Jesus said "that he came down from heaven not to do his own will;" but G.o.d always does his own will. Jesus said that there were some things he did not know; but G.o.d knows everything. He declared that all power was _given_ to him in heaven and earth; but G.o.d's power cannot be given to him.

Scripture, therefore, as well as common sense, seems to deny the Orthodox doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

The common Trinitarian answer to these texts is, that Christ is speaking in his human nature when he a.s.serts these limitations. But this answer, as Dr. Bushnell has well shown, is no answer; for, as he says, "it not only does an affront to the plain language of Scripture, but virtually denies any real unity between the human and the divine." Jesus does not say, "All power in heaven and earth is given _to my human nature_," but "to _me_;"

and when the Trinitarian himself declares that in Christ, with two natures, there is but _one person_, the question is concerning that one person, whether _that_ is finite or infinite, absolute or dependent, omniscient or not so, omnipresent or not so, omnipotent or not so. The question does not concern his nature, but himself. The one person must be either finite or infinite: it cannot be both.

-- 4. Substantial Truth in this Doctrine.

But now we ask, What substantial truth underlies this formal error? What truth of life underlies this error of doctrine? Let us remember how empty the world was of G.o.d at the time of Christ's coming. The wisest men could speak thus with Pliny: "All religion is the offspring of necessity, weakness, and fear. What G.o.d is,-if in truth he be anything distinct from the world,-it is beyond the power of man's understanding to know." All intelligent men agreed that if G.o.d existed he could not possibly take any interest in the affairs of the world or of individuals. Phariseeism on the one hand, and Sadduceeism on the other,-a religion hardened into forms, and an empty scepticism, cold and dead,-divided the world between them.

But men cannot live without G.o.d, and be satisfied. They were feeling after him, if haply they might find him, who is not far from any one of us.

Then Christ came; and in all that he said and did, he spoke from the knowledge of G.o.d; he acted from the life of G.o.d. Here was one, then, at last, to whom G.o.d was not an opinion, but a reality; through whose life flowed the life of G.o.d in a steady current. We see that all sincere souls who came near Jesus received from him the same sight of G.o.d which he possessed; for faith in a living and present G.o.d is so congenial to the nature of man, that it carries conviction with it wherever it is not a mere opinion, but a state of the soul.

Those, therefore, who could find G.o.d nowhere else, found him in Christ.

Those who saw _him_, saw the Father. As when through a window we behold the heavens, as when in a mirror we see an image of the sun, we do not speak of the window or the mirror, but say that we see the sun and the heavens, so those who looked at Christ said that they saw G.o.d.

The apostle said that G.o.d was in Christ; and this was wholly true.

Christians afterwards said that Christ was G.o.d; and they thought they were only saying the same thing. They said that Christ had a divine nature as well as a human nature; and in this also there was no essential falsehood, for when we speak of our nature, we intend merely by it those elements of character which are original and permanent, which are not acquired, do not alter, and are never lost. G.o.d dwelt in the soul of Christ thus constantly, thus permanently. The Word thus "became flesh, and dwelt among us." The word of the Lord _came_ to the prophets, but it _dwelt_ in Christ. He and his Father were one. The vital truth of all this was that men were now able to see G.o.d manifested in man as a living, present reality. "_Here_," they said, "is G.o.d. We have found G.o.d. He is in Christ.

We can see him there."

Is it any wonder that men should have called Jesus G.o.d? that they should call him so still? In him truly "dwelt the fulness of the G.o.dhead bodily;"

and this indwelling Spirit expressed itself in what he said and what he did. When Jesus speaks, it is as if G.o.d speaks. When Jesus does anything, it is as if we saw G.o.d do it. It becomes to us an expression of the divine character. When Jesus says to the sinner, "Go and sin no more," we see in this a manifestation not merely of his own compa.s.sion, but of G.o.d's forgiving love; and when he dies, although G.o.d cannot die, yet he dies according to the divine will, and thus expresses G.o.d's willingness to suffer for the redemption of the world.

-- 5. Formal Error of the Orthodox Statement.

When we look at Christ's Divinity from this point of view, the distinction between the Trinitarian and Unitarian seems almost to disappear. Still the question remains, Is it right to call him G.o.d? The distinction remains between saying, "G.o.d was in Christ," and saying, "Christ was G.o.d." In short, was the _person_ of Christ human or divine? We agree with the Orthodox in saying that Christ had two natures-a divine nature and a human nature. We also maintain with them that he had one person. But the question comes, Was that one person divine or human, finite or infinite, dependent or absolute? The consciousness of the one person is a single consciousness. Christ could not at the same time have been conscious of knowing all things and of not knowing all things, of having all power and of not having it, of depending on G.o.d for all things and of not depending for anything. One of two things alone is possible. Either Christ was G.o.d united with a human soul, or he was a human soul united with G.o.d. When Christ uses the personal p.r.o.noun "I," he must mean by that "_I_" either the finite man or the infinite G.o.d. I believe the Unitarian is right in saying that this personal p.r.o.noun "I" always refers to the finite being and consciousness, and not to the infinite Being. For example: "_I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me._" "_I proceeded forth and came from G.o.d; neither came I of myself, but he sent me._" G.o.d cannot proceed from G.o.d; G.o.d cannot send G.o.d. Again: "If I honor myself, my honor is nothing; it is my Father that honoreth me." This cannot mean, "If G.o.d honors G.o.d, his honor is nothing; but it is G.o.d that honors him." It must mean that the human being, Christ, receives his honor from the divine Being. This view-that the person of Christ is human, but is intimately united and in perfect union with the indwelling G.o.d-makes all Scripture intelligible. Any other view is either unintelligible or contradictory.

This view of the divine nature of Christ united with the human person, of G.o.d dwelling in the flesh, does not confound the mind like the common Trinitarian view, and yet has a value for the heart of paramount importance. If Christ is really a man like ourselves, made in all respects like his brethren, and yet is thus at one with G.o.d, thus full of G.o.d, it shows us that sin and separation from G.o.d are accidental things, and not anything necessary. If Jesus is truly a man, he redeems and exalts humanity. What he has been is a type of what all men may be. Thus the apostle Paul speaks when he says that all things were created in Christ, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that he might go before us, or be our leader in all things; which is a much higher view than the common understanding of the pa.s.sage, which merely supposes him to have been G.o.d's instrument in creating the physical universe. He is the image of the invisible G.o.d-the first-born of the whole creation. This creation is the new creation-that which is intended in Revelation (3:14), where Christ is spoken of as the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of G.o.d, and that which Paul means when he says that in Christ Jesus neither circ.u.mcision nor uncirc.u.mcision is worth anything, "but the new creation."

All such pa.s.sages refer, as it seems to us, not to a past natural creation, but to a supernatural creation-a creation of life eternal, which, beginning in Christ, is to embrace the whole of humanity.

-- 6. Errors of Arianism and Naturalism.

And we cannot but think this doctrine far truer, as well as more Orthodox, than the Arianism which so long struggled in the Church for supremacy.

That view which supposed that Christ was neither truly man nor truly G.o.d, but some high, preexisting being between the two, appears to us to be the falsest and most unsatisfactory of all the doctrines concerning Christ's person. It separates him more entirely from our sympathies than either of the others. It destroys both his divinity and his humanity, and, by giving us something intermediate, gives us really nothing. It makes his apparent human life a delusion, his temptation unreal, his human sympathies and sorrows deceptive. We think, therefore, that the Church was right in rejecting the Arian doctrine.

We think it was also right in rejecting the Humanitarian doctrine, or that of mere Naturalism. Christ was something more than mere man,-something more than Moses and Elijah,-something more than a man of great religious genius. The peculiarity of Christ was, that he was chosen by G.o.d's wisdom, and prepared by G.o.d's providence, to be the typical man of the race,-the G.o.d-man, in whom the divine Spirit and human soul become one in a perfect union. He was, perhaps, placed, by an exceptional birth, where the first Adam stood,-rescued from inherited depravity, made in the image of G.o.d.

Then the Spirit was given him without measure. The word of G.o.d _dwelt_ in him, and did not merely come to him as a transient influence for a special purpose. Add to this a freely chosen aim of life, and a fidelity which was always about his Father's business, and aiming to finish the work which was given him to do, and we have a being in whom we can see either a manifestation of G.o.d or a manifestation of man. The Spirit in Christ was one with G.o.d; the soul and body were human.

CHAPTER IX. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

-- 1. This Doctrine of Paul not obsolete.

That portion of the New Testament which speaks so earnestly of justification by faith is by many supposed to have become obsolete for all useful purposes at the present time. The doctrine that "we are justified by faith, and not by works," it is supposed, was intended for the benefit of the Jews alone, and to amount to this-that admittance to the privileges of the gospel is to be obtained, not by practising the ceremonies and external ritual of the Jewish law, but by a simple belief in Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, as no one nowadays endeavors to become a Christian by practising the Jewish ceremonies, we suppose that there is no present need of this doctrine; and when we come upon it in the Scripture, we turn over the pages in search of something more practical and profitable. As, in the book of Acts, we read, that, "when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O Jews, reason would that I should bear with you; but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters," so we, when Paul is about to open his mouth to speak to us of this doctrine, think it a mere question of words and names, and of the Jewish law, and interrupt him to ask him for something _practical_. If he has anything to say to us of wrong-doing or wicked conduct, it would be reasonable to hear him; but we will be no judge of such matters as this.

There are also many persons, who, while they can understand the Gospels and enjoy them, find it difficult to understand and enjoy the writings of the apostle Paul. Among these writings, the most difficult is the Epistle to the Romans, and especially that part of it which treats of this doctrine of justification by faith. Anything which can be done to remove this difficulty will do good; for the writings of Paul are so intimately connected with the rest of the New Testament, that it is not easy to reject them, and yet to believe the rest. It can be done, no doubt; but it is done with difficulty. It is as if one part of the foundation of the house had given way: perhaps the house will not fall; but it has become unsafe. It is as if a part of the wall of a city had been battered down: the breach may be defensible from within; but it is also practicable from without. At all events, we miss the satisfaction of a complete faith, perfect and entire, round and full.

Besides, may there not be something important for us to know in this part of the New Testament? Are we quite sure we do not need these very doctrines, and that they will do us good?

We have said that it is sometimes thought that the questions discussed by Paul were only Jewish questions,-not human questions; that they belonged only to that time, not to all time. But, though the form which they a.s.sumed was temporary and local, there is reason to believe that the substance of the question is one belonging to human nature in every age; that it is the question of the spirit and the letter, the substance and the form, the root and the branches, the inside of religion and the outside. While contending against a particular Jewish error, the apostle unfolded principles by which similar errors may be opposed and refuted in every age.

At all events, it is a matter of fact, that there seldom has been in the Church any great religious movement which has not immediately gone back to the apostle Paul, and planted itself on his doctrine of justification by faith. This was the watchword of Luther, and the soul of the reformation.

Luther and his companions armed themselves with this doctrine to contend against the great power of the Papacy and the Romish Church.

Let us, then, endeavor to see what we can of the truth there may be in this doctrine.

-- 2. Its Meaning and Importance.

And, first, let us see what the doctrine does not mean, and what it does mean.

To be justified by faith does not mean that we are to be saved by our opinions. To say that a man can be saved by holding certain opinions, instead of certain other opinions, is to say what is contradicted by all experience; for experience shows us that there are good men holding every variety of opinion, and bad men holding every variety of opinion. But G.o.d saves men by making them good: therefore men are not saved by their opinions. Let us suppose that men are to be saved by the opinion that Jesus is the Christ: then we ought to find that all men holding that opinion are on the way of salvation; that is, are becoming good men. But this is far from being the case. In fact, the connection between mere opinion of any kind, and goodness, is very distant and indirect. No doubt, in the long run, opinion affects character; but it is only in the long run that it does so. And, at all events, the doctrine of the New Testament is very distinct and decided, that men may hold very sound opinions, and yet not be in the way of salvation. The Scribes and Pharisees held very sound opinions; and Jesus told his disciples to do whatever they said, but not to imitate their works; for their doctrine was much better than their lives.

Nor does the apostle mean to say that one can be saved without morality.

He certainly does not mean to undervalue goodness; for, in that case, he would contradict his own teachings, which uniformly declare, as all the rest of the Bible declares, that without holiness no man can see the Lord.

It is certainly a very superficial view which is satisfied with supposing that an earnest man, as the apostle certainly was, devoting his life, as he certainly did, to the teaching of Christianity, with such a grand intellect as he certainly possessed, could a.s.sert with so much energy a doctrine plainly contradicting common sense, daily observation, the plain teachings of Jesus, and his own uniform doctrine elsewhere.

Some persons have a short method of getting over the difficulty by saying that Paul did not himself know what he meant. They a.s.sume that he was talking at random. It would be about as wise, when we open Newton's "Principia," and cannot understand it, to say that Newton was talking at random; or, when we cannot understand Plato or some other profound metaphysician, to declare directly that he did not himself know what he was talking about. No doubt, this is the shortest and easiest way of getting out of such difficulties, but perhaps not the most modest, nor the most wise.

When an earnest man, a profound man, a man in the highest degree practical, a man who has done the greatest work for Christianity which has been done since its foundation, sums up his doctrine in a comprehensive maxim like this, it is, perhaps, wise to admit, at once, that he had a meaning, and probably an important one.

"No doubt he _had_ a meaning," it may be said; "but has he any meaning _now_? His formula meant something for the Jews; but does it mean anything for us? Is not this merely a Jewish question, with which we have nothing to do?"

This is another easy way of getting over difficulties. In reading the New Testament, when we come to a place where we are stopped by something which looks deep and is dark, we are often told, "That darkness is not depth: it is the shadow of a Jewish error which lies across the path."

Have we not often felt dissatisfied, when, approaching some great saying of Christ and his apostles from which we hoped to gain new insight, we have been told, "That has nothing to do with _us_. The Jews had such and such an opinion, and this was meant to show them their mistake"? So the great and earnest words of the Bible, which we thought to be full of spirit and life, are found to be only fossil remains of old opinions, of opinions long since pa.s.sed away-good for nothing but to be put into the museums of antiquaries, and paraded by scholastic pedants.