페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

• I discover, also, that this threeness helps me the more, and lifts me the higher, because it baffles me. If I think it more philosophical and simple to conceive God only as one Person, that Person will really be a finite conception, unwittingly though very absurdly taken as infinite. And then, as the God shrinks, the mind freezes. The simplicity it so much admired, after all, brings disappointment. The ease of this philosophic unity is itself á great fault; for it is as if we had God's measure, and saw his boundaries. He is too clear to be infinite; and, what is even worse, too clear to have his warmth in the soul. : ... Represented as three, God is yet one-the more magnificently one because He is three. The soul has her sublimation, because she is held in a maze, and God is warm because He is a mystery.'-Pp. 160, 161.

Here the writer is only asserting, in his own language, the dogmatic teaching of the Church universal; and his argument may possibly remind some readers of the language of Möhler, quoted, though in a different connexion, in a recent number of the Christian Remembrancer.'

Then, again, Dr. Bushnell is perfectly free from those theories (so popular in America) of the Universalists and others, who would represent the Almighty as so weakly merciful that He ceases to be just:

Christ must be preached, not as an Ambassador of pardon simply, but as justification. The rigour of God's integrity, and the sanctity of His law, must be maintained. It is not Christianity, as I view it, to go forth and declare that God is so good, so lenient, such a fatherly Being, that He forgives freely. No; God is better than that—so good, so fatherly, that. He will not only remit sins, but will so maintain the sanctity of His law as to make us feel them. The let-go system, the overlooking, accommodating, smoothing method of mere leniency, is a virtual surrender of all exactness, order, and law. The law is made void; nothing stands firm. God is a willow, bending to the breath of mortals. There is no throne left, no authority, nothing to move the conscience—therefore, really no goodness. Any doctrine of pardon without justification must of necessity weaken at last, the sense of religion, and it is well if it does not even remove the conception of Divine government itself.' -Pp. 250, 251.

And to prevent any misconception concerning his notion of justification he adds, as it seems to us, very excellently:

Christ must never be preached antinomially, or as a substitute for character. No such impression is to be endured. There must be no such jealousy of self-righteousness produced, that our hearers will hardly dare to be righteous at all. The very object for which Christ comes into the world, nay, the object of justification itself

, is character, righteousness in the life. The intention is, that the righteousness of the law itself shall at last be fulfilled in us ; that our robes shall be washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb, This mercy is mercy because it ends in character-character renewed, purified, sanctified, 'made white. Therefore we are to say with our Master himself, “Blessed”-blessed only—“are ye that hunger and thirst after righteousness.” –P. 251.

1 (That the Godhead should be One Person is utterly inconceivable (das ganz und gar Undenkbare), thoroughly irrational, and opposed to all true speculation.' -Möhler on Islam, &c. (čited in Christian Remembrancer, No. LXXXVII. vol. xxix, p. 145.)

This last quotation, coupled with a passage in another part of Dr. Bushnell's work, affords a hint of the causes which may have originally, perhaps, produced his distrust of dogma. The New England Churches (as the various denominations are all called in America) appear to have dogmatised, not upon those sacred verities taught in the creeds, and hymns, and liturgies of the early Church, but upon the questions connected with justification. Now, there are several reasons why dogmatism upon these points of theology should be of less value and authority than that of the creeds. In the first place, all doctrine concerning man's justification deals less with objective truth, like that enshrined in the creeds, and more largely with the subjective portions of religion. Hence individual temperament enters into consideration, in a way in which it cannot enter while we are confining our discussions to such doctrines as have been revealed to man concerning the triune God, and the incarnation of the Eternal Son. If, as we suppose all Christians will admit, whosoever is saved gains salvation through the merits of Christ alone, actually wrought or else foreseen, and yet at the same time faith, repentance, and obedience, (the last, of course, including the use of the appointed means of grace, where they may be had,) are necessary conditions of the believer's final safety, then it will follow, from mere varieties of disposition, and culture, and spiritual history, that particular teachers are found to dwell, some more upon the one meritorious Cause, some more upon the requisite conditions. Such difference will frequently be discovered to be one less of principle than of temperament. Moreover, some of these questions, far from being settled by the united voice of Christendom, have been among the very causes of disunion. Consequently, the formula of different religious communions concerning justification must needs possess less external authority than those time-honoured documents which are the heritage of universal Christendom. (That such is the judgment of the English Church is shown from the fact, that while the creeds are interwoven with her public devotional services, and therefore binding upon all her true children, the Thirty-nine Articles are only required to be signed by her clergy and by certain graduates.) And, once more, it is the real Incarnation of the Eternal Word '—the actual coming in the flesh of the Son of God, born, dead, and risen for our salvation—that is the sole basis of our religion: and this, through the divinely appointed means by - which its belief and salutary influence is propagated, becomes the principle of Christian faith and righteousness. fact, and not any particular proposition concerning it, however true or useful in its place, which men may consider as containing the whole idea, or all that is essential to its purpose: this great fact,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This great

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

in the totality of its objective character, and in the consequent “totality of its applicable virtue and influence,—this is the real

Articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesiæ.' And if, as appears to. be the case, Dr. Bushnell has met with men who attempted to dogmatise in such a spirit as to make justification by faith exclude the equally true and important doctrine of a judgment according to works, we can easily understand that such unwarranted limitation of scriptural teaching may have produced in our author's mind that repulsion from dogma, which has now unhappily extended itself even to the Nicene Creed. And, therefore, before passing onward to the less pleasing task of controverting the leading principles of these Discourses, we will express our general agreement with the sentiments of one more passage:

· A doctrine of justification by faith is held by many so literal and forensic in its form, that the Gospel of Heaven's love and light is narrowed almost to a superstition. They scarcely dare to entertain the thought of a personal righteousness, or to look upon any such hope as permissible. It implies, they fear, some expectations of being saved, not wholly by the merits of Christ. They cannot even read or hear, without a little jealousy or disturbance of mind, those texts of Scripture that speak of assurance, liberty, a conscience void of offence, victory over sin, a pure heart, a blameless life, and a perfected love. They are so jealous of merit that they make a merit of not having any. They are so resolved on magnifying the grace of God, as almost to think it a crime to believe that the grace of God cau make them any better.'—P. 318.

Palliations such as those already alluded to, and passages of this nature, make us anxious to avow, once for all, that it is the principles of the work, and not its author, that we wish to judge. It is high time to attempt the justification of the charges brought against it.

And firstly, with respect to the functions and powers of language, Dr. Bushnell commences with some remarks upon etymology and syntax, which no one will dispute. They may all, however, be found, we think, in Horne Tooke's

Diversions of Purley,' Mr. R. C. Trench's ' Lectures on Words,' and the Greek Grammar' of Kühner, so well known to our academical scholars of the last ten years through the translation of Mr. W. E. Jelf. This portion is, however, only prefatory. The reader is by degrees led on to the main point of the dissertation, namely, the position, that as language, when describing immaterial phenomena, is metaphorical and symbolical only, and derived from objects patent to the senses, religious dogmatism is well-nigh, if not quite, impossible. {P. 61.) Now, Dr. Bushnell appears to us at once to overrate and underrate the powers of language; to overrate, at least by implication, its powers with respect to matter, and to underrate its powers in reference to mental science. So thoroughly, moreover, does he in one respect confound words and things, that he actually ascribes to peculiarities and deficiencies in language antitheses which, in truth, exist in rerum naturâ. It may be well to explain this last assertion at once, before entering more fully into other points.

1 Mill's Sermons on the Nature of Christianity, p. 55.

The nature of the Eternal and Almighty One is, of course, consistency and harmony itself. If any of His attributes (such as, for instance, perfect justice and perfect mercy) appear to us to clash, this arises from our imperfect apprehension of what their real perfection consists in, not from any dissonance in the abstract qualities themselves. This harmony is, in an infinitely low and subordinate degree, shared by those among His creatures who are obedient to the end for which He made them. There is harmony in the nature of the holy angels, whose wills are ever one with the Divine will; there is harmony in the restored nature of those triumphant ones who cry, • Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints.' Perhaps, too, though this assertion is more open to question, there is a kind of harmony in the life of the animal creation.

• With nature never do they wage

A foolish strife; they see
A bappy youth, and their old age

Is beautiful and free.'?. But it is far otherwise with fallen man. His nature, though in no part rendered substantively evil, has lost its harmony of action; and the restoration, even of the regenerate, is in this life incomplete.

His weakness and vileness, and yet, at the same time, his capacity for nobleness and virtue, were perceived even by heathen philosophers, and were to them (unenlightened by revelation) a profound enigma.

'Chaos of thought and passion all confused,
Still by himself abused or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;

Apoc. xv. 3. ? Wordsworth. His tone on this point is, we believe, that of all German poets, even the most religious, of whatever creed. They will not allow that either animals or the inanimate creation have shared in the fall. This has been observed by a very able French critic, M. Saint-René Taillandier, who remarks that S. Basil takes the opposite side, while the mystic founder of the Franciscans sympathises with the German view. Dr. Goulburn, in his concluding Bampton Lecture, discusses the text (Rom. viii. 19—23) on which the beautiful lines of the Christian Year, ‘It was not then a poet's dream,' &c. (4th Sunday after Trinity,) appear to be based. It must be owned, as Dr. G. admits, that the use of the term o Krious, in Mark xvi. 15, is against the application of the passage in Rom. vii. to the animal creation or inanimate nature. Conclusions on such subjects can never, we imagine, rank higher than pious opinions.

Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled;

The glory, jest, and riddle of the world.'i And when, in the fulness of time, God sent forth His Son to redeem the world, the Second Person of the ever-blessed Trinity became, though in a different way from sinful man, one vast antithesis, if such language may be used without irreverence. Creator, and yet a creature ; eternal, yet born in time; pure spirit allied with matter; true man, yet without sin; innocent, yet suffering punishment; dying, and yet by death the conqueror :

this stupendous contrast, shadowed forth for long ages by type and prophecy, is uttered plainly by apostles and evangelists, and has become the subject of Christian art, and eloquence, and poetry. It is suggested by those wondrous strains of music which lend a new pathos even to the inspired words, “Thy rebuke hath broken His heart;' "Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto his sorrow;' which proclaim the glory of that Nativity that was to earthly eyes so poor and humble, and burst forth, after notes of sorrow, into the rapture of the hallelujah chorus. It is, at least, attempted by those great masters of pictorial art, a Perugino, a Raphael, a Leonardo da Vinci, who in representations of the infancy, the actions, or even the agony of the Saviour, pourtray, so far as is possible in the human form and features, the light of hidden Godhead. It is the key-note of famous specimens of oratory, patristic, Gallican, Anglican, delivered upon the days kept in memory of the adorable Birth, or Passion, or Resurrection. Festivitatis hodiernæ, dilectissimi,'(begins a preacher, who is very great on such occasions,) 'verus venerator est et

pius cultor, qui nec de Incarnatione Domini aliquid falsum, * nec de Deitate aliquid sentit indignum. Paris enim periculi * malum est, si illi aut naturæ nostræ veritas aut Paternæ gloriæ

negatur æqualitas.” The same truth is thus antithetically, too, announced in the verses of our extremely beautiful English hymn, ‘Hark, the herald angels sing,' and in a thousand poems of other times and other lands. Thus, to take the first examples we chance to light upon, sing Peter the Venerable in the twelfth century, and Manzoni in our own day:

6

• Matris alitur intactæ
Puer-Deus sacro lacte,

Res stupenda sæculis!
Esca vivit alienâ
Per quem cuncta manent plena;
Nullis par miraculis !

Essay on Man. Pope may possibly have obtained the ideas, directly or indirectly, from Pascal.

2 S. Leo. Sermo vii. de Nativ. Domini.

« 이전계속 »