Dr. Thompson himself bears witness, unconsciously, to the truth of this distinction. Along with his testimonies from the Heathen conscience, he gives us two testimonies from the Christian conscience. The one is his own feelings on seeing a woman carried to the Tombs. He says he felt sympathy for her, and would fain have saved her from that shame, while he wished her crime to be punished. The other is the testimony of Dr. Bushnell, that the "necessary reason" why wicked people, remaining wicked, should not be in heaven, is, that it would destroy the happiness of heaven. These two Christians, therefore, have consciences which do not testify to punishment proceeding from naked, arbitrary, and vindictive law, such as the Pagan conscience accepts, but punishment having a reasonable end, a benevolent purpose, and accompanied with sympathy for the sinner.

Another position of Dr. Thompson is, however, so extraordinary, that it needs more consideration. His fifth proposition is this: "_The high and sacred Fatherhood which the gospel reveals is a Fatherhood in Christ towards those who love him, and not a general Fatherhood of indiscriminate love and blessing for the race._"

A certain want of logical clearness in our author's mind appears in the very statement of this proposition. He joins together a positive and a negative, which have no ant.i.thetical relation. We entirely agree with him, that the Fatherhood of G.o.d is _not_ one of _indiscriminate_ love and blessing for the race; but we utterly reject the proposition, that the Fatherhood which Christ reveals is only one towards those who love him.

The apostle John tells us that "we love him because he first loved us."

And again: "Herein is love; not that we loved G.o.d, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The doctrine of the apostle is exactly opposite to that of Dr. Thompson. The modern divine teaches that G.o.d only loves those who first love him; but the ancient divine teaches that only by G.o.d's loving us first do we come to love him.

Nor is this doctrine peculiar to John. It is a fundamental truth of the New Testament, that G.o.d's fatherly love, manifested to the soul, creates an answering love, and that nothing else can create it. Jesus said of the woman, "She loved much; but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." G.o.d's forgiving love comes first, and creates a grateful love in return. And again we read (John 3:16), "G.o.d so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." He therefore loved the world while it was still alienated from him. And again we are told by the Saviour (Matt.

5:44) to "love our enemies, that we may be the children of our Father in heaven," who loves his enemies.

Possibly our friend may say, "Yes, G.o.d loves the sinner; but he does not love him with a _fatherly_ love, but only with a general love." Perhaps a copy of the New Testament may be used in the Tabernacle Church, New York, which does not contain the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Only on some such supposition can we account for this a.s.sertion of Dr. Thompson, that "the high and sacred Fatherhood which the gospel reveals is a Fatherhood in Christ towards those who love him." Is that "_high and sacred Fatherhood of G.o.d_" revealed anywhere more fully and plainly than in this parable?

and does it not teach expressly that the father loved the son, while he was absent, as a son? Is not his joy at the return of his son the evidence of that love which clung to him while he was away? Even after the son returned, he had not begun to love his father as a son: he did not think he had any right to do so. He did not expect that his father would love him again: he only expected to be as a servant. It is evidently, then, utterly false to say that G.o.d's Fatherhood, revealed in the gospel, is only a Fatherhood towards those who love him: it is a Fatherhood to those who hate him and to those who fear him. His love creates theirs, and is not created by it. Such a doctrine as this of Dr. Thompson, if generally believed, would sap the foundations of Christian life, and turn the gospel of reconciling grace into a cold system of retribution.

As a proof of this melancholy opinion,-an opinion which takes the life out of the gospel,-the author relies chiefly on that pa.s.sage in which Jesus says to the Jews that they were of their father the devil. (John 8:44.) From this he argues that they had no right to regard G.o.d as Father, and that no one has that right except pious believers in Christ. But was not G.o.d at that very moment their Father, in the same way that the father of the prodigal son was his father while he was yet in the far country? The prodigal son could not see his father's love: while absent from him, he could not tell how much his father loved him. Only when he returned, and came back to his father's house, could he behold that blessed countenance and feel that pardoning love. But none the less did his father love him during all that absence; none the less did he desire his return.

When Jesus said to the unbelieving Jews, "Ye are of your father the devil," was he describing G.o.d's state of mind, or their state of mind? Did he mean that G.o.d was alienated from them, or that they were alienated from G.o.d? He evidently meant to say that they were in a _devilish_ state of mind; that in their character and feelings they partook of the spirit of the devil, and not of the spirit of G.o.d. He was describing their position in relation to G.o.d, not G.o.d's position in relation to them. The text, therefore, appears to have no direct bearing on the subject. It teaches, indeed, that they could have no truly filial feeling towards G.o.d; but it does not show that he might not have a truly parental feeling towards them. If they could not truly say, "Abba, Father," he could say, "My son, give me thy heart."

We dwell on this because our author seems to us to have a.s.sumed a position injurious, if not fatal, to the most vital force of the gospel. That which subdues and converts the heart, and makes all things new in the soul, is not to be told, that G.o.d will be our Father when we love him, but that he is our Father now. "Herein is love; not that we loved G.o.d, but that he loved us." "G.o.d commends his love toward us, that, _while we were sinners_, Christ died for us." But why multiply quotations to prove that which is written on the face of the gospel, and to which all Christian experience bears testimony? It is G.o.d's love to us, descending in Christ, while we are estranged and far off, which draws up our affection to him: it is not our love which takes the initiative, and draws his down.

The sixth position argues future retribution from the demerit of sin, and a.s.serts that "no punishment equal to the demerit of sin is, or can be, inflicted in the present life."

The boldness of this proposition is only equalled by the poverty of the reasoning by which it is supported. To a.s.sert that it is not in the power of G.o.d adequately to punish sin in this world, is to profess a knowledge of the resources of Omnipotence, and an acquaintance with the deserts of man, which it seems to us presumptuous to claim. On this point it is not necessary to enlarge. An _a priori_ argument to prove that G.o.d cannot punish sin in this life as much as it deserves to be punished, can carry conviction to no mind which possesses any intellectual humility.

The seventh position declares that "there is no conceivable mode and no revealed promise by which the Fatherhood of G.o.d can make one, dying in impenitence and unbelief, holy and blessed in the future world."

This is, of course, the very key-stone of the argument in support of the doctrine of everlasting punishment. The burden of proof rests upon those who a.s.sert that doctrine. It is not enough that Scripture does not expressly declare that there is an opportunity in the other life for repentance and pardon; for Scripture is dealing with us in this life, and has no occasion to say much of the opportunities of the other. Those who wish to prove that there is no opportunity hereafter must show some text which expressly declares it. No such text is produced, and there is no such text in the Bible. If Jesus had said, "You must repent in this life, for after death there will be no opportunity;" or, "At death, man's spiritual condition is finally determined;" or, "After this life, man cannot turn from evil to good,"-we should have some distinct proof of the doctrine. But now we have none.

The Parable of Dives and Lazarus is referred to more than once by our author in support of his position. It is sufficient to say in regard to this, that the most Orthodox commentators, provided they are scholars, expressly deny that this refers to the doctrine of everlasting punishment.

Olshausen, for instance, says, "Rightly to understand the whole delineation, we must, above all, keep clearly in view, that it is not everlasting salvation or condemnation which is here described, but the middle state of departed souls, between death and the resurrection." "In our parable, there is no possible reference to the everlasting condemnation of the rich man, inasmuch as the germ of love, and of faith in love, is clearly expressed in his words." The word translated "h.e.l.l" in this parable is not Gehenna, but Hades.

Our author says, and says justly, that we can form no opinion as to another probation hereafter from _a priori_ reasoning, but that the question must be answered only from Scripture. Having said this, he immediately proceeds to argue it, _a priori_, stating that there are only three conceivable modes by which those dying impenitent can be saved; and then tries to show that neither is possible. After this, he quotes a few pa.s.sages bearing only indirectly, and by inference, upon the question. The Parable of the Ten Virgins is one of these, because in it it is said, "The door is shut;" and, "Depart! I know you not." With regard to this parable, also, Olshausen says that "the words 'I know you not' cannot denote eternal condemnation;" that the foolish virgins were "saved, but not sanctified;" and that the parable does not distinguish between the penitent and the impenitent, but between the penitent believers who watch and those who do not watch.

Of course, we have not been able to notice all the arguments of this book, or all the texts referred to; but we have perhaps said enough to show that its positions are not all tenable, and that its arguments are not absolutely unanswerable. This book of Dr. Thompson, though able, cannot be called conclusive.

-- 5. Defence of the Trinity, by Frederick D. Huntington, D. D.

The last section of this Appendix shall be devoted to an examination and criticism of Dr. Huntington's sermon, printed some time since, in defence of the Trinity. The course of our argument will be as follows. We shall give the reasons which have induced Unitarians to reject the Church doctrine of the Trinity; also examining Dr. Huntington's positions and arguments in its support.

The princ.i.p.al reasons, then, for rejecting the Church doctrine of the Trinity, as a.s.signed by Unitarians, are these:-

1. That it is nowhere taught in the New Testament.

2. That every statement of the Trinity, which has ever been made, has been either, (1.) Self-contradictory; (2.) Unintelligible; (3.) Tritheistic; or, (4.) Unitarian, in the form of Sabellianism, or of Arianism.

3. That the arguments for it are inadequate.

4. That the arguments against it are overwhelming.

5. That the good ascribed to it does not belong to it, but to the truths which underlie it.

6. That great evils to the Church come from it.

7. That it is a doctrine of philosophy, and not of faith.

8. That we can trace its gradual historic formation in the Christian Church.

9. That it is opposed to a belief in the real divinity of Christ, and to a belief in his real humanity; thus undermining continually the faith of the Church in the divine humanity of Christ Jesus the Lord.

Proceeding, then, to an examination of these reasons, we say,-

I. The Church doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in the New Testament.

To prove this, as it is a negative proposition, would require us to go through the whole New Testament. But we are saved this necessity by the fact that we have a statement on this point from one of Dr. Huntington's own witnesses, and one on whom he mainly relies. He brings forward Neander, the great Church historian, as a believer in the Trinity (p.

361), and again (p. 378), by an error which he has since candidly admitted, quotes him as saying, "It is the fundamental article of the Christian faith,"-which is just what he denies in the following pa.s.sage.

We call Neander to the stand, however, _now_, to have his unimpeachable testimony as a Trinitarian (and a Trinitarian claimed by Dr. Huntington with pride) to the fact, that the doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere stated in the New Testament. This is what Neander says of the Trinity, in the first volume of his great work on Church History (p. 572, Torrey's translation):-

"We now proceed to the doctrine in which Theism, taken in its connection with the proper and fundamental essence of Christianity, or with the doctrine of redemption, finds its ultimate completion-_the doctrine of the Trinity_. This doctrine does not strictly belong to the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as appears sufficiently evident from the fact, that it _is expressly held forth in no one particular pa.s.sage of the New Testament_; for the only one in which it is done, the pa.s.sage relating to the three that, bear record (1 John 5:7), is undoubtedly spurious, and in its ungenuine shape, testifies to the fact, how foreign such a collocation is from the style of the New Testament Scriptures. We find in the New Testament no other fundamental article than that of which the apostle Paul says, that other foundation can no man lay than that is laid-the annunciation of Jesus as the Messiah."

With this authority we might be content. But Dr. Huntington differs from Neander in thinking that Jesus has himself stated the doctrine of the Trinity, and stated it clearly and fully, in the baptismal formula. (Matt.

28:19.) He says that this is "a clear and full declaration of the fundamental article of Christian belief." He says, "Now, if ever, Christ will distinctly proclaim the doctrine of Christendom;" and he then declares that Christ, in this pa.s.sage, told his Church to baptize "in the Triune name."(90)

Not in the Tri_une_ name, certainly. This is an a.s.sumption of our friend.

He may think that this is implied; that this is to be inferred; that this is what Christ meant; but certainly it is not what Christ said. Christ gives us here _three_ objects of baptism, no doubt; but he does not say that they are one. How far this baptismal formula is "a clear and full declaration" of the doctrine of the Trinity will appear thus. The doctrine of the Trinity declares,-

1. That the Father is G.o.d.

2. That the Son is G.o.d.

3. That the Holy Ghost is G.o.d.

4. That the Holy Ghost is a person, like the Father and the Son.

5. That these three persons const.i.tute one G.o.d.

Of these five propositions, all of which are essential to the doctrine of the Trinity, _not one is stated in the baptismal formula_. Christ here says _nothing_ about the deity of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost; _nothing_ about the personality of either of them; and _nothing_ about their unity: It is difficult to conceive, therefore, how Dr. Huntington can bring himself to call this a command to baptize in the Triune name.

Dr. Huntington adds, "Our faith is summoned to the three persons, of the one G.o.d." But nothing is said of three _persons_; nothing is said of their being one G.o.d.

He says, "No hint is given that there is any difference of nature, dignity, duration, power, or glory, between them."

We admit it, but also say, that no hint is given of any _equality_ of nature, dignity, duration, power, or glory, between them. Which way, then, is the argument? Christ does not state, on the one hand, that the three are unequal or different: he does not state, on the other hand, that they are equal and the same. The inference of proof from this fact seems to us to be this: If the apostles, when Christ spoke to them, were already full believers in the church doctrine of the Trinity, the fact that Christ did not deny it would be an argument in its favor; but if the apostles were, at that time, wholly ignorant of the Trinity, then the fact, that he did not a.s.sert it distinctly, at least shows that he did not mean to teach it at that time. That inference appears to us a very modest one. But Dr.

Huntington will admit that they did not know the doctrine; for he tells us that it was the purpose of Christ to teach it to them at that time. To which we can only reply, If he meant to teach the doctrine, why did he not teach it?