmanbelievesthatappliedChristianityistheresultofan initialactofGod.Thus there isanenormousdifferencebetween themodern liberal and the Christian man with reference to humaninstitutions like the community and the state, and with reference tohuman efforts at applying tile Golden Rule in industrial relationships.Themodernliberalisoptimisticwithreferencetotheseinstitutions;theChristian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned byChristian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as atpresent constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; theChristian man believes that evil can only be held in check and notdestroyedbyhumaninstitutions,andthattheremustbeatransformationof thehumanmaterialsbefore anynewbuilding canbeproduced.Thisdifference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felteverywhereinthepracticalrealm.Itisparticularlyevidentonthemissionfield. The missionary of liberalism seeks to spread the blessings ofChristian civilization (whatever that may be), and is not particularlyinterested in leading individuals to relinquish their pagan beliefs. The

Christianmissionary,ontheotherhand,regardssatisfactionwithamereinfluenceofChristiancivilizationasahindrancerather thanahelp;hischiefbusiness,hebelieves,isthesavingofsouls,andsoulsaresavednotbythemereethicalprinciplesofJesusbutbyHisredemptivework.TheChristianmissionary, inotherwords,andtheChristianworkerathomeas well as abroad, unlike the apostle of liberalism, says to all meneverywhere:"Humangoodnesswillavailnothing for lostsouls;yemustbebornagain."

Notes

1. See "The SecondDeclaration of the Council onOrganic Union,"ThePresbyterian,forMarch17,1921,p.8.

2. Fosdick, Shall the Fundamentalists, Win?, stenographicallyreportedbyMargaretRenton,1922,p.5.

3.CompareHistoryandFaith1915,pp.1-3.

4.Phillimore, in the introduction to his translation of Philostratus,InHonourofApolloniusofTyana,1912,vol.I,p.iii.

5. For what follows, compare "The Church in the War," in ThePresbyterian,forMay291919,pp.10f.

6.Forapenetratingcriticismofthistendency,especiallyasItwouldresultinthecontrolofreligiouseducationbythecommunity,andforaneloquentadvocacyoftheoppositeview,whichmakesChristianityan end in itself, see Harold McA. Robinson, "Democracy andChristianity," in The Christian Educator Vol. No. 1, for October,1920,pp.3-5.

7. Francis Shunk Downs, "Christianity and Today," in PrincetonTheologicalReview,xx,1922p.287.Seealsothewholearticle,ibid.,

TheChurch

Chapter6

It has just been observed that Christianity, as well as liberalism, isinterested in social institutions. But themost important institution hasnot yet been mentioned-- it is the institution of the Church. When,accordingtoChristianbelief,lostsoulsaresaved,thesavedonesbecomeunited in the Christian Church. It is only by a baseless caricature thatChristianmissionariesarerepresentedasthoughtheyhadnointerestineducationorinthemaintenanceofasociallifeinthisworld;itisnottruethattheyareinterestedonlyinsavingindividualsoulsandwhenthesoulsaresavedleavethemtotheirowndevices.OnthecontrarytrueChristiansmusteverywherebeunitedinthebrotherhoodoftheChristianChurch.

VerydifferentisthisChristianconceptionofbrotherhoodfromtheliberaldoctrineofthe"brotherhoodofman."Themodernliberaldoctrineisthatall men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers.ThereisasenseinwhichthisdoctrinecanbeacceptedbytheChristian.Therelationinwhichallmenstandtooneanotherisanalogousinsomeimportantrespectstotherelationofbrotherhood.AllmenhavethesameCreatorandthesamenature.TheChristianmancanacceptall that themodern liberal means by the brotherhood of man. But the Christianknows also of a relationship far more intimate than that generalrelationshipofmantomanandit is for thismore intimaterelationshipthathereserves the term"brother."The truebrotherhood,according toChristianteaching,isthebrotherhoodoftheredeemed.

There is nothing narrow about such teaching; for the Christianbrotherhood is open without distinction to all; and the Christian manseekstobringallmenin.Christianservice,itistrue,isnotlimitedtothehouseholdoffaith;allmen,whetherChristiansornot,areourneighbors

iftheybeinneed.Butifwereallyloveourfellowmenweshallneverbecontent with binding up their wounds or pouring on oil and wine orrendering themanysuch lesserservice.Weshall indeeddosuch thingsforthem.ButthemainbusinessofourliveswillbetobringthemtotheSavioroftheirsouls.

Itisuponthisbrotherhoodoftwice-bornsinners,thisbrotherhoodoftheredeemed,thattheChristianfoundsthehopeofsociety.Hefindsnosolidhopeintheimprovementofearthlyconditions,orthemoldingofhumaninstitutionsundertheinfluenceoftheGoldenRule.Thesethingsindeedaretobewelcomed.Theymaysopalliatethesymptomsofsinthattheremay be time to apply the true remedy; they may serve to produceconditions upon the earth favorable to the propagation of the gospelmessage; they are even valuable for their own sake. But in themselvestheirvalue,totheChristian,iscertainlysmall.Asolidbuildingcannotbeconstructedwhenallthematerialsarefaulty;ablessedsocietycannotbeformed out of men who are still under the curse of sin. Humaninstitutionsarereallytobemolded,notbyChristianprinciplesacceptedbytheunsaved,butbyChristianmen;thetruetransformationofsocietywillcomebytheinfluenceofthosewhohavethemselvesbeenredeemed.

Thus Christianity differs from liberalism in the way in which thetransformationofsocietyisconceived.ButaccordingtoChristianbelief,aswellasaccordingtoliberalism,thereisreallytobeatransformationofsociety; it is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in thesalvationof individualswithout being interested in the salvation of therace.Andevenbeforethesalvationofallsocietyhasbeenachieved,thereis already a society of those who have been saved. That society is theChurch.TheChurchisthehighestChristiananswertothesocialneedsofman.

And the Church invisible, the true company of the redeemed, findsexpression in the companies of Christians who constitute the visibleChurch today.Butwhat is the troublewith thevisibleChurch?What isthereason for itsobviousweakness?Thereareperhapsmanycauses ofweakness.Butonecauseisperfectlyplain--theChurchoftodayhasbeenunfaithful to her Lord by admitting great companies of non-Christianpersons,notonlyintohermembership,butintoherteachingagencies.It

is indeedinevitablethatsomepersonswhoarenot trulyChristianshallfind their way into the visible Church; fallible men cannot discern theheart, andmany a profession of faith which seems to be genuinemayreallybefalse.Butitisnotthiskindoferrortowhichwenowrefer.Whatis nowmeant is not the admission of individuals whose confessions offaithmaynotbesincere,buttheadmissionofgreatcompaniesofpersonswhohavenevermadeany really adequate confessionof faithat all andwhose entire attitude toward the gospel is the very reverse of theChristian attitude. Such persons, moreover, have been admitted notmerelytothemembership,buttotheministryof theChurch,andtoanincreasing extent have been allowed to dominate its councils anddetermine its teaching. The greatest menace to the Christian Churchtodaycomesnotfromtheenemiesoutside,butfromtheenemieswithin;it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith andpracticethatisanti-Christiantothecore.

We are not dealing here with delicate personal questions; we are notpresumingtosaywhethersuchandsuchanindividualmanisaChristianor not. God only can decide such questions; no man can say withassurance whether the attitude of certain individual "liberals" towardChristissavingfaithornot.Butonethingisperfectlyplain--whetherornotliberalsareChristians,itisatanyrateperfectlyclearthatliberalismisnot Christianity. And that being the case, it is highly undesirable thatliberalismandChristianityshouldcontinuetobepropagatedwithintheboundsofthesameorganization.AseparationbetweenthetwopartiesintheChurchisthecryingneedofthehour.

Manyindeedareseekingtoavoidtheseparation.Why,theysay,maynotbrethrendwelltogetherinunity?TheChurch,wearetold,hasroombothfor liberals and for conservatives. The conservativesmay be allowed toremain if they will keep triflingmatters in the background and attendchieflyto"theweightiermattersofthelaw."Andamongthethingsthusdesignatedas"trifling"isfoundtheCrossofChrist,asareallyvicariousatonementforsin.

Suchobscurationoftheissueattestsareallyastonishingnarrownessonthepartof the liberalpreacher.Narrownessdoesnotconsist indefinitedevotiontocertainconvictionsorindefiniterejectionofothers.Butthe

narrowmanisthemanwhorejectstheotherman'sconvictionswithoutfirst endeavoring tounderstand them, themanwhomakesno effort tolookatthingsfromtheotherman'spointofview.Forexample,itisnotnarrow to reject theRomanCatholicdoctrine that there isno salvationoutsidetheChurch.ItisnotnarrowtotrytoconvinceRomanCatholicsthat that doctrine is wrong. But it would be very narrow to say to aRomanCatholic:"YoumaygoonholdingyourdoctrineabouttheChurchandIshallholdmine,butletusuniteinourChristianwork,sincedespitesuchtriflingdifferencesweareagreedaboutthemattersthatconcernthewelfareofthesoul."Forofcoursesuchanutterancewouldsimplybegthequestion;theRomanCatholiccouldnotpossiblybothholdhisdoctrineoftheChurch andat the same time reject it, aswould be requiredby theprogramofChurchunityjustsuggested.AProtestantwhowouldspeakinthat way would be narrow, because quite independent of the questionwhether he or theRomanCatholic is right about the Church hewouldshowplainlythathehadnotmadetheslightestefforttounderstandtheRomanCatholicpointofview.

The case is similarwith the liberal program for unity in theChurch. Itcouldneverbeadvocatedbyanyonewhohadmadetheslightestefforttounderstand the point of view of his opponent in the controversy. Theliberal preacher says to the conservative party in the Church: "Let usuniteinthesamecongregation,sinceofcoursedoctrinaldifferencesaretrifles." But it is the very essence of "conservatism" in the Church toregarddoctrinal differences as no trifles but as thematters of suprememoment.Amancannotpossiblybean"evangelical"ora "conservative"(or,ashehimselfwouldsay,simplyaChristian)andregardtheCrossofChristasatrifle.Tosupposethathecanistheextremeofnarrowness.Itisnotnecessarily"narrow"torejectthevicarioussacrificeofourLordasthesolemeansofsalvation.Itmaybeverywrong(andwebelievethatitis),butitisnotnecessarilynarrow.Buttosupposethatamancanholdtothe vicarious sacrifice of Christ and at the same time belittle thatdoctrine, tosupposethatamancanbelieve that theeternalSonofGodreally bore the guilt of men's sins on the Cross and at the same timeregardthatbeliefasa"trifle"withoutbearinguponthewelfareofmen'ssouls--thatisverynarrowandveryabsurd.Weshallreallygetnowhereinthiscontroversyunlesswemakeasincereefforttounderstandtheother

man'spointofview.

But for another reason also the effort to sink doctrinal differences andunitetheChurchonaprogramofChristianserviceisunsatisfactory.Itisunsatisfactory because, in its usual contemporary form, it is dishonest.Whatevermaybe thoughtofChristiandoctrine, itcanhardlybedeniedthathonesty isoneof the"weightiermattersof the law."Yethonesty isbeing relinquished in wholesale fashion by the liberal party in manyecclesiasticalbodiestoday.

Torecognizethatfactonedoesnotneedtotakesidesatallwithregardtothedoctrinalorhistoricalquestions.Supposeitbetruethatdevotiontoacreedisasignofnarrownessorintolerance,supposetheChurchoughttobefoundedupondevotiontotheidealofJesusoruponthedesiretoputHisspiritintooperationintheworld,andnotatalluponaconfessionoffaithwithregardtoHisredeemingwork.Evenifallthisweretrue,evenifa creedal Church were an undesirable thing, it would still remain truethat as a matter of fact many (indeed in spirit really all) evangelicalchurches are creedal churches, and that if aman does not accept theircreedhehasno right to aplace in their teachingministry.The creedalcharacter of the churches is differently expressed in the differentevangelical bodies, but the example of the Presbyterian Church in theUnitedStatesofAmericamayperhapsservetoillustratewhatismeant.Itis required of all officers in the Presbyterian Church, including theministers,thatattheirordinationtheymakeanswer"plainly"toaseriesofquestionswhichbeginswiththetwofollowing:

"DoyoubelievetheScripturesoftheOldandNewTestamentstobetheWordofGod,theonlyinfallibleruleoffaithandpractice?"

"Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of thisChurch, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the HolyScriptures?"

If these "constitutionalquestions"donot fix clearly thecreedalbasisofthe PresbyterianChurch, it is difficult to see how any human languagecould possibly do so. Yet immediately after making such a solemndeclaration,immediatelyafterdeclaringthattheWestminsterConfession

contains the system of doctrine taught in infallible Scriptures, manyministers of the Presbyterian Church will proceed to decry that sameConfessionandthatdoctrineoftheinfallibilityofScripturetowhichtheyhavejustsolemnlysubscribed!

We arenot now speaking of themembership of theChurch, but of theministry, andwearenot speakingof themanwho is troubledbygravedoubts andwonderswhetherwith his doubts he can honestly continuehismembershipintheChurch.ForgreathostsofsuchtroubledsoulstheChurchoffersbountifullyitsfellowshipanditsaid;itwouldbeacrimetocastthemout.Therearemanymenoflittlefaithinourtroubloustimes.Itisnotofthemthatwespeak.GodgrantthattheymayobtaincomfortandhelpthroughtheministrationsoftheChurch!

Butwearespeakingofmenverydifferentfromthesemenoflittlefaith--fromthesemenwhoaretroubledbydoubtsandareseekingearnestlyforthe truth.Themenwhomwemeanare seekingnotmembership in theChurch,but aplace in theministry, and theydesirenot to learnbut toteach.Theyarenotmenwhosay,"Ibelieve,helpmineunbelief,"butmenwhoareproudinthepossessionoftheknowledgeofthisworld,andseekaplaceintheministrythattheymayteachwhatisdirectlycontrarytotheConfession of Faith to which they subscribe. For that course of actionvarious excuses are made--the growth of custom by which theconstitutional questions are supposed to have become a dead letter,variousmentalreservations,various"interpretations"ofthedeclaration(whichofcoursemeanacompletereversalofthemeaning).Butnosuchexcusescanchangetheessentialfact.Whetheritbedesirableornot, theordinationdeclarationispartoftheconstitutionoftheChurch.Ifamancan stand on that platform he may be an officer in the PresbyterianChurch; if he cannot standon it hehasno right to be anofficer in thePresbyterianChurch.Andthecaseisnodoubtessentiallysimilarinotherevangelical Churches. Whether we like it or not, these Churches arefounded upon a creed; they are organized for the propagation of amessage.Ifamandesirestocombatthatmessageinsteadofpropagatingit, he has no right, nomatter how false themessagemay be, to gain avantage ground for combating it by making a declaration of his faithwhich--beitplainlyspoken--isnottrue.

But if such a course of action is wrong, another course of action isperfectlyopentothemanwhodesirestopropagate"liberalChristianity."Finding the existing "evangelical" churches to be bound up to a creedwhichhedoesnot accept,hemayeitherunitehimselfwith someotherexisting body or else found a new body to suit himself. There are ofcoursecertainobviousdisadvantagesinsuchacourse--theabandonmentof church buildings to which one is attached, the break in familytraditions, the injury to sentiment of various kinds. But there is onesupremeadvantagewhich far overbalances all suchdisadvantages. It isthe advantage of honesty. The path of honesty in suchmattersmay beroughand thorny,but it canbe trod.And it has alreadybeen trod--forexample,by theUnitarianChurch.TheUnitarianChurch is franklyandhonestlyjustthekindofchurchthattheliberalpreacherdesires--namely,achurchwithoutanauthoritativeBible,withoutdoctrinalrequirements,andwithoutacreed.

Honesty,despiteallthatcanbesaidanddone,isnotatrifle,butoneofthe weightiermatters of the law. Certainly it has a value of its own, avalue quite independent of consequences. But the consequences ofhonestywould in the case now under discussion not be unsatisfactory;hereaselsewherehonestywouldprobablyprovetobethebestpolicy.Bywithdrawing from the confessional churches--those churches that arefoundeduponacreedderivedfromScripture--theliberalpreacherwouldindeedsacrificetheopportunity,almostwithinhisgrasp,ofsoobtainingcontrol of those confessional churches as to change their fundamentalcharacter.Thesacrificeofthatopportunitywouldmeanthatthehopeofturningtheresourcesoftheevangelicalchurchesintothepropagationofliberalismwouldbegone.Butliberalismwouldcertainlynotsufferintheend.Therewouldat leastbenomoreneedofusingequivocal language,nomoreneedofavoidingoffence.Theliberalpreacherwouldobtainthefull personal respect even of his opponents, and the whole discussionwould be placed on higher ground. All would, be perfectlystraightforwardandaboveboard.Andif liberalismistrue,themereloseofphysicalresourceswouldnotpreventitfrommakingitsway.

At this point a question may arise. If there ought to be a separationbetweentheliberalsandtheconservativesintheChurch,whyshouldnot

theconservativesbetheonestowithdraw?Certainlyitmaycometothat.IftheliberalpartyreallyobtainsfullcontrolofthecouncilsoftheChurch,thennoevangelicalChristiancancontinuetosupporttheChurch'swork.Ifamanbelievesthatsalvationfromsincomesonlythroughtheatoningdeathof Jesus, thenhe cannothonestly support byhis gifts andbyhispresenceapropagandawhichisintendedtoproduceanexactlyoppositeimpression. To do so would mean the most terrible blood-guiltinesswhich it is possible to conceive. If the liberal party, therefore, reallyobtainscontroloftheChurch,evangelicalChristiansmustbepreparedtowithdrawnomatterwhatitcosts.OurLordhasdiedforus,andsurelywemustnotdenyHimfor favorofmen.Butuptothepresenttimesuchasituationhasnotyetappeared; thecreedalbasis still stands firm in theconstitutionsofevangelicalchurches.Andthereisaveryrealreasonwhyitisnotthe"conservatives"whooughttowithdraw.Thereasonisfoundin the trustwhich the churcheshold.That trust includes trust funds ofthemostdefinitekind.Andcontrarytowhatseems tobe theprevailingopinion,weventuretoregardatrustasasacredthing.Thefundsoftheevangelical churches are held under a very definite trust; they arecommittedtothevariousbodiesforthepropagationofthegospelassetforthintheBibleandintheconfessionsoffaith.Todevotethemtoanyother purpose, even though that other purpose should be in itself farmoredesirable,wouldbeaviolationoftrust.

It must be admitted that the present situation is anomalous. Fundsdedicated to thepropagationof thegospelbygodlymenandwomenofprevious generations or given by thoroughly evangelical congregationstodayareinnearlyallthechurchesbeingusedpartlyinthepropagationofwhat is diametrically opposed to the evangelical faith. Certainly thatsituation ought not to continue; it is an offence to every thoughtfullyhonest man whether he be Christian or not. But in remaining in theexisting churches the conservatives are in a fundamentally differentpositionfromtheliberals;fortheconservativesareinagreementwiththeplainconstitutionsof thechurches,while the liberalpartycanmaintainitselfonlybyanequivocalsubscriptiontodeclarationswhichitdoesnotreallybelieve.

Buthowshall soanomalousasituationbebrought toanend?Thebest

way would undoubtedly be the voluntary withdrawal of the liberalministers from those confessional churches whose confessions they donot, in the plain historical sense, accept. And we have not altogetherabandonedhopeofsuchasolution.OurdifferenceswiththeliberalpartyintheChurchare indeedprofound,butwithregard to theobligationofsimple honesty of speech, some agreement might surely be attained.Certainly thewithdrawal of liberalministers from the creedal churcheswould be enormously in the interests of harmony and cooperation.Nothing engenders strife so much as a forced unity, within the sameorganization,ofthosewhodisagreefundamentallyinaim.

Butisnotadvocacyofsuchseparationaflagrantinstanceofintolerance?The objection is often raised. But it ignores altogether the differencebetween involuntary and voluntary organizations. Involuntaryorganizationsoughttobetolerant,butvoluntaryorganizations,sofarasthe fundamental purpose of their existence is concerned, must beintolerantorelseceasetoexist.Thestateisaninvoluntaryorganization;amanisforcedtobeamemberofitwhetherhewillorno.Itisthereforean interference with liberty for the state to prescribe any one type ofopinion or any one type of education for its citizens. But within thestate,individual citizens who desire to unite for some special purposeshouldbepermitted todo so.Especially in the sphere of religion, suchpermissionofindividualstouniteisoneoftherightswhichlieattheveryfoundationofourcivilandreligiousliberty.Thestatedoesnotscrutinizethe rightness or wrongness of the religious purpose for which suchvoluntary religious associations are formed--if it did undertake suchscrutiny all religious liberty would be gone--but it merely protects theright of individuals to unite for any religious purpose which theymaychoose.

Among such voluntary associations are to be found the evangelicalchurches.AnevangelicalchurchiscomposedofanumberofpersonswhohavecometoagreementinacertainmessageaboutChristandwhodesiretouniteinthepropagationofthatmessage,asitissetforthintheircreedonthebasisoftheBible.Nooneisforcedtounitehimselfwiththebodythusformed;andbecauseofthistotalabsenceofcompulsiontherecanbenointerferencewithlibertyinthemaintenanceofanyspecificpurpose--

forexample,thepropagationofamessage--asafundamentalpurposeofthe association. If other persons desire to form a religious associationwith some purpose other than the propagation of a message-- forexample, thepurposeofpromoting in theworld, simplyby exhortationandbytheinspirationoftheexampleofJesus,acertaintypeoflife--theyareatperfect libertytodoso.But foranorganizationwhich is foundedwith the fundamental purpose of propagating amessage to commit itsresources and its name to those who are engaged in combating themessage is not tolerance but simple dishonesty. Yet it is exactly thiscourse of action that is advocated by those who would allow non-doctrinal religion to be taught in the name of doctrinal churches--churchesthatareplainlydoctrinalbothintheirconstitutionsandinthedeclarationswhichtheyrequireofeverycandidateforordination.

The matter may be made plain by an illustration from secular life.SupposeinapoliticalcampaigninAmericatherebeformedaDemocraticclub for the purpose of furthering the cause of the Democratic party.SupposetherearecertainothercitizenswhoareopposedtothetenetsoftheDemocraticclubandinoppositiondesiretosupporttheRepublicanparty. What is the honest way for them to accomplish their purpose?Plainlyit issimplytheformationofaRepublicanclubwhichshallcarryonapropagandainfavorofRepublicanprinciples.Butsuppose,insteadof pursuing this simple course of action, the advocates of Republicanprinciples should conceive the notion of making a declaration ofconformity toDemocratic principles, thus gaining an entrance into theDemocraticclubandfinallyturningitsresourcesintoanantidemocraticpropaganda.Thatplanmightbeingenious.Butwoulditbehonest?Yetitis just exactly such a plan which is adopted by advocates of a non-doctrinal religionwho by subscription to a creed gain an entrance intotheteachingministryofdoctrinalorevangelicalchurches.Letnoonebeoffended by the illustration taken from ordinary life.We are not for amomentsuggestingthattheChurchisnomorethanapoliticalclub.ButthefactthattheChurchismorethanapoliticalclubdoesnotmeanthatinecclesiasticalaffairsthereisanyabrogationofthehomelyprinciplesofhonesty.TheChurchmaypossiblybemorehonest,butcertainlyitoughtnottobelesshonest,thanapoliticalclub.

Certainly the essentially creedal character of evangelical churches isfirmly fixed.Amanmaydisagreewith theWestminsterConfession, forexample, but he can hardly fail to see what it means; at least he canhardly fail tounderstand the "systemofdoctrine"which is taught in it.The Confession, whatever its faults may be, is certainly not lacking indefiniteness. And certainly amanwho solemnly accepts that system ofdoctrine as his own cannot at the same time be an advocate of anondoctrinal religionwhich regardsas a trifling thing thatwhich is theverysumandsubstanceoftheConfessionandtheverycenterandcoreoftheBibleuponwhichit isbased.Similar isthecaseinotherevangelicalchurchesTheProtestantEpiscopalChurch,someofwhosemembers,itistrue,mightresentthedistinctivetitleof"evangelical,"isclearlyfoundeduponacreed,and that creed, including theexultant supernaturalismofthe New Testament and the redemption offered by Christ, is plainlyinvolved in theBook of CommonPrayerwhich every priest in his ownnameandinthenameofthecongregationmustread.

The separation of naturalistic liberalism from the evangelical churcheswouldnodoubtgreatlydiminish the size of the churches.ButGideon'sthree hundred were more powerful than the thirty-two thousand withwhichthemarchagainsttheMidianitesbegan.

Certainlythepresentsituationisfraughtwithdeadlyweakness.Christianmen have been redeemed from sin, withoutmerit of their own, by thesacrificeofChrist.Buteverymanwhohasbeentrulyredeemedfromsinlongstocarrytoothersthesameblessedgospelthroughwhichhehimselfhasbeensaved.ThepropagationofthegospelisclearlythejoyaswellasthedutyofeveryChristianman.Buthowshallthegospelbepropagated?ThenaturalansweristhatitshallbepropagatedthroughtheagenciesoftheChurch--boardsofmissionsandthelike.Anobviousduty,therefore,rests upon the Christian man of contributing to the agencies of theChurch. But at this point the perplexity arises. The Christian mandiscovers to his consternation that the agencies of the Church arepropagatingnotonlythegospelasfoundintheBibleandinthehistoriccreeds,butalsoatypeofreligiousteachingwhichisateveryconceivablepointthediametricaloppositeofthegospel.Thequestionnaturallyariseswhether there is any reason for contributing to such agencies at all.Of

everydollarcontributedtothem,perhapshalfgoestothesupportoftruemissionariesoftheCross,whiletheotherhalfgoestothesupportofthosewhoarepersuadingmenthatthemessageoftheCrossisunnecessaryorwrong.Ifpartofourgiftsistobeusedtoneutralizetheotherpart,isnotcontribution tomissionboards altogether absurd?Thequestionmay atleastverynaturallyberaised.Itshouldnotindeedbeansweredhastilyinawayhostiletocontributiontomissionboards.Perhapsitisbetterthatthegospelshouldbebothpreachedandcombatedbythesameagenciesthan that it should not be preached at all. At any rate, the truemissionariesoftheCross,eventhoughthemissionboardswhichsupportthemshouldturnouttobeverybad,mustnotbeallowedtobeinwant.But thesituation, fromthepointofviewof theevangelicalChristian, isunsatisfactory in the extreme. Many Christians seek to relieve thesituation by "designating" their gifts, instead of allowing them to bedistributedbythemissionagencies.Butatthispointoneencountersthecentralization of power which is going on in the modern Church. Onaccountofthatcentralizationthedesignationofgiftsisoftenfoundtobeillusory. If gifts are devotedby the donors to onemission known to beevangelical, that does not always really increase the resources of thatmission; for the mission boards can simply cut down the proportionassignedtothatmissionfromtheundesignatedfunds,andthefinalresultisexactlythesameasiftherehadbeennodesignationofthegiftatall.

Theexistenceandthenecessityofmissionboardsandthelikeprevents,ingeneral,oneobvioussolutionof thepresentdifficulty in theChurch--the solutionofferedby local autonomyof the congregation. Itmightbesuggestedthateachcongregationshoulddetermineitsownconfessionoffaithoritsownprogramofwork.Theneachcongregationmightseemtobe responsible only for itself, and might seem to be relieved from theodioustaskofjudgingothers.Butthesuggestionisimpracticable.Asidefrom the question whether a purely congregational system of churchgovernmentisdesirableinitself,itisimpossiblewheremissionagenciesare concerned. In the support of such agencies, many congregationsobviously must unite; and the question arises whether evangelicalcongregations can honestly support agencies which are opposed to theevangelicalfaith.

Atany rate, the situation cannotbehelpedby ignoring facts.Theplainfactisthatliberalism,whetheritbetrueorfalse,isnomere"heresy"--nomere divergence at isolated points from Christian teaching. On thecontrary it proceeds from a totally different root, and it constitutes, inessentials, a unitary system of its own. That does not mean that allliberals hold all parts of the system, or that Christians who have beenaffectedbyliberalteachingatonepointhavebeenaffectedatallpoints.Thereissometimesasalutarylackoflogicwhichpreventsthewholeofaman'sfaithbeingdestroyedwhenhehasgivenupapart.Butthetruewayinwhichtoexamineaspiritualmovementisinitslogicalrelations;logicisthegreatdynamic,andthelogicalimplicationsofanywayofthinkingaresoonerorlatercertaintobeworkedout.Andtakenasawhole,evenas it actually exists today, naturalistic liberalism is a fairly unitaryphenomenon; it is tending more and more to eliminate from itselfillogical remnants of Christian belief. It differs from Christianity in itsviewofGod,ofman,oftheseatofauthorityandofthewayofsalvation.Anditdiffers fromChristianitynotonly in theologybut in thewholeoflife.Itisindeedsometimessaidthattherecanbecommunioninfeelingwhere communion in thinking is gone, a communion of the heart asdistinguished from a communion of the head. But with respect to thepresent controversy, suchadistinctioncertainlydoesnotapply.On thecontrary, in reading the books and listening to the sermons of recentliberal teachers--so untroubled by the problem of sin, so devoid of allsympathyforguiltyhumanity,sopronetoabuseandridiculethethingsdearesttotheheartofeveryChristianman--onecanonlyconfessthatifliberalism is to return into the Christian communion there must be achangeofheartfullyasmuchasachangeofmind.Godgrantthatsuchachangeofheartmaycome!Butmeanwhilethepresentsituationmustnotbeignoredbutfaced.

Christianityisbeingattackedfromwithinbyamovementwhichisanti-Christiantothecore.

What is thedutyofChristianmenatsuchat time?What is theduty, inparticular,ofChristianofficersintheChurch?

In the firstplace, they should encourage thosewhoare engaging in theintellectual and spiritual struggle. They should not say, in the sense in

which some laymen say it, that more time should be devoted to thepropagation of Christianity, and less to the defense of Christianity.Certainly there should be propagation of Christianity. Believers shouldcertainlynotcontentthemselveswithwardingoffattacks,butshouldalsounfoldinanorderlyandpositivewaythefullrichesofthegospel.Butfarmore is usually meant by those who call for less defense and morepropagation.Whattheyreallyintendisthediscouragementofthewholeintellectualdefenseof the faith.And theirwords comeasablow in thefaceofthosewhoarefightingthegreatbattle.Asamatteroffact,notlesstime, but more time, should be devoted to the defense of the gospel.Indeed,truthcannotbestatedclearlyatallwithoutbeingsetoveragainsterror.ThusalargepartoftheNewTestamentispolemic;theenunciationofevangelicaltruthwasoccasionedbytheerrorswhichhadariseninthechurches.Soitwillalwaysbe,onaccountofthefundamentallawsofthehumanmind.Moreover, the present crisismust be taken into account.There may have been a day when there could be propagation ofChristianitywithout defense. But such a day at any rate is past. At thepresenttime,whentheopponentsof thegospelarealmost incontrolofourchurches,theslightestavoidanceof thedefenseof thegospel is justsheerunfaithfulnesstotheLord.TherehavebeenpreviousgreatcrisesinthehistoryoftheChurch,crisesalmostcomparabletothis.Oneappearedinthesecondcentury,whentheverylifeofChristendomwasthreatenedby the Gnostics. Another came in theMiddle Ages when the gospel ofGod's grace seemed forgotten. In such times of crisis, God has alwayssavedtheChurch.ButHehasalwayssaveditnotbytheologicalpacifists,butbysturdycontendersforthetruth.

Inthesecondplace,ChristianofficersintheChurchshouldperformtheirduty in decidingupon the qualifications of candidates for theministry.The question "For Christ or against him?" constantly arises in theexamination of candidates for ordination. Attempts are often made toobscuretheissue.Itisoftensaid:"Thecandidatewillnodoubtmoveinthedirectionof thetruth; lethimnowbesentoutto learnaswellastopreach."AndsoanotheropponentofthegospelentersthecouncilsoftheChurch, and another false prophet goes forth to encourage sinners tocomebeforethejudgmentseatofGodcladinthemiserableragsoftheirown righteousness. Such action is not really "kind" to the candidate

himself. It is never kind to encourage a man to enter into a life ofdishonesty. The fact often seems to be forgotten that the evangelicalChurchesarepurelyvoluntaryorganizations;nooneisrequiredtoenterinto their service. If a man cannot accept the belief of such churches,there are other ecclesiastical bodies in which he can find a place. ThebeliefofthePresbyterianChurch,forexample,isplainlysetforthintheConfession of Faith, and the Church will never afford any warmth ofcommunionorengagewithanyrealvigorinherworkuntilherministersareinwhole-heartedagreementwiththatbelief.Itisstrangehowintheinterests of an utterly false kindness tomen, Christians are sometimeswillingtorelinquishtheirloyaltytothecrucifiedLord.

In the third place, Christian officers in the Church should show theirloyalty to Christ in their capacity as members of the individualcongregations.The issueoftenarises in connectionwith the choiceof apastor.Suchandsuchaman,itissaid,isabrilliantpreacher.Butwhatisthecontentofhispreaching?IshispreachingfullofthegospelofChrist?Theanswerisoftenevasive.Thepreacherinquestion,itissaid,isofgoodstandingintheChurch,andhehasneverdeniedthedoctrinesorgrace.Therefore,itisurged,heshouldbecalledtothepastorate.Butshallwebesatisfied with such negative assurances? Shall we be satisfied withpreacherswhomerely"donotdeny"theCrossofChrist?Godgrantthatsuch satisfactionmaybebrokendown!Thepeople areperishingundertheministrationsofthosewho"donotdeny"theCrossofChrist.Surelysomethingmorethanthatisneeded.Godsendusministerswho,insteadofmerely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be on fire with the Cross,whosewholelifeshallbeoneburningsacrificeofgratitudetotheblessedSaviorwholovedthemandgaveHimselfforthem!

In the fourth place--the most important thing of all--there must be arenewal of Christian education. The rejection of Christianity is due tovariouscauses.Butaverypotentcauseissimpleignorance.Incountlesscases,Christianity isrejectedsimplybecausemenhavenottheslightestnotion of what Christianity is. An outstanding fact of recent Churchhistory is the appalling growth of ignorance in the Church. Variouscauses,nodoubt,canbeassignedforthis lamentabledevelopment.Thedevelopmentisduepartlytothegeneraldeclineofeducation--atleastso

farasliteratureandhistoryareconcerned.Theschoolsofthepresentdayarebeing ruinedby theabsurdnotion that education should follow theline of least resistance, and that something can be "drawn out" of themind before anything is put in. They are also being ruined by anexaggeratedemphasisonmethodologyattheexpenseofcontentandonwhat ismateriallyusefulat theexpenseof thehighspiritualheritageofmankind.Theselamentabletendencies,moreover,areindangerofbeingmade permanent through the sinister extension of state control. Butsomething more than the general decline in education is needed toaccountforthespecialgrowthofignoranceintheChurch.Thegrowthofignorance in the Church is the logical and inevitable result of the falsenotionthatChristianityisalifeandnotalsoadoctrine;ifChristianityisnotadoctrinethenofcourseteachingisnotnecessarytoChristianity.ButwhateverbethecausesforthegrowthofignoranceintheChurch,theevilmust be remedied. It must be remedied primarily by the renewal ofChristianeducation in the family,butalsoby theuseofwhateverothereducationalagenciestheChurchcanfind.ChristianeducationisthechiefbusinessofthehourforeveryearnestChristianman.Christianitycannotsubsist unlessmen know what Christianity is; and the fair and logicalthing is to learnwhatChristianity is, not from its opponents, but fromthosewhothemselvesareChristians.Thatmethodofprocedurewouldbetheonlyfairmethodinthecaseofanymovement.Butitisstillmoreinplace in thecaseofamovementsuchasChristianitywhichhas laid thefoundationofallthatweholdmostdear.MenhaveabundantopportunitytodaytolearnwhatcanbesaidagainstChristianity,anditisonlyfairthattheyshouldalsolearnsomethingaboutthethingthatisbeingattacked.

Suchmeasures areneeded today. The present is a timenot for ease orpleasure, but for earnest and prayerful work. A terrible crisisunquestionablyhas arisen in theChurch. In theministry of evangelicalchurchesaretobefoundhostsofthosewhorejectthegospelofChrist.Bythe equivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation ofdifferences of opinion as though they were only differences about theinterpretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured forthosewhoarehostiletotheveryfoundationsofthefaith.Andnowthereare some indications that the fiction of conformity to the past is to bethrownoff,andtherealmeaningofwhathasbeentakingplace is tobe

allowedtoappear.TheChurch,itisnowapparentlysupposed,hasalmostbeeneducateduptothepointwheretheshacklesoftheBiblecanopenlybecastawayandthedoctrineof theCrossofChristcanberelegatedtothelimboofdiscardedsubtleties.

Yet there is in the Christian life no room for despair. Only, ourhopefulnessshouldnotbefoundedonthesand.Itshouldbefounded,notupon a blind ignorance of the danger, but solely upon the preciouspromises ofGod. Laymen, aswell asministers, should return, in thesetryingdays,withnewearnestness,tothestudyoftheWordofGod.

If theWord ofGod be heeded, theChristian battlewill be fought bothwithloveandwithfaithfulness.Partypassionsandpersonalanimositieswillbeputaway,butontheotherhand,evenangelsfromheavenwillberejected if theypreachagospeldifferent from theblessedgospel of theCross.Everymanmustdecideuponwhichsidehewillstand.Godgrantthatwemaydecidearight!

What the immediate futuremay bring we cannot presume to say. Thefinal result indeed is clear. God has not deserted His Church; He hasbroughtherthroughevendarkerhoursthanthosewhichtryourcouragenow, yet the darkest hour has always come before the dawn.We havetoday the entrance of paganism into the Church in the name ofChristianity. But in the second century a similar battlewas fought andwon.Fromanotherpointofview,modernliberalismis likethe legalismof the middle ages, with its dependence upon the merit of man. AndanotherReformationinGod'sgoodtimewillcome.

Butmeanwhile our souls are tried.We can only try to do our duty inhumility and in sole reliance upon the Savior who bought us withHisblood.Thefuture is inGod'shand,andwedonotknowthemeansthatHewilluseintheaccomplishmentofHiswill.Itmaybethatthepresentevangelical churcheswill face the facts, and regain their integritywhileyetthereistime.Ifthatsolutionistobeadoptedthereisnotimetolose,since the forces opposed to the gospel are now almost in control. It ispossible that the existing churches may be given over altogether tonaturalism,thatmenmaythenseethatthefundamentalneedsofthesoularetobesatisfiednotinsidebutoutsideoftheexistingchurches,andthat

thusnewChristiangroupsmaybeformed.

Butwhatever solution theremay be, one thing is clear. Theremust besomewheregroupsofredeemedmenandwomenwhocangathertogetherhumblyinthenameofChrist,togivethankstoHimforHisunspeakablegift and to worship the Father through Him. Such groups alone cansatisfytheneedsofthesoul.Atthepresenttime,thereisonelongingofthehumanheartwhichisoftenforgotten--itisthedeep,patheticlongingof theChristian for fellowshipwithhis brethren.Onehearsmuch, it istrue, about Christian union and harmony and co-operation. But theunionthatismeantisoftenaunionwiththeworldagainsttheLord,oratbest a forced union of machinery and tyrannical committees. HowdifferentisthetrueunityoftheSpiritinthebondofpeace!Sometimes,itis true, the longing for Christian fellowship is satisfied. There arecongregations,eveninthepresentageofconflict,thatarereallygatheredaroundthetableofthecrucifiedLord;therearepastorsthatarepastorsindeed. But such congregations, in many cities, are difficult to find.Wearywith theconflictsof theworld,onegoes into theChurch to seekrefreshment for the soul. Andwhat does one find?Alas, too often, onefindsonlytheturmoiloftheworld.Thepreachercomesforward,notoutofasecretplaceofmeditationandpower,notwiththeauthorityofGod'sWordpermeatinghismessage,notwithhumanwisdompushedfar intothebackgroundbythegloryoftheCross,butwithhumanopinionsaboutthesocialproblemsof thehouroreasysolutionsof thevastproblemofsin.Suchisthesermon.Andthenperhapstheserviceisclosedbyoneofthosehymnsbreathingout the angrypassions of 1861,which are to befoundinthebackpartofthehymnals.Thusthewarfareoftheworldhasenteredeven into thehouseofGod,And sad indeed is theheart of themanwhohascomeseekingpeace.

Istherenorefugefromstrife?Istherenoplaceofrefreshingwhereamancanprepareforthebattleoflife?Istherenoplacewheretwoorthreecangather in Jesus' name, to forget for the moment all those things thatdividenationfromnationandracefromrace,toforgethumanpride,toforget thepassionsofwar, to forget thepuzzlingproblemsof industrialstrife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot of the Cross? Iftherebesuchaplace,thenthatisthehouseofGodandthatthegateof

heaven.Andfromunderthethresholdofthathousewillgoforthariverthatwillrevivethewearyworld.

MONERGISMBOOKS

ChristianityandLiberalismbyJ.GreshamMachen,Copyright©2015

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American CopyrightConventions.Bypaymentoftherequiredfees,youhavebeengrantedthenon-exclusive,non-transferablerighttoaccessandreadthetextofthise-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted,downloaded,decompiled,reverseengineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofMonergismBooks.

ePuband.mobiEditionsMay2015.Requests for informationshouldbeaddressedto:MonergismBooks,POBox491,WestLinn,OR97068