WhatisFaith?

byJ.GreshamMachen

TABLEOFCONTENTS

I.Introduction

II.FaithinGod

III.FaithinChrist

IV.FaithBornofNeed

V.FaithandtheGospel

VI.FaithandSalvation

VII.FaithandWorks

VIII.FaithandHope

CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

Thequestion,"WhatisFaith?",whichformsthesubjectofthefollowingdiscussion may seem to some persons impertinent and unnecessary.Faith,itmaybesaid,cannotbeknownexceptbyexperience,andwhenitisknownbyexperience logicalanalysisof it,andlogicalseparationof itfromotherexperiences,willonlyservetodestroyitspoweranditscharm.ThemanwhoknowsbyexperiencewhatitistotrustChrist,forexample,torestuponHimforsalvation,willneverneed,itmaybeheld,toengageinpsychologicalinvestigationsofthatexperiencewhichisthebasisofhis

life;and indeedsuch investigationsmayevenservetodestroythethingthatistobeinvestigated.

Such objections are only one manifestation of a tendency that is verywidespreadatthepresentday,thetendencytodisparagetheintellectualaspectofthereligiouslife.Religion,itisheld,isanineffableexperience;the intellectual expression of it can be symbolical merely; the mostvarious opinions in the religious sphere are compatible with afundamentalunityoflife;theologymayvaryandyetreligionmayremainthesame.

Obviously this temper of mind is hostile to precise definitions. Indeednothingmakesamanmoreunpopularinthecontroversiesofthepresentdaythananinsistenceupondefinitionofterms.Anything,itseems,maybeforgivenmorereadilythanthat.MendiscourseveryeloquentlytodayuponsuchsubjectsasGod,religion,Christianity,atonement,redemption,faith; but are greatly incensed when they are asked to tell in simplelanguagewhat theymean by these terms. They do not like to have theflowoftheireloquencecheckedbysovulgarathingasadefinition.Andsotheywillprobablybeincensedbythequestionwhichformsthetitleofthepresentbook; inthemidstofeloquentcelebrationsof faith—usuallyfaithcontrastedwithknowledge—itseemsdisconcertingtobeaskedwhatfaithis.

Thisanti-intellectualtendencyinthemodernworldisnotriflingthing;ithas its roots deep in the entire philosophical development of moderntimes.ModernphilosophysincethedaysofKant,withthetheologythathasbeen influencedby it,hashadas itsdominantnote, certainlyas itspresent-dayresult,adepreciationofthereasonandaskepticalanswertoPilate'squestion,"Whatistruth?"Thisattackupontheintellecthasbeenconductedbymenofmarkedintellectualpower;butanattackupontheintellectithasbeenallthesame.Andatlastthelogicalresultsofit,evenin the sphere of practice, are beginning to appear. A markedcharacteristic of the present day is a lamentable intellectual decline,whichhasappearedinallfieldsofhumanendeavorexceptthosethatdealwithpurelymaterialthings.Theintellecthasbeenbrowbeatensolongintheory that one cannot be surprised if it is now ceasing to function inpractice.SchleiermacherandRitschl,despitetheirownintellectualgifts,

have, it may fairly be maintained, contributed largely to produce thatindolentimpressionismwhich,forexampleinthefieldofNewTestamentstudies, has largely taken the place of the patient researches of agenerationorsoago.

Theintellectualdecadenceof theday isnot limitedtotheChurch,ortothe subject of religion, but appears in secular education as well.Sometimes it is assistedby absurdpedagogic theories,which,whatevertheir variety in detail, are alike in their depreciation of the labor oflearningfacts.Facts,inthesphereofeducation,arehavingahardtime.The old-fashioned notion of reading a book or hearing a lecture andsimplystoringupinthemindwhatthebookorthelecturecontains—thisis regarded as entirely out of date. A year or so ago I heard a notededucator give some advice to a company of college professors—advicewhich was typical of the present tendency in education. It is a greatmistake, he said in effect, to suppose that a college professor ought toteach; on the contrary he ought simply to give the students anopportunitytolearn.

Thispedagogictheoryoffollowingthelineofleastresistanceineducationandavoidingalldrudgeryandallhardworkhasbeenhavingitsnaturalresult;ithasjoinedforceswiththenaturalindolenceofyouthtoproduceinpresent-dayeducationaverylamentabledecline.

Thedeclinehasnot,indeed,beenuniversal;inthesphereofthephysicalsciences, for example, the acquisition of facts is not regarded asaltogether out of date. Indeed, the anti-intellectualistic tendency inreligionandinthosesubjectsthatdealspecificallywiththethingsofthespirit has been due, partly at least, to amonopolistic possession of theintellect on the part of the physical sciences and of their utilitarianapplications.Butinthelongrunitistobequestionedwhethereventhosebranchesofendeavorwillprofitbytheirmonopolisticclaims;inthelongrun the intellect will hardly profit by being excluded from the higherinterestsofthehumanspirit,anditsdecadencemaythenappeareveninthematerialsphere.

But however that may be, whether or not intellectual decadence hasalready extended or will soon extend to the physical sciences, its

prevalence inother spheres—in literatureandhistory, forexample, andstill more clearly in the study of language—is perfectly plain. Anoutstanding feature of contemporary education in these spheres is thegrowthofignorance;pedagogictheoryandthegrowthofignorancehavegonehandinhand.

Theundergraduatestudentofthepresentdayisbeingtoldthatheneednottakenotesonwhathehearsinclass,thattheexerciseofthememoryis a rather childish andmechanical thing, and thatwhat he is really incollege to do is to think for himself and to unify hisworld.He usuallymakesapoorbusinessofunifyinghisworld.Andthereasonisclear.Hedoesnotsucceedinunifyinghisworldforthesimplereasonthathehasno world to unify. He has not acquired a knowledge of a sufficientnumber of facts in order even to learn the method of putting factstogether.Heisbeingtoldtopractisethebusinessofmentaldigestion;butthetroubleisthathehasnofoodtodigest.Themodernstudent,contrarytowhatisoftensaid,isreallybeingstarvedforwantoffacts.

Certainlywearenotdiscouragingoriginality.Onthecontrarywedesireto encourage it in every possible way, and we believe that theencouragement of it will be of immense benefit to the spread of theChristianreligion.Thetroublewiththeuniversitystudentsofthepresentday,fromthepointofviewofevangelicalChristianity,isnotthattheyaretoooriginal,butthattheyarenothalforiginalenough.Theygooninthesameroutineway,followingtheirleaderslikeaflockofsheep,repeatingthe same stock phrases with little knowledge of what they mean,swallowingwholewhateverprofessors choose togive them—andall thetimeimaginingthattheyarebold,bad,independentyoungmen,merelybecausetheyabusewhateverybodyelseisabusing,namely,thereligionthatisfoundeduponChrist.ItispopulartodaytoabusethatunpopularthingthatisknownassupernaturalChristianity,butoriginalitcertainlyisnot.Atrueoriginalitymightbringsomeresistancetothecurrentoftheage,somewillingness tobeunpopular,andsome independentscrutiny,at least, if not acceptance, of the claims of Christ. If there is one thingmore than anotherwhichwe believers in historic Christianity ought toencourageintheyouthofourdayitisindependenceofmind.

It is a great mistake, then, to suppose that we who are called

"conservatives" hold desperately to certain beliefs merely because theyareold,andareopposedtothediscoveryofnewfacts.Onthecontrary,wewelcomenewdiscoverieswithallourhearts,andwebelievethatourcausewillcometoitsrightsagainonlywhenyouththrowsoffitspresentintellectuallethargy,refusestogothoughtlesslywiththeanti-intellectualcurrentoftheage,andrecoverssomegenuineindependenceofmind.Inone sense, indeed, we are traditionalists; we do maintain that anyinstitutionthatisreallygreathasitsrootsinthepast;wedonotthereforedesire to substitutemodern sects for thehistoricChristianChurch.Butonthewhole, inviewoftheconditionsthatnowexist, itwouldperhapsbemore correct to callus "radicals" than to callus "conservatives."Welooknot for amere continuation of spiritual conditions that now exist,butforanoutburstofnewpower;weareseekinginparticulartoarouseyouthfromitspresentuncriticalrepetitionofcurrentphrasesintosomegenuineexaminationofthebasisoflife;andwebelievethatChristianityflourishesnotinthedarkness,butinthelight.ArevivaloftheChristianreligion,webelieve,willdelivermankindfromitspresentbondage,andlike the great revival of the sixteenth century will bring liberty tomankind.Sucharevivalwillbenottheworkofman,buttheworkoftheSpiritofGod.ButoneofthemeanswhichtheSpiritwilluse,webelieve,is an awakening of the intellect. The retrograde, anti-intellectualmovement called Modernism, a movement which really degrades theintellectbyexcludingitfromthesphereofreligion,willbeovercome,andthinking will again come to its rights. The new Reformation, in otherwords,willbeaccompainedbyanewRenaissance;andthelastthinginthe world that we desire to do is to discourage originality orindependenceofmind.

But what we do insist upon is that the right to originality has to beearned,andthatitcannotbeearnedbyignoranceorbyindolence.Amancannotbeoriginalinhistreatmentofasubjectunlessheknowswhatthesubjectis;trueoriginalityisprecededbypatientattentiontothefacts.Itis that patient attention to the facts which, in application of modernpedagogictheory,isbeingneglectedbytheyouthofthepresentday.

Inour insistenceuponmasteryof facts ineducation,weare sometimescharged with the desire of forcing our opinions ready-made upon our

students.Weprofessorsgetupbehindourprofessorialdesks, it is said,and proceed to lecture. The helpless students are expected not only tolistenbuttotakenotes;thentheyareexpectedtomemorizewhatwehavesaid,withallourfirstly'sandsecondly'sandthirdly's;andfinallytheyareexpected togive itallback tous in theexamination.Suchasystem—sothe charge runs—stifles all originality and all life. Instead, themodernpedagogicalexpertcomeswithamessageofhope:insteadofmemorizingfacts,hesays,trueeducationconsistsinlearningtothink;drudgeryisathingofthepast,andself-expressionistotakeitsplace.

Insuchacharge,theremaybeanelementoftruth;possiblytherewasatime in education whenmemory was over-estimated and thinking wasdeprivedofitsrights.Butiftheeducationofthepastwasone-sidedinitsemphasis upon acquaintance with facts, surely the pendulum has nowswung to an opposite extreme which is more disastrous still. It is atravesty upon our pedagogic method when we are represented asregardingamerestoringupoflecturesinthemindofthestudentasanendinitself.Inpointoffact,weregarditasameanstoanend,butaverynecessary means; we regard it not as a substitute for independentthinking,butasanecessaryprerequisiteforit.Thestudentwhoacceptswhat we say without criticism and without thinking of his own is nodoubtveryunsatisfactory;butequallyunsatisfactory is thestudentwhoundertakestocriticizewhatheknowsnothingwhateverabout.Thinkingcannotbecarriedonwithoutthematerialsofthought;andthematerialsofthoughtarefacts,orelseassertionsthatarepresentedasfacts.Amassofdetailsstoredupintheminddoesnotinitselfmakeathinker;butonthe other hand thinking is absolutely impossible without that mass ofdetails.Anditisjustthislatterimpossibleoperationofthinkingwithoutthematerialsof thoughtwhich isbeingadvocatedbymodernpedagogyand isbeingput intopracticeonly toowellbymodern students. In thepresence of this tendency, we believe that facts and hard work oughtagaintobeallowedtocometotheirrights:itisimpossibletothinkwithanemptymind.

Ifthegrowthofignoranceislamentableinseculareducation,itistenfoldworse in the sphere of the Christian religion and in the sphere of theBible.Bibleclassestodayoftenavoidastudyoftheactualcontentsofthe

Bibleas theywouldavoidpestilenceordisease; tomanypersons in theChurch thenotionof getting the simplehistorical contents of theBiblestraightinthemindisanentirelynewidea.

Whenoneisaskedtopreachatachurch,thepastorsometimesasksthevisitingpreachertoconducthisBibleclass,andsometimeshegivesahintastohowtheclassisordinarilyconducted.Hemakesitverypractical,hesays;hegivestheclasshintsastohowtoliveduringthefollowingweek.ButwhenIformypartactuallyconductsuchaclass,Imostemphaticallydo not give the members hints as to how to live during the followingweek.Thatisnotbecausesuchhintsarenotuseful,butbecausetheyarenot all that is useful. It would be very sad if a Bible class did not getpracticaldirections;butaclassthatgetsnothingbutpracticaldirectionsisverypoorlypreparedforlife.AndsowhenIconducttheclassItrytogivethemwhattheydonotgetonotheroccasions;Itrytohelpthemgetstraight in their minds the doctrinal and historical contents of theChristianreligion.

The absence of doctrinal teaching andpreaching is certainly one of thecauses for the present lamentable ignorance in the Church. But a stillmoreinfluentialcauseisfoundinthefailureofthemostimportantofallChristian educational institutions. The most important Christianeducationalinstitutionisnotthepulpitortheschool,importantastheseinstitutionsare;butitistheChristianfamily.Andthatinstitutionhastoaverylargeextentceasedtodoitswork.Wheredidthoseofuswhohavereachedmiddle lifereallygetourknowledgeof theBible?Isupposemyexperience is the same as that of a goodmany of us. I did not getmyknowledgeoftheBiblefromSundaySchoolorfromanyotherschool,butIgotitonSundayafternoonswithmymotherathome.AndIwillventuretosaythatalthoughmymentalabilitywascertainlyofnoextraordinarykindIhadabetterknowledgeoftheBibleatfourteenyearsofagethanispossessedbymanystudentsinthetheologicalSeminariesofthepresentday.TheologicalstudentscomeforthemostpartfromChristianhomes;indeed in very considerable proportion they are children of themanse.Yetwhen theyhave finishedcollegeandenter the theologicalSeminarymany of them are quite ignorant of the simple contents of the EnglishBible.

Thesadthingisthat it isnotchieflythestudents' fault.Thesestudents,manyofthem,aresonsofministers;andbytheirdeficienciestheyrevealthe fact that theministers of the present day are not only substitutingexhortationforinstruction,ethicsfortheology,intheirpreaching;butareevenneglectingtheeducationoftheirownchildren.Thelamentablefactis that the Christian home, as an educational institution, has largelyceasedtofunction.

Certainlythatfactservestoexplaintoaconsiderableextentthegrowthofignorance in the Church. But the explanation itself requires anexplanation; so far we have only succeeded in pushing the problemfartherback.The ignoranceof theChurch isexplainedby the failureofthe Christian family as an educational institution; but what in turnexplainsthatfailure?WhyisitthatChristianparentshaveneglectedtheinstruction of their children; why is it that preaching has ceased to beeducationalanddoctrinal;whyis it thatevenSundaySchoolsandBibleclasseshavecometoconsidersolelyapplicationsofChristianitywithoutstudying theChristianity that is to be applied?Thesequestions takeusinto the very heart of the situation; the growth of ignorance in theChurch, the growth of indifference with regard to the simple factsrecordedintheBible,allgoesbacktoagreatspiritualmovement,reallyskeptical in its tendency,whichhas been going forwardduring the lastonehundredyears—amovementwhichappearsnotonlyinphilosophersandtheologianssuchasKantandSchleiermacherandRitschl,butalsoina widespread attitude of plainmen and women throughout the world.Thedepreciationof the intellect,withtheexaltationintheplaceof itofthefeelingsorofthewill,is,wethink,abasicfactinmodernlife,whichisrapidly leading toa condition inwhichmenneitherknowanythingnorcareanythingaboutthedoctrinalcontentoftheChristianreligion,andinwhichthereisingeneralalamentableintellectualdecline.

This intellectual decline is certainly not appearing exclusively amongpersonswhoare trying tobeevangelical in theirviewsabout theBible;but it is at least equallymanifest among those who hold the opposingview.Astrikingfeatureofrecentreligiousliteratureistheabandonmentofscientifichistoricalmethodevenamongthosewhoregardthemselvesasinthevanofscientificprogress.

ScientifichistoricalmethodintheinterpretationoftheBiblerequiresthatthe Biblical writers should be allowed to speak for themselves. Agenerationorsoagothatfeatureofscientificmethodwasexaltedtothedignity of a principle, and was honored by a long name. It was called"grammatico-historicalexegesis."The fundamentalnotionof itwas thatthemodern student shoulddistinguish sharply betweenwhat hewouldhavesaidorwhathewouldhavelikedtohavetheBiblicalwritersay,andwhatthewriteractuallydidsay.Thelatterquestiononlywasregardedasformingthesubject-matterofexegesis.

Thisprinciple,inAmericaatleast,israpidlybeingabandoned.Itisnot,indeed,beingabandonedintheory;lip-serviceisstillbeingpaidtoit.Butitisbeingabandonedinfact.Itisbeingabandonedbythemosteminentscholars.

It is abandoned by Professor Goodspeed, for example, when in histranslationoftheNewTestamenthetranslatestheGreekwordmeaning"justify,"inimportantpassages,by"makeupright."Iconfessthatitisnotwithout regret that I should see the doctrine of justification by faith,which is the foundation of evangelical liberty, thus removed from theNewTestament;itisnotwithoutregretthatIshouldabandonthewholeof theReformation and returnwith ProfessorGoodspeed to themerit-religionof theMiddleAges.But thepoint that I amnowmaking isnotthatProfessorGoodspeed'stranslationisunfortunatebecauseitinvolves—asitcertainlydoes—religiousretrogression,butbecauseit involvesanabandonment of historicalmethod in exegesis. Itmaywell be that thisquestionhowasinfulmanmaybecomerightwithGoddoesnotinterestthemoderntranslator;buteverytruehistorianmustcertainlyadmitthatitdidinteresttheApostlePaul.AndthetranslatorofPaulmust,ifhebetruetohistrust,placetheemphasiswherePaulplacedit,andnotwherethetranslatorcouldhavewisheditplaced.

WhatistrueinthecaseofPaulisalsotrueinthecaseofJesus.Modernwritershaveabandonedthehistoricalmethodofapproach.Theypersistin confusing the question what they could have wished that Jesus hadbeen with the question what Jesus actually was. In reading one of themost popular recent books on the subject of religion, I came upon thefollowingamazingassertion."Jesus,"theauthorsays,"concernedhimself

but littlewith thequestionof existenceafterdeath." In thepresenceofsuchassertionsanystudentofhistorymaywellstandaghast. Itmaybethatwedonotmakemuchofthedoctrineofafuturelife,butthequestionwhetherJesusdidso isnotamatterof tastebutanhistoricalquestion,whichcanbeansweredonlyonthebasisofanexaminationofthesourcesofhistoricalinformationthatwecalltheGospels.

Andtheresultofsuchexaminationisperfectlyplain.Asamatteroffact,not only the thought of heaven but also the thought of hell runs allthrough the teaching of Jesus. It appears in all four of the Gospels; itappears in the sources, supposed to underlie the Gospels, which havebeenreconstructed,rightlyorwrongly,bymoderncriticism.Itimpartstotheethical teaching itspeculiar earnestness. It isnot anelementwhichcanberemovedbyanycriticalprocess,butsimplysuffusesthewholeofJesus' teachingandJesus' life. "And fearnot themwhichkill thebody,but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able todestroybothsoulandbodyinhell.""Itisbetterfortheetoenterintolifewithoneeye,ratherthanhavingtwoeyestobecastintohellfire"5—thesewordsarenotanexcrescenceinJesus'teachingbutarequiteatthecentreofthewhole.

Atanyrate, ifyouaregoingtoremovethethoughtofa future life fromthe teaching of Jesus, if at this point you are going to reject the primafacie evidence, surely you should do so only by a critical grounding ofyour procedure. And my point is that that critical grounding is nowthought to be quite unnecessary. Modern American writers simplyattribute their own predilections to Jesus without, apparently, theslightestscrutinyofthefacts.

Asoveragainstthisanti-intellectualtendencyinthemodernworld,itwillbeonechiefpurposeof thepresent littlebooktodefendtheprimacyofthe intellect, and in particular to try to break down the false anddisastrous opposition which has been set up between knowledge andfaith.

Nodoubt it isunfortunate, ifour themebe the intellect, that thewriterhassoverylimitedanexperimentalacquaintancewiththesubjectthatheisundertakingtodiscuss.Butinthesedaystheintellectcannotaffordto

betoocriticalofherdefenders,sinceherdefendersarefewenough.Timewas when reason sat in regal state upon her throne, and crowds ofobsequious courtiers did her reverence. But now the queen has beendeposed,andpragmatismtheusurperoccupiesthethrone.Somehumbleretainersstillfollowtheexileofthefallenqueen;somemenstillhopeforthedayofrestorationwhentheusefulwillberelegatedtoitsproperplaceand truthwill again rule theworld. But such retainers are few—so fewthat even the very humblest of them may perhaps out of charity begranted a hearing which in reason's better days he could not haveclaimed.

Theattackupontheintellecthasassumedmanyforms,andhasreceivedanelaboratephilosophicalgrounding.WiththatphilosophicalgroundingI am not so presumptuous as to attempt to deal. I am not altogetherunaware of the difficulties that besetwhatmay be called the common-sense view of truth; epistemology presents many interesting problemsand some puzzling antinomies. But the antinomies of epistemology arelike other antinomies which puzzle the humanmind; they indicate thelimitationsofourintellect,buttheydonotprovethattheintellectisnotreliablesofarasitgoes.Iformypartatleastamnotreadytogiveupthestruggle;Iamnotreadytorestinapragmatistskepticism;Iamnotreadytosaythattruthcanneverbeattained.

But what are some of the ways in which the intellect, in the modernreligiousworld,hasbeendethroned,orat leasthasbeendebarredfromthesphereofultimatereality?

In the first place, andmost obviously, there is the distinction betweenreligion and theology. Theology, it is said, is merely the necessarilychanging expression of a unitary experience; doctrine can never bepermanent,butissimplytheclothingofreligiousexperienceintheformsofthoughtsuitabletoanyparticulargeneration.Thosewhospeakinthiswayprotest,indeed,thattheyarenotseekingtodowithouttheology,butaremerelyendeavoringtokeeptheologyinitsproperplace.Theology,itisadmitted, isnecessarytoreligion;therecanneverbereligionwithoutsome theology; but what particular theology it shall be, they hold,dependsuponthehabitsof thought thatprevail in theage inwhichthetheologyisproduced.

In accordance with this principle, various creeds have recently beenproduced to take the place of the great historic confessions of faith—variouscreedsintendedto"interpret"Christianityinthe"thought-forms"of the twentiethcenturyand toprovideabasis forChristianunity. It isperfectlyobvious that thesemodern formulationsdiffer fromthose thatthey are intended to supplant in many importantWays. But the mostimportant difference of all has sometimes escaped notice. The mostimportant difference is not that these modern creeds differ from thehistoric creeds in this point or that; but it is that the historic creeds,unlikethemoderncreeds,wereintendedbytheirauthorsorcompilerstobe true. And I for my part believe that that is the most necessaryqualification of a creed. I cannot, therefore, accept the protestations ofthosepragmatistswhomaintainthattheyarenothostiletotheology.Foriftheologyisnotevenintendedtobepermanentlyandobjectivelytrue,ifit is merely a convenient symbol in which in this generation a mysticexperience is clothed, then theologizing, it seems to me, is the mostuselessformoftriflinginwhichamancouldpossiblyengage.

Certainlythistheologizingofthepragmatistisasfaraspossibleremovedfrom the kind of progress that is found in the advance of science. Thescientist does indeed modify his opinions; one hypothesis often givesplacetoanotherwhichisintendedtobeabetterexplanationofthefacts.Butthepointisthatthenewhypothesis,liketheold,isintendedatleastto be permanently correct: it may have to give way to a betterunderstandingofthefacts,butthereisnothingintheverynatureofthecasetoshowthatitmustgiveway.Science,inotherwords,thoughitmaynotinanygenerationattaintruth,isatanyrateaimingattruth.

Verydifferentistheactivityofthepragmatisttheologian.Thepragmatisttheologian, unlike the scientist, does not even intend his ownformulations to be permanent, but regards them as merely symbolicexpressions, in the thought-forms of one particular generation, of anineffable experience. According to the pragmatist it is not merelyinevitable that the theology of one generation should differ from thetheologyofanother,butitisdesirablethatitshoulddoso.Thattheology,according to the pragmatist, is the bestwhichmost perfectly expressesthe experience of religion in the "thought-forms" of any particular age.

ThustheNiceneCreed,itissaid,wasadmirableinthefourthcenturyofour era, and the Westminster Confession was admirable in theseventeenth century, but these formulations must of course now giveplace to twentieth-century statements which so far as the literal orintellectualmeaningisconcernedarecontradictorytothem.Theologyinother words is not to be judged in accordance with the degree ofapproximationwhich itattains toaneternallypersistingnormof truth,butitistoberegardedasgoodorbadaccordingasitservesthepurposesofmankindandpromotesanabundanceoflife.

Indeed thispragmatist attitude towarddifference in theology is appliednot only to successive generations, but also to simultaneously existingnations and races. It is unreasonable, some advocates of missions areaccustomed to say, for missionaries to ask Eastern races to acceptWestern creeds; the Eastern mind cannot be forced into a Westernmould; on the contrary, the East must be allowed to give its ownexpressiontotheChristianfaith.Andsosometimeswereadmoreorlessformalexpositionsofbelief thathavecome fromthenativechurchesoftheEast.Whataninterestingthingtheformationofsuchexpositionsis,tobesure!Afresh,newexpressionoftheChristianreligionindependentof all the conventionsof theWest!Unfortunately suchexpectations areoften sadly disappointed when one reads the new formulations forhimself;thevauntedfreshnessandoriginalityisoftennottobeseen,andwhat we actually have is a most unoriginal repetition of the vaguenaturalism of the contemporaryWesternworld. The Easternmind hasturned out to be as like as two peas to themind of the South Side ofChicago; all the stock phrases of modern agnosticism seem to bethoroughlyacceptable to theOriental students towhomtheyhavebeentaught.

But if the resultsof these littleexperimentsof theEasternmindhardlyseemtobearout thecontentionof thepragmatist—hardlyseemtobearout the contention that theEasternmindand theWesternmindare sodistinctthatthethought-formsthatsuitonewillnotsuit theother—thecontention itself is thoroughly typical of our age; it is only onemanifestationofapragmatismthatisall-pervasive.Andthatpragmatisminvolves the most bottomless skepticism which could possibly be

conceived. According to the logic of the pragmatist position twocontradictorydoctrinesmaybeequallygood;fordoctrine,intheopinionof the pragmatists, ismerely the symbolic expression of an experiencereallyinexpressible,andmustnecessarilychangeasthegenerationspass.There is, in other words, according to that view, no possibility thatanything in the sphere of doctrine can be permanently and universallytrue.

Such a view of doctrinal changes is sometimes compared, as we havealready hinted, to the progress of science; it is unreasonable, thepragmatisttheologiansays,torejectthephysicsandchemistryofthefirstcentury or the seventeenth century and yet maintain unchanged thetheology of those past ages; why should theology be exempt from theuniversallawofprogress?

But this comparison, as indeed should be plain fromwhat has alreadybeen said, really involves a very strange misconception; far fromadvocatingprogress in theology, thecurrentpragmatismreallydestroysthe Very possibility of progress. For progress involves something toprogresstoaswellassomethingtoprogressfrom.Andintheintellectualsphere the current pragmatism can find no goal of progress in anobjectivenormoftruth;onedoctrine,accordingtothepragmatistview,maybejustasgoodasanexactlycontradictorydoctrine,provideditsuitsaparticulargenerationoraparticulargroupofpersons.Thechanges inscientific hypotheses represent true progress because they areincreasingly close approximations to an objectively and externallyexistent body of facts; while the changes advocated by pragmatisttheologians are not progress at all but the meaningless changes of akaleidoscope.

As over against this pragmatist attitude, we believers in historicChristianitymaintaintheobjectivityoftruth;andindoingsoweandnottheModernistsbecomeadvocatesofprogress.Theology,wehold, isnotan attempt to express in merely symbolic terms an inner experiencewhichmust be expressed in different terms in subsequent generations;butitisasettingforthofthosefactsuponwhichexperienceisbased.Itisnotindeedacompletesettingforthofthosefacts,andthereforeprogressintheologybecomepossible;butitmaybetruesofarasitgoes;andonly

because there is thatpossibilityofattaining truthandofsetting it forthevermorecompletelycantherebeprogress.Theology,inotherwords,isjustasmuchascienceasischemistry;andlikethescienceofchemistryitis capableofadvance.The twosciences, it is true,differwidely in theirsubjectmatter; theydifferwidely in the characterof the evidenceuponwhichtheirconclusionsarebased;inparticulartheydifferwidelyinthequalifications required of the investigator: but they are both sciences,because they are both concerned with the acquisition and orderlyarrangementofabodyoftruth.

Atthispoint,then,wefindthereallyimportantdivergenceofopinioninthe religiousworldat thepresentday; thedifferenceofattitude towardtheologyortowarddoctrinegoesfardeeperthananymeredivergenceindetail.Themoderndepreciationoftheologyresultslogicallyinthemostcomplete skepticism. It is not merely that the ancient creeds, and theBible upon which they are based, are criticized—indeed we ourselvescertainlythinkthattheyoughtconstantlytobecriticizedinorderthatitmaybeseenthattheywillstandthetest—butthereallyserioustroubleisthat the modern pragmatist, on account of the very nature of hisphilosophy,hasnothingtoputintheirplace.Theology,accordingtohim,maybeuseful;butitcanneverbyanypossibilitybetrue.AsDr.Fosdickobserves,theliberalismoftodaymustnecessarilyproduceanintellectualformulation which will become the orthodoxy of tomorrow, and whichwill then in turnhave to give place to a new liberalism; and so on (wesuppose) ad infinitum. This is what the plain man in the Church hasdifficultyinunderstanding;hedoesnotyetappreciatetherealgravityoftheissue.HedoesnotseethatitmakesverylittledifferencehowmuchorhowlittleofthecreedsoftheChurchtheModernistpreacheraffirms,orhowmuchorhowlittleoftheBiblicalteachingfromwhichthecreedsarederived. He might affirm every jot and tittle of the WestminsterConfession, for example, and yet be separated by a great gulf from theReformedFaith.Itisnotthatpartisdeniedandtherestaffirmed;butallisdenied,becauseallisaffirmedmerelyasusefulorsymbolicandnotastrue.

Thus it comes about that to the believer in historic Christianity theModernistpreacher isoftenmostdistressing justwhenhedesires tobe

mostconcessive.Hehasnodesire,hesays,tocombatthefaithofsimplepeopleintheChurch;indeedtheolder"interpretations,"hesays,maybebestforsomepeopleevennow.Suchassertionsareperhapsintendedtobe concessive; but in reality they are to the believer in historicChristianitythemostradicallydestructiveassertionsthatcouldpossiblybe made. It would from our point of view be better if the preacher,convincedof the falsityofsupernaturalreligion inthesenseof theNewTestamentandof thecreeds,becameanapostlewiththecourageofhisconvictions,andsoughttorootoutofeveryone'smindconvictionsthathe holds to be false. In that case we should indeed differ from himradically, but therewould be at least a common ground for discussion.Buttheassertionthatthehistoriccreedsmaystillbebestforsomepeopleand the modern interpretations better for others, or the provision inplans of Church union that the constituent churches should recognizeeachtheother'screedasvalidfortheotherchurch'smembers—this,wethink,involvesasinagainstthelightofreasonitself;andifthelightthatisinusbedarkness,howgreatisthatdarkness!Athingthatisusefulmaybeusefulforsomeandnotforothers,butathingthatistrueremainstrueforallpeopleandbeyondtheendoftime.

Butiftheologybethusabandoned,orratherif(toeasethetransition)itbemademerelythesymbolicexpressionofreligiousexperience,whatisto be put in its place? Two answers to this question may perhaps bedistinguished in the religious life of the present day. In the first place,there is mysticism; and in the second place, there is a kind of neo-positivism.

Mysticism unquestionably is the natural result of the anti-intellectualtendencywhichnowprevails;formysticismistheconsistentexaltationofexperienceattheexpenseofthought.Butinactualpracticemysticismisseldomconsistent; indeed it cannotpossibly be consistent if it seeks toexplain itself to theworld.Theexperienceuponwhich it isbased,or inwhichitconsists,issaidtobeineffable;yetmysticslovetotalkaboutthatexperienceallthesame.Dr.E.S.Water-housequotesanepigramofMr.Bradley "to the effect that Herbert Spencer told us more about theUnknowablethantherashestoftheologianshastoldusaboutGod."Soitmay perhaps be said that mystics are accustomed to express the

inexpressiblemorefullythantheineffablecharacterwhichtheyattributetotheirexperiencemayseemtowarrant.

In particular, thosewho discard theology in the interests of experienceareinclinedtomakeuseofapersonalwayoftalkingandthinkingaboutGodtowhichtheyhavenoright.Anotedpreacher, forexample,relatesanincidentofhisyouthinwhichheoverheardhisfatherprayingwhenhethought thathewasalonewithGod.His father, says thepreacher,wasthoroughlyorthodox,anddevotedtotheWestminsterShorterCatechism.Yet in that prayer, to the amazement of theboy, therewasnoneof theelaborate theology of the Westminster Standards, but only a simpleoutpouringofthesoulinthepresenceofGod."Itwasaprayer,"saysthepreacher, "in which he threw himself into the arms of his heavenlyFather.Therewasinitnotheology,nohell,nomoralorsubstitutionarytheoryoftheatonement."

Butwhatwasitafterallthatcausedthatsimpleoutpouringofthesoul?Was that prayer so independent of theology as the preacher seems tothink? For our part we doubt it very much. All personal communionseemstobeasimplething;yetitisinrealityverycomplex.Myfriendshipfor ahuman friend, for example, dependsupon years of observationofmyfriend'sactions.So it isexactly inthecaseof thecommunionof theChristianwithhisGod.TheChristiansays:"Lord,thouknowestthatweareonthesameoldterms."Itseemsverysimpleandveryuntheological.ButinrealityitdependsuponthewholerichcontentofGod'srevelationofHimself in the salvationwhichHehasprovided throughHisSon.Atany rate, pure feeling, if it ever exists, is non-moral; what makes ourrelation toanotherperson,whetherahuman friendor theeternalGod,suchanennoblingthingistheknowledgewhichwehaveofthecharacterof thatperson.Theexperienceof therealmystic, then,asdistinguishedfromthatexperienceofdirectcontactwithGodinthedepthsofthesoulwhichispopularlycalledmysticism—thelatterbeingofcourseapartofallvitalreligion—isnotChristianexperience;forChristianexperienceisathoroughlypersonal thing; theChristianholds fellowshipwithaPersonwhomheknows.

Another substitute for a religion based upon the knowledge of God ispositivism.Thename itself isdue toaphenomenon thatappeared long

ago, but the thing that the name represents has in all essentials beenrevived. It has been revived in rather definite fashion, for example, byProfessorEllwood inhispopularbook,TheReconstructionofReligion.Professor Ellwood himself detects his affinity for the older positivism,thoughheseekstosupplementthepositivistreligionofhumanitywithapantheizingreverencefortheworld-process.Butpositivismhasalsobeenrevived, though often unconsciously, by those popular preachers of thedaywhouse thephrase, the"ChristlikeGod,"which is sodistressing tomen who have thought at all deeply upon the things at the basis ofChristianfaith—bythosepopularpreacherswhotellusthatGodisknownonly through Jesus. If theymeant thatGod is known only through theSecondPersonof theTrinity, theeternalLogos, Imightperhapsagree;and for my agreement I might perhaps find warrant in the eleventhchapter ofMatthew. But of course as amatter of fact that is not at allwhat they mean.What they mean is that all metaphysics having beenabandoned or relegated to the realm of unessential speculation—allquestionsastowhetherthereisaGodwhomadetheworldbythefiatofHiswill,orwhether there isa lifeafterdeath,orwhetherJesus inveryperson is living today—all such questions having been abandoned, thesoul of man may be transformed by the mere contemplation andemulation of the moral life of Jesus. Essentially, such a religion ispositivism;itregardsasnon-essentialallextramundanefactorsandsetsup a religion of humanity—a religion of humanity symbolized by thenameofJesus.

CertainlytheJesustowhomsuchareligioncanappealisnottheJesusofhistory—neithertheJesussetforthintheNewTestamentnortheJesuswhohasbeenreproduced,oreverconceivablycanbereproduced,byanycritical process. For the real Jesus certainly was a theist, certainly didbelieve in a really existent God, Maker of the world and final Judge,certainly did accept the revelation of God in the Old TestamentScriptures,certainlydidplacethedoctrineofheavenandhellattheveryfoundation ofHis ethical teaching, certainly did look for a catastrophiccomingoftheKingdomofGod.Thesethingsinmuchmodernpreachingare ignored. The preacher quotes some word of Jesus quite out of itscontext—perhaps even from the Gospel of John, which the preacher'sowncriticalprincipleshavediscarded—andthenproceedstoderivefrom

thatmisunderstoodwordofJesusanon-doctrinalreligionofthisworld.Someof us, aswe listen,maydesire to ask questions. Someof usmaydesiretoaskwhetherJesusofNazarethreallymadethemoreabundantlifeofman theultimateendof existence; someofusmaydesire toaskwhetherJesusreally leftHisownpersonoutofHisgospelandwhetherwe can really reject, on any critical principles, those words of His inwhichHeclaimedtobetheJudgeofthewholeearth.Butsuchquestionsreceive short shrift from theModernist preacher; they involve, he says,merelyevasions,onourpart,ofthemoraldemandsofJesus.Atnopointdoesthepassionateanti-intel-lectualismoftheModernistChurchappearmoreclearlythanhere.

But can the human reason, especially as manifested in the historicalsense, really be thus browbeaten into silence? For our part, we do notbelieve that it can. And when the reason awakes, though the modernreligion of humanity may conceivably remain, its appeal to Jesus ofNazareth at least will have to go.We shall have to cease investing ourpride in human goodnesswith the borrowed trappings of Christianity'semotional appeal; and the choice will have to be made betweenabandonmentofJesusas themoralguideof theraceandacceptanceofHisstupendousclaims.

Thus the relinquishment of theology in the interests of non-doctrinalreligionreallyinvolvestherelinquishmentofChristianityintheinterestsofaskepticismthanwhichamorecompletecouldscarcelybeconceived.But another contrast has an equally baleful effect upon the life of thepresent day. It is the contrast between knowledge and faith; and theconsideration of that contrast takes us into the heart of our presentsubject. That contrast, as we shall see, ignores an essential element infaith;andwhatiscalledfaithafterthesubtractionofthatelementisnotfaith at all. As a matter of fact all true faith involves an intellectualelement;allfaithinvolvesknowledgeandissuesinknowledge.

Theexhibitionofthatfactwillformaconsiderablepartofthediscussionthatfollows.Itwillnot,indeed,formallofit;sincethediscussionwillnotbemerelypolemic;butafteralltheonlywaytogetaclearideaofwhatathingis,istoplaceitincontrastwithwhatitisnot;alldefinitioninvolvesexclusion. We shall endeavor, therefore, by comparison of opposing

views,aswellasbyexhibitionofourown, toarriveatananswerto thequestion, "What is Faith?" If that question were rightly answered, theChurch,webelieve,wouldsoonemergefromitspresentperplexitiesandwouldgoforthwithanewjoytotheconquestoftheworld.

Therearethosewhoshrinkfromaconsiderationofthesegreatquestionsofprinciple;therearethosewhodecrycontroversy,andbelievethattheChurchshouldreturntoitsformerpolicyofpolitelyignoringortakingforgrantedthecentralthingsoftheChristianfaith.ButwithsuchpersonsI,formypart,cannotpossiblybringmyselftoagree.Theperiodofapparentharmony in which the Church in America found itself a few years agowas, I believe, a period of the deadliest peril; loyalty to ChurchorganizationswasbeingsubstitutedforloyaltytoChrist;Churchleaderswho never evenmentioned the centre of the gospel in their preachingwere in undisputed charge of the resources of the Church; at boardmeetings or in the councils of the Church, it was considered bad formeventomention,atleastinanydefiniteandintelligibleway,theCrossofChrist. A polite paganism, in other words, with reliance upon humanresources,wasbeingquietlyandpeacefullysubstitutedfortheheroismofdevotiontothegospel.

Inthefaceofsuchacondition,thereweresomemenwhoseheartsweretouched;theLordJesushaddiedforthemuponthecross,andtheleastthey could do, they thought, was to be faithful toHim; they could notcontinuetosupport,bytheirgiftsandbytheirefforts,anythingthatwashostiletoHisgospel;andtheywerecompelled,therefore,inthefaceofallopposition,toraisethequestionwhatitisthattheChurchisintheworldtodo.

Godgrantthatquestionmayneverbesilenceduntilitisansweredaright!Let us not fear the opposition of men; every great movement in theChurch from Paul down to modern times has been criticized on theground that it promoted censoriousness and intolerance anddisputing.Of course the gospel of Christ, in a world of sin and doubt, will causedisputing;andifitdoesnotcausedisputingandarousebitteropposition,that isafairlysuresignthat it isnotbeingfaithfullyproclaimed.Asforme, I believe that a great opportunity has been opened to Christianpeople by the "controversy" that is somuch decried. Conventions have

beenbrokendown;menare trying topenetratebeneathpiouswords tothe thing that these words designate; it is becoming increasinglynecessary for a man to choose whether he will stand with Christ oragainstHim.Sucha condition, I formypart believe, hasbeenbroughtabout by the Spirit of God; already there has been genuine spiritualadvance. Ithasbeensignallymanifestedat the institutionwhich Ihavethehonortoserve.Themoraleofourtheologicalstudentbodyduringthepastyearshadbeenbecomingratherlow:therewasmarkedindifferencetothecentralthingsofthefaith;andreligiousexperiencewasofthemostsuperficial kind. But during the academic year, 1924–1925, there hasbeen something like an awakening.Youthhasbegun to think for itself;the evil of compromising associations has been discovered; Christianheroism in the face of opposition has come again to its rights; a newinterest has been aroused in the historical and philosophical questionsthat underlie the Christian religion; true and independent convictionshavebeenformed.Controversy,inotherwords,hasresultedinastrikingintellectualandspiritualadvance.Someofusdiscerninallthistheworkof theSpiritofGod.AndGodgrant thatHis firebenotquenched!Godsaveusfromanysmoothingoverofthesequestionsintheinterestsofahollow pleasantness; God grant that great questions of principle maynever rest until they are settled right! It is out of such times ofquestioningthatgreatrevivalscome.Godgrantthatitmaybesotoday!Controversy of the right sort is good; for out of such controversy, asChurch history and Scripture alike teach, there comes the salvation ofsouls.

It iswith suchanultimateaim thatweconsider thequestion, "What isFaith?" A more "practical" question could hardly be conceived. Thepreacher says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall besaved." But how can a man possibly act on that suggestion, unless heknows what it is to believe. It was at that point that the "doctrinal"preaching of a former generation was far more practical than the"practical"preachingofthepresentday.IshallneverforgetthepastorofthechurchinwhichIgrewup.Hewasagoodpreacherinmanyways,buthismostmarked characteristicwas theplainness anddefinitenesswithwhich he told the people what a man should do to be saved. Thepreachers of the present time allude to the importance of becoming a

Christian,buttheyseldomseemtomakethematterthesubjectofexpressexposition; they leave the peoplewith a vague impression to the effectthatbeingaChristian isagood thing,but this impression isdifficult totranslate into action because definite directions are absent. Thesepreachersspeakaboutfaith,buttheydonottellwhatfaithis.

It is tohelp insomesmallwaytosupplythis lackthatthepresent littlebookhasbeenwritten.Ifthewayofsalvationisfaith,itdoesseemtobehighly important to tell people who want to be saved just what faithmeans.Ifapreachercannotdothat,hecanhardlybeatrueevangelist.

How, then, shall we obtain the answer to our question; how shall wediscover what faith is? At first sight it might seem to be a purelyphilosophicalorperhapspsychologicalquestion;thereisfaithotherthanfaith in Jesus Christ; and such faith no doubt is to be included withChristianfaithinthesamegeneralcategory.Itlooks,therefore,asthoughIwereengaginguponapsychologicaldiscussion,andasthoughIoughtto be thoroughly familiar with the epistemological and psychologicalquestionsthatareinvolved.

Undoubtedlysuchatreatmentofthesubjectwouldbehighlyusefulandinstructive; but unfortunately I am not competent to undertake it. Iproposethereforeasomewhatdifferentmethodofapproach.Howwouldit be if we should study the subject of faith, not so much bygeneralizationsfromvariousinstancesoffaithinhumanlife(thoughsuchgeneralizations will not be altogether absent), but rather by aconsideration of faith as it appears in its highest and plainestmanifestation? Such concentration upon a classic example is often thebestpossibleway,oratanyrateoneveryfruitfulway,inwhichasubjectcanbetreated.

Buttheclassicexampleoffaithistobefoundinthefaiththatisenjoinedin theNewTestament. I think that therewill bewidespreadagreementwith that assertion among students of psychologywhether Christian ornot; the insistence upon faith is characteristic of New TestamentChristianity;thereissomejustification,surely,forthewayinwhichPaulspeaks of the pre-Christian period as the time "before faith came." Nodoubt that assertion is intended by the Apostle as relative merely; he

himself insists that faith had a place in the old dispensation; but suchanticipationswere swallowedup,by the comingofChrist, in a gloriousfulfilment. At any rate, the Bible as a whole, taking prophecy andfulfilmenttogether, is thesupremetextbookonthesubjectof faith.Thestudy of that textbook may lead to as clear an understanding of oursubject as could be attained by anymore general investigation;we canlearnwhatfaith isbestofallbystudyingit in itshighestmanifestation.We shall ask, then, in the following chapters what the Bible, and inparticulartheNewTestament,tellsusaboutfaith.

CHAPTERII

FAITHINGOD

Inthefirstplace,theBiblecertainlytellsusthatfaithinvolvesapersonasits object. We can indeed speak about having faith in an impersonalobject,suchasamachine,butwhenwedosoIthinkweareindulginginasortofpersonificationofthatobject,orelsewearereallythinkingaboutthe men who made the machine. At any rate, without discussing thecorrectnessorincorrectnessofthisusage,wecanatleastsaythatsuchause of the word stops short of the highest significance. In the highestsignificance of the word—the significance in which alone we are nowinterested—faithisregardedasbeingalwaysreposedinpersons.

The Persons in whom according to the Bible faith is particularly to bereposedareGodtheFatherandtheLordJesusChrist.

But—and here we come to the point which we think ought to beemphasized above all others just at thepresentday—it is impossible to

havefaithinapersonwithouthavingknowledgeoftheperson;farfrombeingcontrastedwithknowledge,faithisfoundeduponknowledge.Thatassertion runs counter to the whole trend of contemporary religiousteaching; but a little reflection, I think,will show that it is indubitablycorrect,andthatitmustbeappliedspecificallytotheobjectsofChristianfaith.LetusconsiderfromthispointofviewfirstfaithinGodandsecondfaithinJesusChrist.

IntheclassictreatmentoffaithintheEpistletotheHebrews,thereisaversethatgoestotheveryrootof thematter."HethatcomethtoGod,"the author says, "must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder ofthemthatdiligentlyseekhim."Herewefindarejectioninadvanceofallthepragmatist,non-doctrinalChristianityofmoderntimes.

In the first place, religion is here made to depend absolutely upondoctrine; theonewhocomes toGodmustnotonlybelieve inaperson,buthemustalsobelievethatsomethingistrue;faithisheredeclaredtoinvolveacceptanceofaproposition.Therecouldbenoplainerinsistenceuponthedoctrinalorintellectualbasisoffaith.Itisimpossible,accordingtotheEpistletotheHebrews,tohavefaithinapersonwithoutacceptingwiththemindthefactsabouttheperson.

Entirely different is the prevailing attitude in the modern Church; farfromrecognizing,astheauthorofHebrewsdoes,theintellectualbasisoffaith,manymodernpreacherssetfaithinsharpoppositiontoknowledge.Christianfaith,theysay,isnotassenttoacreed,butitisconfidenceinaperson.TheEpistletotheHebrewsontheotherhanddeclaresthatit isimpossible tohaveconfidence inapersonwithoutassenting toacreed."HethatcomethtoGodmustbelievethatheis."Thewords,"Godis,"or"God exists," constitute a creed; they constitute a proposition; and yetthey are here placed as necessary to that supposedly non-intellectualthingthatiscalledfaith.ItwouldbeimpossibletofindamorecompleteoppositionthanthatwhichhereappearsbetweentheNewTestamentandtheanti-intel-lectualistictendencyofmodernpreaching.

ButhereaselsewheretheBibleisfoundtobetruetotheplainestfactsofthesoul;whereas themodernseparationbetween faith inapersonandacceptanceofacreed is found tobepsychologically false. It isperfectly

true,ofcourse,thatfaithinapersonismorethanacceptanceofacreed,buttheBibleisquiterightinholdingthatitalwaysinvolvesacceptanceofacreed.Confidenceinapersonismorethanintellectualassenttoaseriesof propositions about the person, but it always involves thosepropositions,andbecomesimpossiblethemomenttheyaredenied.Itisquite impossible to trust a person about whom one assents topropositions that make the person untrustworthy, or fails to assent topropositionsthatmakehimtrustworthy.Assenttocertainpropositionsisnotthewholeoffaith,butit isanabsolutelynecessaryelementinfaith.SoassenttocertainpropositionsaboutGodisnotalloffaithinGod,butitisnecessarytofaithinGod;andChristianfaith,inparticular,thoughitismorethanassenttoacreed,isabsolutelyimpossiblewithoutassenttoa creed. One cannot trust a Godwhom one holdswith themind to beeithernon-existentoruntrustworthy.

TheEpistletotheHebrews, therefore, isquiteright inmaintainingthat"hethatcomethtoGodmustbelievethatheis."InordertotrustGodortohavecommunionwithHimwemustatleastbelievethatHeexists.

At first sight thatmight seem tobeamere truism; itmight seem tobesomethingthateverysanepersonwouldbeobligedtoaccept.Asamatteroffact,however,eventhisapparentlyself-evidentpropositionisrejectedbyagreatmassofpersonsinthemodernworld;andithasbeenrejectedbymanypersons in the courseof religioushistory.What theEpistle tothe Hebrews accomplishes by enunciating the simple proposition, "Hethat cometh toGodmust believe that he is," is the repudiation of thatimportant phenomenon in the history of religion that is known asmysticism.

The true mystic holds that communion with God is an ineffableexperience, which is independent of any intellectual propositionswhatever.Religion, themysticholds, in itspure form is independentoftheintellect;whenitisexpressedinanintellectualmolditiscabinedandconfined;suchexpressioncanbenothingmorethansymbolic;religiousexperience itself does not depend upon assent to any kind of creed. Inopposition to this mystical attitude the author of the Epistle to theHebrews insists upon the primacy of the intellect; he bases religionsquarely upon truth.Hedoesnot, of course, reject that immediate and

mysterious contact of the soul with God which is dear to the mystic'sheart;forthatimmediatecontactofthesoulwithGodisavitalpartofallreligion worthy of the name. But he does break down the mysticalseparationbetweenthatexperienceontheonehandandtheknowledgeofGodon theother:and indoingsohe isutteringnota truismbutanimportanttruth;heisdeliveringasalutaryblowagainstanti-intellectualmysticism ancient and modern. There could be, under presentconditions, no more timely text; in the presence of this stupendousutterance,sofar-reachingyetsosimple,thenon-doctrinalreligionofthepresentdayseemstobebutashallowandephemeralthing.

It is not true, then, according to the New Testament, that religion isindependentofdoctrineorthatfaithisindependentofknowledge;onthecontrary, communionwith God or faith in God is dependent upon thedoctrine of His existence. But it is dependent upon other doctrines inaddition to that. "He that cometh to God," says the Epistle to theHebrews,"mustbelievethatheis,andthatheisarewarderofthemthatdiligently seek him." In this latter part of the sentence, we have,expressed in a concrete way, the great truth of the personality of God.God,accordingtotheEpistletotheHebrews,isOnewhocanact—actinviewofajudgmentuponthosewhocometoHim.Whatwehavehere,inthe second part of this sentence, is a presentation of what the Bibleelsewherecallsthe"living"God.Godnotonlyexists,butisafreePersonwhocanact.

Thesametruthappearswithevengreaterclearnessinthethirdverseofthesamegreatchapter."Throughfaithweunderstand,"saystheauthor,"thattheworldswereframedbythewordofGod,sothatthingswhichareseenwerenotmadeofthingswhichdoappear."Herewehave,expressedwithaclearnessthatleavesnothingtobedesired,thedoctrineofcreationoutofnothing,andthatdoctrineissaidtobereceivedbyfaith.It isthesame doctrine that appears in the first verse of the Bible, "In thebeginning God created the heaven and the earth," and that really ispresupposed in the Bible from beginning to the end. Yet the prevalentreligious tendency in the Church of the present day relegates thatdoctrinetotherealmofthenon-essential."Whathasreligiontodo,"weareasked,"withtheobsoletenotionoffiatcreation?"

ThetruthisthatintheEpistletotheHebrewsaswellasintherestoftheBiblewearelivinginaworldofthoughtthatisdiametricallyopposedtothe anti-intellectualism of the present day. Certain things, according totheBible,areknownaboutGod,andwithoutthesethingstherecanbenofaith. To the pragmatist skepticism of the modern religious world,therefore, the Bible is sharply opposed; against the passionate anti-intellectualism of a large part of the modern Church it maintains theprimacy of the intellect; it teachesplainly thatGodhas given toman afaculty of reason which is capable of apprehending truth, even truthaboutGod.

ThatdoesnotmeanthatwefinitecreaturescanfindoutGodbyourownsearching;but it doesmean thatGodhasmadeus capable of receivingtheinformationwhichHechoosestogive.IcannotevolveanaccountofChinaoutofmyowninnerconsciousness,butIamperfectlycapableofunderstandingtheaccountwhichcomestomefromtravellerswhohavebeen there themselves. So our reason is certainly insufficient to tell usabout God unless He reveals Himself; but it is capable (or would becapableifitwerenotcloudedbysin)ofreceivingrevelationwhenonceitisgiven.

God'srevelationofHimselftomanembraces,indeed.onlyasmallpartofHisbeing; theareaofwhatweknowis infinitesimalcomparedwiththearea of whatwe do not know. But partial knowledge is not necessarilyfalseknowledge;andourknowledgeofGodonthebasisofHisrevelationofHimselfis,wehold,trueasfarasitgoes.

ThatknowledgeofGodisregardedbytheBibleasinvolvedinfaithandasthe necessary prerequisite of faith.We can trust God, according to theBible, becauseHe has revealedHimself as trustworthy. The knowledgethatGodhasgraciouslygivenusofHimselfisthebasisofourconfidenceinHim;theGodoftheBibleisOnewhomitisreasonabletotrust.

ButthatcertainlycannotbesaidoftheGodwhoispresentedbymuchofmodern speculation; there are ways of thinking about God, widelyprevalenttoday,whichwillinevitablydestroyourconfidenceinHim.

In the first place there is the widespread pantheism of the day, which

brings God into some sort of necessary connection with the world.Accordingtothepantheisticview,notonlydoestheworldnotexistapartfromGod,butGoddoesnotexistapartfromtheworld;Godiseithertobe identified with the totality of the world-process or else He is to beregarded as connected with the world-process as the soul of man isconnected with his body. That way of thinking is very widespread andvery popular; it is called, by a perversion of a great truth, the"immanence" of God; it runs through a large part of contemporarypreaching. Whether explicit or not, whether thoroughgoing or presentonly in tendency, pantheism colors very largely the religious life of ourtime. Yet as a matter of fact it will ultimately make religious lifeimpossible;certainlyitwillmakeimpossibleanythingthatcanbecalledfaith.Itisreallyimpossibletotrustabeingthatisconceivedofmerelyasthewholeofwhichweareparts;inordertotrustGodonemustthinkofGodasatranscendent,livingPerson.

It is true that pantheists represent their view as bringing God near toman. "Wewill have nothing to do," they say in effect, "with the far-offGodofthecreedsoftheChurch;theproblemoftheunionbetweenGodandman,withwhichtheoldertheologianswrestledandasasolutionofwhich they constructed their elaborate doctrine of redemption, is noproblematallforus;tousGodiscloserthanbreathingandnearerthanhands and feet; His life pulses through the life of all the world andthrough the livesofeveryoneofus."Thuspantheism is substituted fortheismonthegroundthatitbringsGodnearertomen.

Inreality,however, ithasexactly theoppositeeffect.Far frombringingGodnearertoman,thepantheismofourdayreallypushesHimveryfaroff; it brings Him physically near, but at the same time makes Himspiritually remote; it conceivesofHimasa sortofblindvital force,butceasestoregardHimasaPersonwhomamancanloveandwhomamancan trust. Destroy the free personality of God, and the possibility offellowshipwithHimisgone;wecannotloveortrustaGodofwhomweareparts.

Thus ifwearegoing toretain faithwemustclingwithallourhearts towhat are called the metaphysical attributes of God—His infinity andomnipotenceandcreatorhood.ThefiniteGodofMr.H.G.Wellsandof

some other modern men, for example, seems to us to be almost asdestructiveoffaithasistheimpersonalGodofthepantheists;Heseemstoustobebutacuriousproductofamodernmythology;HeisnotGodbutagod;andinthepresenceofallsuchimaginingsweforourpartareobliged to turn very humbly but very resolutely toward the dread,stupendous wonder of the infinite and say with Augustine: "Thou hastmade us for Thyself, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest inThee."

This devotion to the so-called metaphysical attributes of God isunpopularatthepresentday.Therearemanywhotellusthatweoughttoceasetobeinterestedinthequestionhowtheworldwasmade,orwhatwillbeourfatewhenwepassbeyondthegrave;butthatwecanholdtothegoodnessofGodthoughHiscreatorhoodandHismightaregone.

Anotablepresentationof such a view is found inDr.McGiffert's book,TheGodoftheEarlyChristians.Thatbookisveryprovocativeandtoourmind very erroneous. But it possesses at least one merit that is rareamongcontemporaryreligiousliterature—itisinteresting.ItistheworkofoneoftheforemostAmericanscholars,whoispossessedofaradical,incisive mind, which, if it does not succeed in solving the problem ofChristianorigins,atleast,unlikemostcontemporaryminds,detectswhattheproblemis.Suchabook,withitslearninganditsoriginality,whatevermaybeitsfaults,repayscarefulexaminationfarmorethanmanyafive-footshelfoftheostensiblystartlingandprogressivebutreallythoroughlyconventionalreligiousbookswhicharesopopularjustnow.

Dr.McGifferthimselfisanadvocateofan"ethicaltheism,"whichisveryfarremovedindeedfromwhattheword"theism"canproperlybeheldtomean.Thequestionas tohowtheworldcame intobeing is,heholds,amatterofindifferencetoreligion,asisthewholequestionofthepowerofGodinthephysicalrealm.Butwemoderns,hesaysineffect,thoughwearenolongerinterestedinthepowerofGod,canholdatleasttoourfaithingoodness;andindoingsowecanbereligiousmen.

He is,however, far toogooda scholar to suppose that thisnon-theistic"ethicaltheism"istaughtintheNewTestament;certainly,headmits, itwasnottaughtbyJesus.Jesus'doctrineofGod,onthecontrary,hesays,

was nothing new; it was simply the Jewish doctrine which He foundreadytohand;itlaidgreatstressonthesovereigntyofGod,theabsolutepoweroftheCreatoroverHiscreatures,anditlaidgreatstressupontheawful severity of God rather than upon His love. In other words, Dr.McGiffert admits—though his terminology is somewhat different—thatJesus was a "theist" in the usual meaning of that word; the wholesentimentalpictureofthe"liberalJesus,"withhis"practical"viewofGodthatwasnotalsotheoretical,andwithhisone-sidedemphasisupontheFatherhoodofGodasoveragainstHisjustice,isherebrushedresolutelyaside.Dr.McGifferthasreadtheGospelsforhimself,andknowsfullwellhowunhistoricalthatpictureofJesusis.

Paul, also, according to Dr.McGiffert, was a theist; hemaintained theJewishviewofGodwhichJesushadtaught,thoughheaddedtothatviewthe worship of Jesus as a Saviour God. But—and here we come to thereallydistinctivethesisofthebook—theprimitivesimple-mindedGentileChristiansintheearlydays,unlikeJesusandunlikePaul,were,accordingto Dr. McGiffert, not monotheists; they took Jesus as their Saviourwithout being interested in denying the existence of other saviours; inparticulartheywerenotinterestedintheconnectionbetweenJesusandaMakerandRuleroftheworld.

The interesting thing about this remarkable theory is not found in anylikelihoodofitstruth,foritisnotreallydifficulttorefute;butitisfoundintheconnectionbetweenthetheoryandthewholeanti-intellectualistictrendof themodernreligiousworld.Dr.McGiffert,asmostModernistshavedone,hasgivenupanyclearbeliefintheism;hehasceasedtobasehisreligionuponasupremeMakerandRuleroftheworld:yethedesirestomaintainsomesortofcontinuitywiththeprimitiveChristianChurch.And he does so by the discovery of a primitive non-theistic GentileChristianitywhosereligioninimportantrespectswassimilartohisown.Theinterestingthingaboutthebookisnotthethesisitselfsomuchasthewayinwhichinthepropoundingofthethesistheauthor'sassumptionsareallowedtoappear.

Theincorrectnessofthoseassumptionsbecomesevidentatmanypoints.Particularly faulty is the separation of "salvation" from theism—aseparationwhich recurs again and again in the book. "That therewere

philosophical thinkers," the author says, "who were attracted by themonotheism of the Jews and became Christians because of it isundoubtedly true,but theywerevastly in theminority, and theRomanworldwasnotwontoChristianitybyanysuchtheologicalinterest.Onthecontrary, faith inChristandinhissalvationconvertedthemassesthen,as it has converted multitudes in every age since." It was therefore,according to the author, a decline—such is the clear implication of thebook—when "Christianity ceased to be a mere religion of salvation—amere saving cult—and Christ ceased to be a mere saviour;" when Hebecame,instead,the"creator,ruler,andjudgeofalltheearth."

Thisseparationbetweentheismandsalvationignoresthesimplefactthattherecanbenosalvationwithoutsomethingfromwhichamanissaved.If Christ saves the Christians, from what does He save them? Dr.McGiffert never seems to raise that question. But the answer to it isabundantly plain, and it destroys the entire reconstruction which thisbooksobrilliantlyattempts. Is itnotabundantlyplainthatChristsavesChristians from sin, and from the consequences which it brings at thejudgment-seatofGod?Andisitnotplainalsothatthiswasjustthethingthat appealedmost strongly to simple people of the first century, as itappealsmost strongly tomany persons today? The truth is, it is quiteimpossible to think of Christ as Saviour without thinking of the thingfromwhichHesaves;thejusticeofGodiseverywherethepresuppositionof the Saviourhood of Christ. No doubtmodernmen, especially in thecirclesinwhichDr.McGiffertmoves,havelostthesenseofsinandguiltandthe fearofGod'sawful judgment-seat.Butwiththis loss theregoesthegeneralabandonmentevenoftheword"salvation,"tosaynothingoftheidea.Withoutthesenseofsinandthefearofhell, theremaybethedesire for improvement, "uplift," betterment; but desire for "salvation,"properly speaking, there cannot be. Modernism does not really "readChristianityintermsofsalvation,"butreadssalvationoutofChristianity.Itusuallygiveseventheword"salvation"up.Forsalvationpresupposessomethingfromwhichamanissaved;itpresupposestheawfulwrathofarighteousGod; inotherwords itpresupposes just thethingwhichthenon-theistic Modernism of Dr. McGiffert and others is most eager toreject.VerydifferentwasthesituationintheearlydaysoftheChristianChurch.Modernmenhavelostthesenseofguiltandthefearofhell,but

the early Christians, whether Jews orGentiles, had not. They acceptedChristasSaviouronlybecauseHecouldrescuethemfromtheabyssandbringthemintorightrelationtotheRulerandJudgeofalltheearth.TheSaviourhoodofChristinvolved,thenasalways,themajestyandjusticeofGod.

Evenmore radically at fault is another distinctionwhich is at the veryroot of Dr. McGiffert's thinking throughout—the distinction, alreadyalluded to, "between a god of moral and a god of physical power."According to this distinction, Dr. McGiffert holds, as we have alreadyseen,thatit isorshouldbematterofindifferencetoChristianshowtheworldcame intobeing; thedoctrineof creationbelongs,he thinks, toaregion of metaphysics with which religion need have nothing to do.Similar is really thecasewithrespect to thedoctrineofprovidence; thewholethoughtofthepower,asdistinguishedfromthegoodness,ofGodis,thisauthorevidentlythinks,quiteseparablefromreligion;wecan,hethinks,revereGod'sgoodnesswithoutfearingHispowerorrelyinguponHisprotectionfromphysicalills.

Suchskepticismmaybejustifiedormaynotbejustified—withthatgreatquestionweshallnotnowundertaketodeal—butindifferenttoreligionitcertainlyisnot.GiveupthethoughtofaMakerandRuleroftheworld;say,asyoumustlogicallysayifyouacceptDr.McGiffert'sview,that"theGreat Companion is dead," and youmay still maintain something likereligiousfervoramongafewphilosophicalsouls.Butthesufferingmassofhumanity,atanyrate,willbelostandhopelessinahostileworld.Andtorepresentthesethingsasmattersofindifferencetoreligionistocloseone's eyes to the deepest things of the human heart. Is the doctrine ofcreation reallyamatterofno religiousmoment;may the religiousmanreally revereGodwithoutasking thequestionhow theworld came intobeingandwhat it is thatupholds iton itsway? Is themodernscientistwrong,who,pursuinghisresearches intonature's laws,comesat lengthbefore a curtain that is never lifted and stands inhumble awebefore amystery that rebukes all pride?Was Isaiah wrong when he turned hiseyes to the starry heavens and said: "Lift up your eyes on high, andbehold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host bynumber:hecalleththemallbynamesbythegreatnessofhismight, for

thathe isstrong inpower;notone faileth"?WasJesuswrongwhenHebadeHisdisciplestrustinHimwhoclothedtheliliesofthefieldandsaid:"Fearnot,littleflock;foritisyourFather'sgoodpleasuretogiveyouthekingdom?"

Tothesequestionsphilosophersmayreturnthisanswerorthat,buttheanswer of the Christian heart at any rate is clear. "Away with all paleabstractions,"itcries,"awaywithalldualismbetweentheGodofpowerand the God of goodness, away with Marcion and his many modernfollowers,awaywiththosewhospeakofthegoodnessofGodbutdepriveHimofHispower.As forusChristians,we say still, aswecontemplatethatgreenfieldgleaminginthesunandthosedarkforeststouchedwithautumn brilliance and that blue vault of heaven above—we say still,despiteall,thatitisGod'sworld,whichHecreatedbythefiatofHiswill,and that through Christ's grace we are safe forever in the arms of ourheavenlyFather."

But what have we left when, according to Dr. McGiffert, our heavenlyFather is gone? The answer that he gives is plain. "We have goodnessleft,"wearetoldineffect;"wedonotknowhowtheworldcametoexist,we do not knowwhat will be our fate when we pass through the darkportals of death. But we can find a higher, disinterested worship—farhigher,itwouldseem,thanthatofJesus—inthereverenceforgoodnessdivestedofthevulgartrappingsofpower."

Itsoundsnobleatfirst.Butconsideritforamoment,anditsgloryturnsintoashesandleavesusindespair.Whatismeantbyagoodnessthathasnophysicalpower?Isnot"goodness"initselfthemerestabstraction?Isitnot altogether without meaning except as belonging to a person? Anddoesnottheverynotionofapersoninvolvethepowertoact?Goodnessaltogetherdivorcedfrompoweristhereforenogoodnessatall.Andif itweregoodness, itwouldstillmeannothingtous—includedasweare inthisphysicaluniverse,whichiscapableapparentlyofdestroyingusinitsrelentless march. The truth is that overmuch abstraction has heredestroyedeven thatwhich is intended tobeconserved.MakeGodgoodonly and not powerful, and both God and goodness have really beendestroyed.

Feeling, even if not fully understanding, this objection, feeling thatgoodnessisamereemptyabstractionunlessit inheresingoodpersons,manymodernmenhavetriedtogivetheirreverenceforgoodnesssomesort of subsistence by symbolizing this "ethical" (and most clearlyantitheistic) "theism" in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. They "readChristianityonly in termsofsalvation"and take themanJesusas theironlyGod.ButwhoisthisJesuswhomtheymaketheembodimentofthegoodness that they revere? He is certainly not the Jesus of the NewTestament; for that Jesus insisted upon everything that these modernmen reject. But he is not even the Jesus ofmodern reconstruction; foreventhatJesus,asDr.McGifferthasshownwithdevastatingclearness,maintainedthetheismwhichthesemodernmenarerejectingwithsuchcontempt.ThetruthisthatitisimpossibleforsuchmentoholdtoJesuseven as the supreme man, even as the supreme embodiment of thatabstract goodness which Modernism is endeavoring to revere. For therealJesusplacedattheverycentre,notmerelyofHisthinkingbutofHislife,theheavenlyFather,MakerandRuleroftheworld.

Is, then, the antitheistic Modernism of our day, reading ChristianitysolelyintermsofsalvationandtakingthemanJesusasitsonlyGod,torelinquishallthoughtofcontinuitywiththeearlygloriesoftheChristianChurch? Here Dr. McGiffert comes with a suggestion of hope. Heabandons, indeed, the former answers to the question; he destroyswithoutpitythecomplacencyofthosewhohavesupposedthattheearlyhistoryofChristianityonnaturalisticprinciplesisallperfectlysettledandplain;hethrowsthehistoricalproblemagain intoastateof flux.Hencewe welcome his brilliant and thought-provoking book. Such books, webelieve, by their very radicalism, by their endeavor after ever newhypotheses, by the exhibition which they afford of the failure of allnaturalisticreconstructions—especiallytheirown—mayultimatelyleadtoan abandonment of thewholeweary effort, and a return to the simplegrounding of Christian history upon a supernatural act of God.Meanwhile,however,Dr.McGiffertcomestotheModernistChurchwitha word of cheer. The continuity with primitive Christianity, he says ineffect, does not need to be given up even by an antitheistic, non-theological Christianity which at first sight seems very non-primitiveindeed.

Itwouldbeagreatmistake,wethink,toignorethispracticalreferenceofthe book. It is no doubt largely unconscious; Dr. McGiffert writes nodoubt with the most earnest effort after scientific objectivity. But nohistorian can be altogether without presuppositions; and thepresuppositionofthishistorianisthatannon-theisticChristianityisthemostnaturalthingintheworld.Accordingly,asmanynotablehistorianshave done, he finds what he expects to find. Baur, on the basis of hisHegelianphilosophy,with its "thesis, antithesis, synthesis," expected tofind a conflict in the apostolic age with a gradual compromise andsettlement. And so he found that phenomenon surely enough—indefianceofthefacts,butinagreementwithhisphilosophy.SimilarlyDr.McGiffert, on the basis of his pragmatist skepticism, expects to findsomewhereintheearlyChurchatypeofreligiouslifesimilartohisown.

Whyisitthatdespitethisauthorsownadmissionoftheprecariousnessofmanyofhisargumentsheyet"cannotresisttheconclusionthattherewassuch a primitiveChristianity" as thatwhich he has just described?Theanswer is plain. It is because he is seeking a precursor in earlyChristianity for thenon-theisticModernismwhichhehimself supports.OthershavefoundprecursorsforitintheNewTestament—eveninPaul.ButDr.McGiffert is fartoogoodascholartobesatisfiedwithanysuchsolutionasthat.StillothershavefounditinJesus,andsohaveraisedthecry,"BacktoChrist."ButDr.McGifferthasreadtheGospelsforhimself,and knows full well how false is that appeal of the popularModernistpreachers to the words of the one whom they call "Master". Rejectingtheseobviouslyfalseappeals,thisauthorisobligedtofindwhatheseeksinthenon-literary,inarticulate,andindeedunattested,pietyoftheearlyGentileChristians."There,"hesaysineffecttohisfellow-Modernists,"isourreligionatlast;thereistobefoundthespiritualancestryofareligionthat reads Christianity exclusively in terms of salvation and will havenothingtodowith'fiatcreation'orthedivinejusticeorheavenorhellorthelivingandholyGod."AndsoforthecryoftheolderLiberalism:"BacktoChrist"—uponwhichDr.McGifferthasput,wetrust,afinalquietus—there is now apparently to be substituted the cry: "Back to the non-theistic Gentile Christians who read Christianity only in terms ofsalvationandwerenotinterestedintheologyorinGod."Butifthatreallyistobethecry,theoutlookisverydark.Itisasadthingifthecontinuity

ofChristianitycanbesavedonlybyanappealtothenon-theisticGentileChristians.Forthosenon-theisticGentileChristiansneverreallyexistedatall.

The truth is that the antitheistic or non-theistic religion of the presentday—popularizedbymanypreachersandundergirdedbyscholarssuchastheauthorofthebrilliantbookofwhichwehavejustbeenspeaking—thetruth is that thisnon-theistic religion,which,at least inoneof itsmostcharacteristicforms,takesthemanJesusofnaturalisticreconstructionasitsonlyGod,willhavetostandatlastuponitsownfeet.WiththehistoricChristianChurch,atanyrate,itplainlyhaslittletodo.FortheChristianChurch can never relinquish belief in the heavenly Fatherwhom JesustaughtHisdisciplestolove.

Attheroot,then,offaithinGod,astaughtintheBible,issimplytheism:thebelief,namely,thattheuniversewascreatedandisnowupheldbyapersonal Being upon whom it is dependent but who is not dependentuponit.Godis,indeed,accordingtothisChristianview,immanentintheworld, butHe is also personally distinct from the world, and from thefinitecreatures thatHehasmade.The transcendenceofGod—what theBiblecallsthe"holiness"ofGod—isatthefoundationofChristianfaith.TheChristiantrustsGodbecauseGodhasbeenpleasedtorevealHimselfasonewhomitisreasonabletotrust;faithinGodisbasedonknowledge.

Certainly that knowledgedoesnot removeour feeling ofwonder in thepresenceofGod,butshouldratherdeepen it till it leads toaboundlessawe.SomethingshavebeenrevealedtousaboutGod,andtheyarebyfarthe greatest things that have ever entered the mind of man; but howlimitedtheyarecomparedtotheboundlessmysteryoftheunknown!Ifaman'sknowledgeofGodremoveshissenseofwonderinthepresenceoftheInfiniteOne,heshowstherebythathehashardlybeguntohaveanytrueknowledgeatall.

Yetpartialknowledgeisnotnecessarilyfalse;andthepartialknowledgethatwe have ofGod, though it leaves vastmysteries unexplored, is yetsufficientasabasis for faith. If suchaGodbe forus, theChristiancansay,whocanbeagainstus?SuchaGodisOnewhomamancantrust.

AtthispointitmaybewelltopauseforafewmomentsatthetextfromtheeighthchapterofRomans,whichwehavejustquoted."IfGodbeforus,"saysPaul,"whocanbeagainstus?"

These words constitute a veritable battle cry of faith; they might haveserved as themotto for countless heroic deeds. Trusting in theGod ofIsrael,menfoughtmightybattlesandwongloriousvictories;theLordofhostsisapowerfulally.

Jonathan thought so, when he and his armour-bearer made thatfoolhardy attempt upon a garrison of the Philistines. "There is norestrainttotheLord,"hesaid,"tosavebymanyorbyfew."Davidthoughtso, with his five smooth stones from the brook and his great boastingadversary."Thoucomesttome,"hesaid,"withasword,andwithaspear,andwithashield:butIcometotheeinthenameoftheLordofhosts,theGodofthearmiesofIsrael."Elishathoughtso,whenheandhisservantwereshutupinDothan.TheSyrianshadsoughttotakehis life;hehadrevealedtheirplanstothekingofIsrael;andatlasttheyhadcaughthimfair.Whentheservantoftheprophetaroseinthemorning,thecitywasallsurroundedbytheSyrianhosts."Alas,mymaster,"hesaid,"howshallwedo?"Buttheprophetwasnotdismayed."Openhiseyes,"hesaid,"thathemay see." And the Lord opened his eyes, and behold the hills werecoverednotonlyby theSyrianarmies, but alsoby the fieryhorses andchariots ofGod's protecting care. The apostles thought thatGodwas apowerful ally,when they testified in the council of the Jews: "WemustobeyGod rather thanmen." Luther thought so on thatmemorable daywhenhe stoodbeforekingsandprinces, andsaid—insubstanceeven ifnotinword—"HereIstand,Icannotdootherwise,Godhelpme!Amen."

In these greatmoments of history the hand of God was revealed. But,alas, the thing is not always so plain.Many prophets as true as Elishahavebeensurroundedbythearmiesofthealiens,andnofieryhorsesandchariotshaveput inanappearance; fivesmoothstones fromthebrook,evenwhenslungbravelyinthenameoftheLordofhosts,arenotalwaysabletocopewithmodernartillery;manymenofGodasboldasPeter,assturdy as good Luther, have testified faithfully to the truth, and, beingunprotectedbythefavorofthepeopleorbywiseGamalielsorbyfriendlyElectors of Saxony, have gone to the stake for their pains. Nor does it

always seem to be true that the blood of themartyrs is the seed of theChurch. Persecution sometimes seems to be crowned with a tragicsuccess.Aswhenpurereligionbytheuseofphysicalweaponswaslargelystamped out of Italy and Spain and France, so often the blood of themartyrs seems to be shed in vain.What is true,moreover, in the largearenaofhistoryisalsotrueinourworkadaylives.Sometimes,intimesofgreatspiritualcrisis,thehandofGodisrevealed;therehasbeenasignalanswertoprayer;deliverancehascomeinwondrouswayswhenexpectedleast.Butatothertimesprayerjustasearnestseemstogounanswered,andfaithseemssetatnaught.

In our perplexity we are sometimes tempted to think of our God verymuch as He was thought of on one occasion by the enemies of Israel."Theirgods," theysaidwithreferencetoIsrael,"aregodsof thehills,…butletusfightagainstthemintheplain,andsurelyweshallbestrongerthanthey:"SoourGod,wearesometimestemptedtosay,canhelpusinsomeofthecircumstancesoflife;butatothertimes,whetherbythelackofthepowerorbythelackofthewill—itmakeslittlepracticaldifference—atothertimesHefails.Religion,wesay,willhelpsometimes;butthereare troubles inwhichsomefarmoredefiniteassistance is required;ourGodisaGodofthehills,butbeware,OChristian,oftheplain.

Such doubts, in the text to which We have referred, are all brushedgrandlyaside."IfGodbeforus,"saysPaul,"whocanbeagainstus?"Thechallenge,intheApostle'smind,canreceivenoanswer:ifGodbeforus,nonecanbeagainstus—noneinhillordale,incloudorsunshine,inlifeordeath,amongthingspresentorthingstocome.

Suchafaithismagnificent;itisheroic;itfirestheimaginationandstirsthewill.Whatagloriousthingitis,tobesure,whenastrongmanstandswithGodagainsttheworld!Butmeremagnificenceisnotenough,andalurkingdoubtremains.ThebeliefofPaulismagnificent,butisitfoundeduponsober truth?IsGod,asweknowHim,reallysufficientnotmerelyforsome,butforall,ofourneeds?

Theanswer to thatquestionobviouslydependsuponwhatyou thinkofGod.IfGodbemerelythetribaldivinityofapeopleofthehills,asHewasthoughttobebythoseenemiesmentionedinthetwentiethchapterofthe

FirstBookofKings,thencertainlywecannotexpectHimtofightforusintheplain.Ofcourse thepolytheismof thoseSyrians isgone forgood; itmay almost evoke a smile. But other errors, though more refined, areequally fatal to thecomfortofPaul'swords.Therearewaysof thinkingaboutGod,widelyprevalent today,whichmakeHimof even less valuethanalocaldivinityoftheIsraelitishhills.

Someof thesewaysof thinkinghavealreadybeenmentioned.There is,forexample, thecommonviewwhich identifiesGodwith the totalityoftheworld.Thatviewgoesbydifferentnames,andmostcommonlybynoname at all. It may best be called pantheism. But we ought not to beconfusedbyatechnicalterm;whatevermaybethoughtofthename,thethingitselfisnotconfinedtothephilosophers.Itissometimescalledthe"new theology;" it is sometimes called (quite falsely) the doctrine ofdivine"immanence."Butitis,atanyrate,amistaketothinkthatitaffectsonlytheclassroom;onthecontrary,itaffectstheplainmanaswellasthescholar,andnotonly thepulpitbut thepew. In thereligious lifeofourday it isalmostdominant; fewofuscanaltogetherescape its influence.Certainlyitisnothingnew;farfrombeingthe"newrevelation"whichitissometimes represented as being, it is really as old as the hills; formillenniums it has been in the world dulling the moral sense andblighting thereligious lifeofman.But ithasneverbeenmorepowerfulthanitistoday.

We find ourselves in this world in the midst of a mighty process. Itmanifests itself in the wonders of the starry heavens, and in the equalwonders that the microscope has revealed. It is seen in the revolvingseasons,andintheachievementsofthehumanmind.Inthepresenceofit,westand inawe;weare impressedbyourown littleness;wearebutinfinitesimalpartsofamightywhole.Andtothatwhole,tothatmighty,all-embracingworld-process,whichwemodernshavelearnedwithanewclearnesstoregardasone,thepantheistappliesthedreadnameofGod.Godisthusnolongerthoughtofasanartificerapartfromhismachine;Heisthoughtofasnaughtbuttheuniverseitself,conceivedofnotinitsindividualmanifestations,butasamightywhole.

Who does not appreciate the appeal of such a view? It has stimulatedsome of the profoundest thinking and inspired some of the grandest

poetryoftherace.

Butitcontainsnocomfortwhateverforoppressedandburdenedsouls.IfGodbebutanothernameforthetotalityofthings,thenwhenwepossessHimwe possess nothing thatwe did not have before. There is then noappeal from theworld toHim;when theworld treatsus ill, there isnohelpforus,forwehavealreadyhadour"God.""IfGodbeforus,whocanbe against us?"—these words were spoken by no pantheist, but by onewhocouldappealfromnaturetonature'sGod.

That appeal is possible only if God is a free and holy Person, eternallysovereignoverallthatHehasmade.True,Heisimmanentintheworld;He is no far-off deity separate fromHis works. There is an importanttruthinpantheism;theChristiantoocansay,"InHimwelive,andmove,andhaveourbeing,"and"Closer isHethanbreathing,andnearerthanhands and feet." God is present in the world; not a single thing thathappens is independent of Him. But that does not mean that He isidenticalwiththeworldorlimitedbyit;becausetheworldisdependentuponHim,itdoesnotfollowthatHeisdependentupontheworld.HeispresentintheworldnotbecauseHeisidenticalwithit,butbecauseHeisMaster of it; theuniverse is pervaded and envelopedby themystery ofHiswill.Thesethingshavebeenhiddenfromthewiseandprudentandrevealeduntobabes.Itissimplicitythatishereprofound;thestupendouswonderofGod'sworks,theboundlesscomplexityofHisuniverse,shouldnever be allowed to conceal the simple fact that He is a Person; thatsimple fact, the child's possession of every trusting soul, is the greatestmystery of all. Jesus taught, indeed, the immanence of God; He sawGod'shandinthesproutingoftheseed;notasparrow,Hesaid,couldfallto the ground without God. That might have been said by thephilosophers.ButJesusdidnotputitmerelyinthatform;whatHesaidwas,"OneofthemshallnotfallonthegroundwithoutyourFather."AndwhenHesaidthat,thelongsearchingsofphilosophywereover,andHewhommenhaddimlyfeltfor,thepersonal,livingGod,wasrevealed.

If,then,thereistobeanappealfromnaturetonature'sGod,ifthereistobe real faith,Godmustbe thoughtofasaGodwhocanworkwonders;notasanothernameforthetotalityofexistingthings,butasafreeandlivingPerson.ThinkofHimotherwise,andyouremainforeverboundin

theprison-houseoftheworld.

Butanotherformoferrorisequallyfatal.Itisahomelier,lesspretentiousformoferror,butitisequallydestructiveofafaithlikethefaithofPaul.WehaveinsistedthatGodisfree,thatHecangovernthecourseofnaturein accordance with His will; and it is an important truth indeed. Butmanymenmakeofittheonlytruth,andindoingsotheymakeshipwreckoftheirfaith.TheythinkofGodonlyasonewhocandirectthecourseofnature for theirbenefit; theyvalueHimonly for the things thatHecangive.

Wearesubjecttomanypressingneeds,andwearetoomuchinclinedtovalueGod,not forHisownsake,butonlybecauseHecan satisfy thoseneeds.There is theneedof foodandclothing, forourselvesand forourlovedones,andwevalueGodbecauseHecananswerthepetition,"Giveus this day our daily bread." There is the need of companionship; weshrink from loneliness; we would be surrounded by those who love usandthosewhomwecan love.AndwevalueGodasonewhocansatisfythatneedbygivingusfamilyandfriends.Thereistheneedof inspiringlabor;wewouldbedeliveredfromanaimlesslife;wedesireopportunitiesfornobleandunselfishserviceofour fellow-men.AndwevalueGodasonewhobyHisorderingofourlivescansetbeforeusanopendoor.

Theseareloftydesires.Butthereisonedesirethatisloftierstill.Itisthedesire forGodHimself.Thatdesire, toooften,we forget.WevalueGodsolelyforthethingsthatHecando;wemakeofHimameremeanstoanulteriorend.AndGodrefusestobetreatedso;suchareligionalwaysfailsin thehourofneed. Ifwehave regarded religionmerely as ameansofgettingthings—evenloftyandunselfishthings—thenwhenthethingsthathavebeengottenaredestroyed,our faithwill fail.When lovedonesaretaken away, when disappointment comes and failure, when nobleambitionsaresetatnaught,thenweturnawayfromGod;wehavetriedreligion,wesay,wehavetriedprayer,andithasfailed.Ofcourseithasfailed!Godisnotcontenttobeaninstrumentinourhandoraservantatourbeckandcall.He isnotcontent tominister to theworldlyneedsofthose who care not a bit for Him. The text in the eighth chapter ofRomans does not mean that religion provides a certain formula forobtaining worldly benefits—even the highest and most ennobling and

mostunselfishofworldlybenefits."IfGodbeforus,whocanbeagainstus?"—thatdoesnotmeanthatfaithinGodwillbringuseverythingthatwedesire.WhatitdoesmeanisthatifwepossessGod,thenwecanmeetwithequanimitythelossofallbesides.HasitneverdawneduponusthatGodisvaluableforHisownsake,thatjustaspersonalcommunionisthehighestthingthatweknowonearth,sopersonalcommunionwithGodisthe sublimestheightof all? IfwevalueGod forHisownsake, then thelossofotherthingswilldrawusalltheclosertoHim;weshallthenhaverecoursetoHimintimeoftroubleastotheshadowofagreatrockinaweary land. I do notmean that theChristian need expect always to bepoor and sick and lonely and to seek his comfort only in a mysticexperiencewithHisGod.Thisuniverse isGod'sworld; itsblessingsareshowereduponHiscreaturesevennow;andinHisowngoodtime,whentheperiodof its groaning and travailing is over,Hewill fashion it as ahabitationofglory.ButwhatIdomeanisthatifhereandnowwehavetheoneinestimablegiftofGod'spresenceandfavor,thenalltherestcanwaittillGod'sgoodtime.

If, then, communionwithGod is the one great possession,worthmorethanalltherestbesides,howshallweattainuntoit—howshallwecometoknowGod?

Manymen, ashas alreadybeenobserved, are tellingus thatwe shouldnotseektoknowHimatall;theology,wearetold,isthedeathofreligion.WedonotknowGod, then—suchseemstobe the logical implicationofthis view—but simply feel Him. In its consistent form such a view ismysticism;religionisreducedtoastateofthesoulinwhichthemindandthewill are inabeyance.Whatevermaybe thoughtof sucha religion, Icannotseethatitpossessesanymoralqualityatall;purefeelingisnon-moral,andsoisreligionthatisnotfoundedupontheology.Whatmakesour love for a true friend, for example, such an ennobling thing is therecognitionbyourmindofthecharacterofourfriend.Humanaffection,so beautiful in its apparent simplicity, really depends upon a treasuredhostofobservationsoftheactionsofourfriend.SoitisalsointhecaseofourrelationtoGod.ItisbecauseweknowcertainthingsaboutHim,itisbecause we know that He is mighty and holy and loving, that ourcommunion with Him obtains its peculiar quality. The devout man

cannot be indifferent to doctrine, in the sense in whichmanymodernpreacherswouldhaveusbeindifferent,anymorethanhecanlistenwithequanimitytomisrepresentationsofanearthlyfriend.OurfaithinGod,despite all that is said, is indissolubly connectedwithwhatwe thinkofHim. The devout man may indeed well do without a completesystematization of his knowledge—though if he be really devout hewilldesire justascompleteasystematizationashecanpossiblyobtain—butsomeknowledgehecertainlymusthave.

HowthenmayweattaintothisknowledgeofGodthatissonecessarytofaith;howmaywebecomeacquaintedwithHim?Wemaydoso,Ithink,intheold,oldways;Ihavenoentirelynewwaystosuggest.

Firstofall,wemaydosobyacontemplationofHisworksinnature."Theinvisible things of him from the creation of theworld are clearly seen,beingunderstoodbythethingsthataremade,evenhiseternalpowerandGodhead." "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmamentshowethhishandywork."Bysomemen,indeed,thegloryisunperceived.Therearesomemenwholookuponamountainasameremassofrockand stone, a thunderstorm as amere phenomenon of the atmosphere,and a fair flower as amere combination of leaves and petals.God pitythem—thepoorblindsouls!Butwhentheeyesofoursoulsareopened,thenaswestandbeforeagreatmountainrangeweshallsay:"Iwillliftupmineeyesuntothehills:fromwhenceshallmyhelpcome?";inthefuryof the stormwe shall think of Himwho did fly upon the wings of thewind;andtheflowersofthefieldwillrevealtoustheweavingofGod—andevenSolomoninallhisglorywasnotarrayedlikeoneofthese.

In the second place, God is known by His voice within us. Thecontemplationoftheuniverse,ofwhichwehavejustspoken,bringsustotheverybrinkofinfinity;theworldistoovastforus,andallarounditisenveloped by an impenetrable mystery. But there is also an infinitywithin.Itisrevealedinthevoiceofconscience.Inthesenseofguiltthereis something that is removed from all relativity;we stand there face tofacewiththeabsolute.True,inthehumdrumoflifeweoftenforget;butthe strange experience comes ever again. It may be in the reading orwitnessingofagreatdrama;thegreattragedies,intheworld'sliterature,are those thatpull aside the curtainof the commonplaceandmakesus

feel anew the stark irrevocableness of guilt. Itmay also be, alas, in thecontemplationofourownlives.Buthoweverconsciencespeaks,itisthevoiceofGod.The law reveals aLawgiver; and the characterof this lawrevealstheLawgiver'sawfulrighteousness.

In the third place, God is known through the Bible. AndHe is knownthrough theBible inanentirely freshandpeculiarway.True, theBibledoes repeat and enforcewhat ought to have been learned elsewhere; itdoesreinforcethevoicesofnatureandofconscience;ittellsusanewthatthe heavens declare the glory ofGod; it presents the law of consciencewith a new and terrible earnestness as the law of God. But it does farmorethanallthat;italsopresentsGodinlovingaction,inthecourseofhistory,forthesalvationofsinfulmen.FromGenesistoRevelation,fromEdentoCalvary,asthecovenantGodofIsraelandastheGodandFatherofourLordJesusChrist,allthroughthevariedcourseofBiblestory,Godappears in the fulfilment of one lovingplan.Themarvel is that it is soplainly the sameGod throughout. Themanner ofHis action varies;weseevariousaspectsofHisperson;Heappearsinangeraswellasinlove.But it is plainly the samePerson throughout:we rise from theBible—Ithink we can say it without irreverence—with a knowledge of thecharacter of God. There is a real analogy here to our relation with anearthlyfriend.Howdowecometoknowoneanother?Notallatonce,butbyyearsofobservationofoneanother'sactions.Wehaveseenafriendintimeofdanger,andhehasbeenbrave;wehavegonetohiminperplexity,andhehasbeenwise;wehavehadrecoursetohimintimeoftrouble,andhehasgivenushissympathy.Sogradually,withtheyears,onthebasisofmany,manysuchexperiences,wehavecometolovehimandreverehim.Andnowjustalookorawordoratoneofhisvoicewillbringthewholepersonalitybeforeuslikeaflash;thevariedexperiencesoftheyearshavebeen merged by some strange chemistry of the soul into a unity ofaffection.So it is, somewhat,with theknowledgeofGod thatweobtainfrom theBible. In theBiblewe seeGod in action;we seeHim in fieryindignationwipingoutthefoulnessofSodom;weseeHimleadingIsraellikeaflock;weseeHimgivingHisonlybegottenSonforthesinsoftheworld. And by what we see we learn to know Him. In all His varieddealingswithHispeopleHehasneverfailed;sonowweknowHimandadoreHim.Suchknowledgeseemstobeasimple,an instinctive, thing;

the varied dealings of God with His people have come together in theunity of our adoration. And nowHe is revealed as by a flash by everysmallestdispensationofHisprovidence,whetheritbeinjoyorwhetheritbeinsorrow.

Asthusmadeknown,surelyGodissufficientforallourneeds.Thereisno limit to His power; if He be our champion, we need not fear whatprincipalities and powers and the whole universe can do. He alone isrighteous;Hispresencewillmakeus spotlessas the light.He is loving,andHislovewillcastoutfear.TrulywecansaywithPaul:"IfsuchaGodbeforus,whocanbeagainstus?"

But that textbeginswith "if,"and it isa stupendous"if." "ifGodbe forus"—but isGod for us?Manypersons, it is true, trip along very lightlyover that "if"; theyhavenodoubtabout thematter; theyarequite surethat God is for them. But the curious thing is that those who have nodoubtaboutthematterareoftenjusttheoneswhoaremostsadlywrong.ThepeopleofJerusalematthetimeofJeremiahhadnodoubt;theywerequitesurethatGodwasforthem;buttheywent intoexileall thesame;Godwasnotforthematall.TheJewsinthedaysofJohntheBaptisthadnodoubt;weretheynotGod'schosenpeople?EveninthedarkestdaysofRomanrule theywerequitesure thatGodwouldgive themthevictory.Butasamatteroffacttheaxewaseventhenlaidattherootofthetree.ThePhariseeintheparablewasquitesurethatGodwasforhimwhenhewent up into the Temple to pray—"God, I thank thee that I am not asothermen are… or even as this publican." But the publican, itwill beremembered,wentdownintohishousejustifiedratherthanhe.

Thesemenwereallquitesure thatGodwas for them,but theywereallentirelywrong.Howthenmaywebesure;andifwebecomesure,isnotourassuranceadelusionandasnare?Howcanweremovethe"if"ofthistext;howcanwebesurethatGodisforus?

Thereareonlytwopossibleways.

Onewayistodowhatisright.Godalwaysstandsfortheright;ifweareright,thennomatterwhatmenanddemonsmaydoGodisonourside.Butareweright?ThePhariseewasquitesurethathewasright,butasa

matter of fact he was most terribly wrong. May we not be equallymistaken?

No doubtwe thinkwe can avoid the Pharisee's error. Godwas not forhim,wesay,becausehewassinfullycontemptuoustowardthatpublican;wewillbetendertothepublican,asJesushastaughtustobe,andthenGodwillbeforus.Itisnodoubtagoodidea;itiswellthatwearetendertowardthepublican.ButwhatisourattitudetowardthePharisee?Alas,wedespisehiminatrulyPharisaicalmanner.Wegoupintothetempletopray;westandandpraythuswithourselves:"GodIthanktheethatIamnot as other men are, proud of my own righteousness, uncharitabletowardpublicans,orevenasthis—Pharisee."Canwereallyventurethus,as thePhariseedid, tostanduponourobedienceofGod's law,asbeingbetterthanthatofothermen,whetherpublicansorPharisees,inordertoassureourselvesofGod'sfavor?

Paulatleastsaid,"No!";andsurelyPaulhassomerighttobeheard,sinceit is hewho gaveus theheroic text towhichwehave turned.Paul hadtriedthatmethod,andithadfailed;andtheseventhchapterofRomansisamightymonumentofitsfailure.Thepowerofthefleshistoostrong;wearelivingoveranabyssofsinandguilt.Ofcoursewemayforgetwhatliesbeneath;wemayforgetifwearewillingtoliveonthesurfaceoflifeandbemorallyblindliketheJewsbeforetheexileorthePhariseewhowentup into theTemple topray.Butwhentheeyesofoursoulsareopened,whenwecatchaterrifyingglimpseoftherighteousnessofGod,thenweare indespair.Wetrytoescape;wetrytobalancethegoodinour livesagainst the evil;wegive tithesof allwepossess;wepoint frantically tooureffortsassocialworkers;andthuswetrytoforgettheterribleguiltoftheheart.Suchisthebondageofthelaw.

Butwhyshouldwenotgiveupthestruggle?Itissohopeless,andatthesame time so unnecessary. Is God for us, despite our sin? Joyfully theChristian answers, "Yes." But why is He for us? Simple indeed is theChristian answer to that question:He is for us simply becauseHe haschosen to be. He surely has a right to receive whom He will into Hisfellowship: and as a matter of fact He has chosen to receive us poorsinnerswhotrustinChrist;HechosetoreceiveuswhenHegaveChristtodie.ItwasHisact,notours.The"if"ofthetextisastupendous"if";but

such aword is not allowed to stand very long in the eighth chapter ofRomans."IfGodbeforus,whocanbeagainstus?"—itisalarge"if,"butitmeltsawayverysooninthewarmthofGod'sgrace."IfGodbeforus,whocanbeagainstus?HethatsparednothisownSon,butdeliveredhimupforusall,howshallhenotwithhimalsofreelygiveusallthings?Whoshall layanything to the chargeofGod's elect? It isGod that justifieth.Whoishethatcondemneth?"

AppealtoGod'sactalonecanenableustofaceeveryadversary.Itcanofcourseenableustofacetheunjustcondemnationofmen.Whatcarewewhatmenmaysay,ifwehavetheapprovalofGod?Butitcandovastlymorethanthat;itcanenableustofacenotonlytheunjustcondemnationofmen,butthecondemnationofmenthatisperfectlyjust.Andnothingelseonearthorinheavencanenableustodothat.Therearesomethingsthat the world never forgives; Peter could never. I suppose, have beenreceived again into the society of gentlemen after he had played thetraitorunderfire.ButGodchosetoreceivehim,andupontherockofhisfaiththeChurchwasbuilt.Theremaybesomefoulspotinourlives;thekindofthingthattheworldneverforgives,thekindofthing,atanyrate,forwhichwewhoknowallcanneverforgiveourselves.Butwhatcarewewhethertheworldforgives,orevenwhetherwecanforgiveourselves, ifGodforgives,ifGodhasreceivedusbythedeathofHisSon?ThatiswhatPaulmeans by "boasting" in the Cross of Christ. If we could appeal toGod'sapprovalasoursby right,howbravelyweshouldboast—boast inthepresenceofaworldofenemies!IfGodknowsthatweareright,whatcarewefortheblameofmen?Suchboasting,indeed,canneverbeours.ButwecanboastinwhatGodhasdone.Littlecarewewhetheroursinbethought unpardonable or no, little interested are we in the exactcalculationofourguilt.Heapitupmountainhigh,yetGodhasremoveditall.WecannotexplainGod'sact; it isdoneonHis responsibility,notours."Iknownot,"theChristiansays,"whatmyguiltmaybe;onethingIknow: Christ loved me and gave Himself for me. Come on now yemoralists of the world, come on ye hosts of demons, with yourwhisperings of hell! We fear you not; we take our stand beneath theshadowoftheCross,andstandingthere,inGod'sfavor,wearesafe.Nofearofchallengenow!IfGodbeforus,whocanbeagainstus?None,inheaven or in earth or in hell. 'Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor

principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, norheight, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate usfromtheloveofGod,whichisinChristJesusourLord.'"

CHAPTERIII

FAITHINCHRIST

Itappearsfromwhathasjustbeensaidthatalthoughtheismisnecessaryto the Christian's faith in God, it is not all that is necessary. It isimpossibletotrustGodintheChristiansensewithoutholdingthatHeisa free and living Person, Creator andRuler of theworld; but it is alsoimpossible to trust Him without convictions that go far beyond that.Indeed theChristiandoctrineofGod in itself, far from leading to faith,would lead only to despair; for the clearer be our view of God'srighteousness, the deeper becomes our consciousness of guilt. God hasdoneall thingswell;weareHiscreaturesuponwhomHehasshoweredHisbounty;butamightybarrierhasbeenplacedbetweenusandHimbythefactofsin.

That fact is recognized in the Bible from beginning to end; and it isrecognizedwithparticularclearnessintheteachingofJesus.Jesusdoesindeedspeakmuchof theFatherhoodofGod,andHiswordsarefullofcomfort for those who are God's children. But never doesHe speak ofGodasbeing theFatherofallmen; in theSermonon theMount thosewhocansay,"OurFatherwhichart inheaven,"aredistinguishedinthesharpestpossiblewayfromtheworldoutside.OurLordcamenottoteachmenthattheywerealreadysonsofGod,buttomakethemsonsofGodbyHis redeemingwork.TheFatherhoodofGodas it is taught in theNewTestamentdesignatesnotarelationshipinwhichGodstandstoallmen,

butarelationshipinwhichHestandstothosewhohavebeenredeemed.

That assertionmay be surprising tomen who have never turned fromwhat issaidabout theNewTestament towhat theNewTestamentsaysitself; but it is unquestionably true. It needs, however, to be guardedagainsttwomisunderstandings.

Inthefirstplace,itdoesnotmeanthattheNewTestamentignoresthosefeaturesintherelationshipofGodtoallmenwhichareanalogoustotherelationshipinwhichanearthlyfatherstandstohischildren.GodistheAuthorofthebeingofallmen,whetherChristiansornot;Hecaresforall;HeshowersHisbountyuponall:andapparentlytheNewTestamentdoeshere and there even use the term Father to designate this broaderrelationship.Butwhatweareinsistinguponisthatsuchauseofthetermis tosay the leasthighlyexceptional,andthat itdoesnotenter into theheartofwhattheNewTestamentmeansbytheFatherhoodofGod.ItisnotthatthedoctrineoftheuniversalfatherlyrelationshipinwhichGodstands to His creatures is unimportant; indeed a large part of ourpreviousdiscussionhasbeentakenupwithshowinghowveryimportantit is; but our point is that the New Testament ordinarily reserves thetender words, "Father" and "Son," to describe a far more intimaterelationship.EverythingintheBibleisconcernedwiththefactofsin;therelationship in which man as man stood to God has been broken bytransgression, and only when that barrier is removed is there sonshipworthy of the name. Thus we are not saying that the doctrine of theuniversalFatherhoodofGodisuntrue:butwhatwearesayingisthatfarfrom being the essence of Christianity, it is only the presupposition ofChristianity;itisonlythestarting-pointwhichtheNewTestamentfindsin"naturalreligion"fortheproclamationofthegospelofdivinegrace.

Thesecondmisunderstandingwhichneeds tobeguardedagainst is thecommonimpressionthatthereissomethingnarrowaboutwhatwehavedesignated as the New Testament doctrine of the Fatherhood of God.Hownarrowathingitis,themodernmanexclaims,toholdthatGodistheFatherofsomeandnotofall!Thisobjectionignoresthecentralthingin theNewTestament teaching,and thecentral thing inChristianity; itignorestheCrossofChrist.ItistruethatmenareseparatedfromGodbythe awful fact of sin; it is true that sonship worthy of the name is

possessedonlybythosewhoarewithinthehouseholdoffaith:butwhatmendonotseemtounderstandisthatthedoorofthehouseholdoffaithisopenwideforallmentocomein.Christdiedtoopenthatdoor,andthepity is that we try to close it by our failure to spread the invitationthroughoutalltheworld.AsChristiansweoughtcertainlytoloveallourfellow-meneverywhere,includingthosewhohavenotyetcometoChrist;butifwereallylovethem,weshallshowourlovenotbytryingtomakethem content with a cold natural religion, but by bringing them in,through theproclamationof thegospel, into thewarmthand joyof thehouseholdoffaith.

In theBible, then, it is notmerelyGod asCreatorwho is the object offaith, but also, andprimarily,God asRedeemer from sin.We fearGodbecauseofourguilt;butwetrustHimbecauseofHisgrace.WetrustHimbecauseHehasbroughtusbytheCrossofChrist,despitealloursin,intoHisholypresence.FaithinGoddependsaltogetheruponHisredeemingwork.

That fact explains an important feature of theNewTestament teachingabout faith—the feature, namely, that the New Testament ordinarilydesignates as theobject of faithnotGod theFatherbut theLordJesusChrist. The New Testament does indeed speak of faith in God, but itspeaksmorefrequentlyoffaithinChrist.

The importanceof thisobservationmust indeednotbeexaggerated;nomancanhavefaithinChristwithoutalsohavingfaithinGodtheFatherand in the Holy Spirit. All three persons of the blessed Trinity areaccording to the New Testament active in redemption; and all threetherefore may be the object of faith when redemption is accepted bysinfulmen.

Redemption was accomplished, however, according to the NewTestament, by an event in the external world, at a definite time in theworld'shistory,whentheLordJesusdieduponthecrossandroseagain.In Christ the redeeming work of God became visible; it is Christ,therefore, very naturally,who is ordinarily represented as the object offaith.

But as in the case of God the Father, so in the case of Christ, it isimpossible to have faith in a person without having knowledge of theperson;faithisalwaysbaseduponknowledge.

ThatimportantprincipleisdeniedbymanypersonsinthemodernworldinthecaseofChrist,justaswehaveseenthatitisdeniedinthecaseofGodtheFather.

It was denied in typical fashion, for example, in a sermon which Iremember hearing some years ago. The subject of the sermonwas theincident of the healing of the centurion's servant. That centurion, thedistinguished preacher said in effect, knew nothing about theology; heknewnothingabouttheNiceneorChalcedoniandoctrineofthePersonofChrist; he knewnothing about the creeds: buthe simply trusted Jesus,andJesuspraisedhisfaithinthehighestterms.Sowealso,itwassaidineffect,maybequiteindifferenttothetheologicalcontroversynowragingintheChurch,andlikethecenturionmaysimplytakeJesusatHiswordanddowhatJesussays.

Fromthepointofviewofcommon-sensereadingoftheBiblethatsermonwassurelyquiteincorrect;itwasratheranextremeinstanceofthatanti-historical forcing of the plainwords of the Biblewhich is somarked afeatureoftheintellectualdecadenceofthepresentday.WhereisitsaidintheGospelnarrativethatthecenturionobyedJesus'commands;whereisitsaidthathedidanythingatall?Thepointofthenarrativeisnotthathedid anything, but rather that he did nothing; he simply believed thatJesus could do something, and accepted that thing at Jesus' hands; hesimplybelievedthatJesuscouldworkthestupendousmiracleofhealingatadistance.Inotherwords,thecenturionispresentedasonewhohadfaith;andfaith,asdistinguishedfromtheeffectsoffaith,consistsnotindoingsomethingbut inreceivingsomething.Faithmayresult inaction,and certainly true faith in Jesus always will result in action; but faithitselfisnotdoingbutreceiving.

Butthesermoninquestionwasnotmerelyfaultyfromthepointofviewofcommon-sensereadingoftheBible;itwasalsofaultyfromthepointofview of psychology. The centurion, it was said in effect, knew nothingabouttheChristologyofthecreeds;heknewnothingaboutthedoctrine

ofthetwonaturesintheonepersonofourLord;yethebelievedinJesusall the same. Clearly the inference intended to be drawn was thatopinions about Jesus are matter of indifference to faith in Jesus; nomatterwhatamanthinksaboutthepersonofChrist, itwasmaintainedineffect,hemaystilltrustChrist.

Thatprincipleismaintainedwiththegreatestconfidencebypresent-daywriters and speakers on the subject of religion. But surely it is quiteabsurd.Letusseehowitwouldworkoutinordinarylife.Canitreallybeheld that I can trust a person irrespective of the opinions that I holdabouttheperson?Asimpleexamplemaymakethematterclear.

Suppose I have a sum of money to invest. It may be rather a wildsupposition—butjustletussuppose.Ihaveasumofmoneytoinvest,andnot knowing much about the stock market I go to an acquaintance ofmineandaskhimtoinvestmysavingsforme.Butanotheracquaintanceofminehearsofitandinjectsawordofcaution.

"Youarecertainlytakingagreatrisk,"hesaystome."Whatdoyouknowabout theman to whom you are entrusting your hard-earned savings?Areyousurethatheisthekindofmanthatyououghttotrust?"

InreplyIsay thatIdoknowcertain thingsabout theman."Sometimeagohecametothistownandsucceededinsellingtheunwaryinhabitantsofitsomeutterlyworthlessoil-stock;andifheisnotinjail,hecertainlyoughttobethere.But,"Icontinue,"opinionsaboutapersonmaydiffer—that ismerelyan intellectualmatter—andyetonemayhave faith in theperson;faithisquitedistinctfromknowledge.ConsequentlyIcanavoidtheunpleasantdutyofrakingupthepastofthespeculativegentlemaninquestion;Icanavoidunseemlycontroversyastowhetherheisarascalornot,andcansimplytrusthimallthesame."

Ofcourse if I talked in thatwayaboutsoseriousa thingasdollarsandcents,Ishouldprobablyberegardedasneedingaguardian;andImightsoonfindmypropertybeingbettermanagedformethanIcouldmanageitformyself:yetitisjustexactlyinthatwaythatmentalkwithregardtothesubjectofreligion;itisjustinthatwaythattheytalkwithregardtoJesus.Butisitnotquiteabsurd?Surelyitisimpossibletotrustaperson

whomoneholdsinone'smindtobeuntrustworthy.Yetifso,wecannotpossiblybe indifferent towhat is called the "theological" controversyofthepresentday; for that controversy concerns just exactly thequestionwhetherJesusistrustworthyornot.ByonepartyintheChurchJesusispresentedasOneinwhommencanhaveconfidenceinthisworldandtheworldtocome;bytheotherpartyHeissopresentedasthattrustinHimwouldbeignobleifnotabsurd.

Yettheremaybeanobjection."Faith,"itmaybesaid,"seemstobesuchawonderfullysimplething.Whathasthesimpletrustwhichthatcenturionreposed in Jesus to do with the subtleties of the Chalcedonian creed?What has it to do evenwith a question of fact like the question of thevirgin birth? And may we not return from our theology, or from ourdiscussionofdetailsoftheNewTestamentpresentation,tothesimplicityofthecenturion'sfaith?"

Tothisobjectionthereisofcourseoneveryeasyanswer.TheplainfactisthatwearebynomeansinthesamesituationasthecenturionwaswithreferencetoJesus;weofthetwentiethcenturyneedtoknowverymuchmore about Jesus in order to trust Him than the centurion needed toknow.IfwehadJesuswithusinbodilypresencenow,itisquitepossiblethatwemightbeabletotrustHimwithverylittleknowledgeindeed;themajestyofHisbearingmightconceivablyinspireunboundedconfidencealmostatfirstsight.ButasamatteroffactweareseparatedfromHimbynineteencenturies;and ifweare tocommitourselvesunreservedly toaJewwholivednineteenhundredyearsago,astoalivingperson,thereareobviouslymanythingsaboutHimthatweneedtoknow.Foronething,weneedtoknowthatHeisalive;weneedtoknow,therefore,abouttheresurrection.AndthenweneedtoknowhowitisthatHecantouchourlives;andthatinvolvesaknowledgeoftheatonementandofthewayinwhichHe saves us from our sin. But it is useless to enter into furtherdetail.Obviously it isaverystrange thing thatpersonsof the twentiethcenturyshouldcomeintoarelationoflivingtrustwithamanofthefirstcentury;andiftheyaretodoso,theymustknowmuchmoreaboutHimthan His contemporaries needed to know. Even if the centurion,therefore, could get along with very little knowledge of the person ofChrist,itdoesnotfollowthatwecandoso.

Thereis,however,anotheranswertotheobjection.Mensaythatfaith—forexamplethefaithofthecenturion—isasimplethingandhasnothingtodowith theology.But is faithreallysosimplea thing?Theanswer isnotsoobviousasmanypersonssuppose.Manythingswhichseemtobesimple are really highly complex. And such is the case with respect totrustinaperson.WhyisitthatItrustonemananddonottrustanother?Sometimesitmayseemtobeasimplething;sometimesItrustamanatfirst sight; trust in these cases seems to be instinctive. But surely"instinct"inhumanbeingsisnotsosimpleasitseems.Itreallydependsuponahostofobservationsabout thepersonalbearingofmenwhoaretrustworthyandthosewhoarenottrustworthy.Andusuallytrust isnoteven apparently instinctive; usually it is built up by long years ofobservationofthepersonwhoistrusted.WhydoItrustthismanorthat?Surely it isbecauseIknowhim;Ihaveseenhimtriedagainandagain,andhehas rung true.The result seems to be very simple; at the end alook or a tone of the voice is sufficient to give me as in a flash animpressionofthewholeperson.Butthatimpressionisreallytheresultofmanythings thatIknow.AndIcanneverbe indifferent towhat issaidabout the one whom I trust; I am indignant about slanders directedagainsthim,andIseektodefendmyhighopinionofhimbyanappealtothefacts.

SoitisinthecaseofourrelationtoJesus.WearecommittingtoHimthemost precious thing thatwe possess—our own immortal souls, and thedestiniesofsociety.Itisastupendousactoftrust.Anditcanbejustifiedonlybyanappealtofacts.

But what becomes, then, it may be asked, of the childlike faith whichseemstobecommendedbyourLordHimself?Iffaithissoelaborateanintellectualaffair,howcouldJesuseverhavesaid:"Whosoevershallnotreceive thekingdomofGodasa littlechild,heshallnotenter therein."Surely a little child does not wait until all probabilities have beenweighed,anduntilthetrustworthinessofitsparentshasbeenestablishedatthebarofreason,beforeitreachesoutitslittlehandsinsimpletrust.

Inanswer,threethingsneedtobesaid.

Inthefirstplace,inholdingthatknowledgeislogicallythebasisoffaith

wearenotholdingthatitnecessarilyprecedesfaithintheorderoftime.Sometimes faith in a person and knowledge of the person come in thesameinstant.CertainlywearenotmaintainingthatfaithinJesushastowaituntilamanhaslearnedallthatthetheologiansorevenallthattheBiblecantellhimaboutJesus;onthecontrary,faithmaycomefirst,onthebasisofveryelementaryknowledge,andthen fullerknowledgemaycome later. Indeed that isnodoubtquite thenormalorderofChristianexperience. But what we do maintain is that at no point is faithindependent of the knowledgeuponwhich it is logically based; even atthe very beginning faith contains an intellectual element; and if thesubsequentincreaseofknowledgeshouldshowthepersoninwhomtrustisreposedtobeuntrustworthy,thefaithwouldbedestroyed.

Inthesecondplace,thequestionmaywellbeaskedwhetherthefaithofachild,afterall,isindependentofknowledge.Weforourpartthinkthatitisnot,providedthechildhascometotheageofconsciouspersonallife.Thechildpossesses,storedupinitsmemory,experiencesofthemother'sgoodness,knowshow todistinguishher fromotherpersons, andhencesmilesatherapproach.Verydifferentisthenon-theological"faith"ofthemodernpragmatist,thatcansubsistindependentlyoftheopinionswhichmay be held as to the object of faith. Whatever may be said for thatpragmatist attitude, it is certainly as unchildlike as anything that couldpossiblybeimagined.Achildnevertrustsapersonwhomitholdswithitsmindtobeuntrustworthy.The faithof themodernpragmatist isaverysubtle,sophisticated,unchildlikething;whatisreallychildlikeisthefaiththatisfoundeduponknowledgeoftheoneinwhomtrustisreposed.

Thereis,indeed,perhapsonestageofchildhoodwheretheintellectisinabeyance; but it is the stage where conscious personal life has not yetbeen begun. Is it that stage to which Christian faith ought to return?Therearemanywhoanswer thisquestion, implicitly ifnotexplicitly, inthe affirmative; these are the mystics, who hold that religion is anineffable experience in which the ordinary faculties of the soul arequiescent, and who must hold, if they be consistent, that the goal ofreligionisasheerlossofindividualconsciousnessthroughthemergingofthesoul in theabyssof thedivine. It is towardsuchmysticismthat themoderndepreciationoftheintellectinreligionreallytends.Nodoubtthe

anti-intellectualismofourdaydoesnotoftenconsciouslygoso far;butthatisnotbecausethestarting-pointisright,butbecausethewayhasnotyet been followed to the end. The ultimate goal of themodern view offaithisanirvanainwhichpersonalityislost.

Inthethirdplace,wehavesofarreallynotgottenatwhatJesusmeantatall.WhenourLordbadeHisdisciplesreceivethekingdomofheavenaslittlechildren,wasitreallytheignoranceofthelittlechildrentowhichHeappealed?Wethinknot.No,itwasnottheignoranceofchildrentowhichourLordappealed,buttheirconscioushelplessness,theirwillingnesstoreceiveagift.WhatmarsthesimplicityofthechildlikefaithwhichJesuscommends isnotanadmixtureofknowledge,butanadmixtureof self-trust.Toreceivethekingdomasalittlechildistoreceiveitasafreegiftwithout seeking in slightestmeasure toearn it forone's self.There is arebukehereforanyattempttoearnsalvationbyone'scharacter,byone'sownobediencetoGod'scommands,byone'sownestablishmentinone'slife of "theprinciples of Jesus"; but there is no rebukewhatever for anintelligentfaiththatisfoundeduponthefacts.Thechildlikesimplicityoffaithismarredsometimesbyignorance,butneverbyknowledge; itwillnever bemarred—and never has beenmarred in the lives of the greattheologians—by theblessedknowledgeofGodandof theSaviourJesusChristwhichiscontainedintheWordofGod.Withoutthatknowledgewemightbetemptedtotrustpartlyinourselves;butwithitwetrustwhollytoGod.ThemoreweknowofGod,themoreunreservedlywetrustHim;thegreaterbeourprogress in theology, the simpler andmore childlikewillbeourfaith.

There is no reason, then, for us tomodify the conclusion to which wewere led by an examination of the centurion's faith; faith in Christ,wehold,canbejustifiedonlybyanappealtofacts.

ThefactswhichjustifyourappealtoJesusconcernnotonlyHisgoodnessbutalsoHispower.WemightbeconvincedofHisgoodness,andyetnottrustHimwiththeseeternalconcernsofthesoul.Hemighthavethewillto help and not the power. We might be in the position of the ship-captain'schildinthetouchingstory,who,whenallonshipboardwereinterror because of an awful storm, learned that his father was on thebridge and went peacefully to sleep. The confidence of the child very

probably wasmisplaced; but it wasmisplaced not because the captainwasnotfaithfulandgood,butbecausethebestofmenhasnopowertocommand the wind and the sea that they should obey him. Is ourconfidence in Jesus equallymisplaced? It ismisplaced if Jesuswas thepoor, weak enthusiast that He is represented as being by naturalistichistorians. But very different is the case if He was the mighty Personpresented in theWord of God. The question as to which was the realJesusmaybedecidedinonewayoritmaybedecidedintheother;butatanyrateitcannotbeignored.WecannottrustJesusifJesusisunworthyofourtrust.

WhythendothosewhoreduceJesustothelevelofhumanity,whoregardHim(iftraditionallanguagebestrippedoff)simplyasaJewishteacheroflongago,theinitiatorofthe"Christ-life"—whydosuchpersonsspeakofhaving "faith in Jesus"? They do so, I think, because they are slippinginsensiblyintoawronguseofterms;whentheysay"faithinJesus,"theymean really not faith in Jesus but merely faith in the teaching andexampleofJesus.Andthatisaverydifferentthing.ItisonethingtoholdthattheethicalprincipleswhichJesusenunciatedwillsolvetheproblemsof society, and quite another thing to come into that intimate, presentrelationtoHimwhichwecallfaith;itisonethingtofollowtheexampleof Jesus and quite a different thing to trust Him. A man can admireGeneralWashington,forexample,andaccepttheprinciplesofhislife;yetonecannotbesaidtotrusthim,forthesimplereasonthathediedoverahundredyearsago.Hissoldierscouldtrusthim;for intheirdayhewasalive; but we cannot trust him, because now he is dead. And whenpersonswho believe that Jesuswas simply a great teacher of long ago,andarenotparticularlyinterestedinanypersonalidentitybetweenthatmystic experience which they call "Christ" in the soul and the historicpersonJesusofNazareth—whensuchpersonsspeakof "faith inJesus,"the expression ismerely a survival, nowmeaningless, of a usagewhichhadmeaningonlywhenJesuswasregardedaswhatHeissaidintheNewTestamenttobe.RealfaithinJesuscanexistonlywhentheloftyclaimsofJesusaretakenassoberfact,andwhenHeisregardedastheeternalSon ofGod, come voluntarily to earth for our redemption,manifestingHisgloryeveninthedaysofHisflesh,andnowrisenfromthedeadandholdingcommunionwiththosewhocommittheirlivestoHim.

The truth is that in great sections of the modern Church Jesus is nolonger the object of faith, buthas becomemerely an example for faith;religion isbasedno longerupon faith inJesusbutupona faith inGodthatis,orisconceivedtobe,likethefaiththatJesushadinGod.

Thismightytransitionisoftenunconscious;byalooseuseoftraditionallanguagemenhaveconcealedfromthemselvesaswellasfromothersthedecisive step that has really been taken. By nomeans all, it is true, ofthose who have taken the step have been thus self-deceived; there areamong them some real students of history who detect clearly themomentousdifferencebetweenafaithinJesusandafaithinGodthatislikeJesus'faith.Forsuchscholarstheoriginof"faithinJesus"becomesthemostimportantproblemintheentirehistoryofreligion.HowwasitthataJewishteacher,who(inaccordancewithmodernnaturalism)didnot exceed the limits of humanity, came to be taken as the object ofreligiousfaith;howandwhendidmenaddtoafaithinGodthatwaslikeJesus' faitha faith inJesusHimself?Howeverandwhenever thiseventtookplace,itwascertainlyamomentousevent.OfcoursetoanyonewhoacceptsthetestimonyoftheBibletheproblemisquicklysolved;theNewTestamentthroughout—theGospelsaswellastheEpistles—depictsJesusofNazarethasonewhofromthebeginningpresentedHimself,andwithfull justification, as the object of faith to sinful men. But to modernnaturalistichistorianstheproblemremains;andbythemorethoughtfulofthemitisplacedintheveryforefrontofinterest.Howwasthereaddedto faith in God, encouraged and inspired by Jesus, a faith in JesusHimself?

Many solutions of this problem have been proposed in the course ofmodern criticism, but none of them has won universal acceptance.AccordingtotheolderLiberalism,represented,forexample,byHarnack,faith in Jesus as Redeemer, in the Pauline sense, was merely thetemporary form in which the religious experience brought about bycontactwith therealJesushad tobeexpressed in the formsof thoughtpropertothatday.AccordingtoaradicallikeBousset,ontheotherhand,faith inJesusarose inDamascusorAntioch,when, inameetingof thedisciples full of ecstatic phenomena, someone uttered the momentouswords, "Jesus is Lord," and thus the One who in Jerusalem had been

regarded as absent in heaven came to be regarded as present in theChurchandhenceasbeing theobjectof faith.Manyothersolutions,orvarieties of the few genetically differing solutions, have been proposed.But itcannotbesaidthatanyoneofthemhasbeensuccessful.ModernnaturalismsofarhasexpendedallitslearningandallitsingenuityinvainuponthequestionhowitwasthataJewofthefirstcenturycametobetaken as the object of religious faith, despite the strictness of Jewishmonotheism,bycontemporariesbelongingtoHisownrace.

Yet although we do not think that scholars like Bousset have beensuccessfulinsolvingtheproblem,theyhaveatleastseenclearlywhattheproblem is; and that is great gain. They have seen clearly that faith inChrist isquitedifferent froma faithmerely likeChrist's faith;and theyhaveseenclearlythatnotthelatterbuttheformerischaracteristicofthehistoric Christian Church. If the choice of the Church is now to bereversed,theradicalnessofthedecisionshouldnotbeignored.

Suchclearness,however,is,unfortunately,inmanyquartersconspicuousbyitsabsence;therearemanywhobyasortofspiritualindolenceoratleast timorousness seek to conceal the issue both from themselves andfrom others. It is evident that they have a sentimental attachment toJesus;itisevidentthattheyloveHim:whythenshouldtheytrytodecidewhether such attachment is or is not what is designated by the NewTestamentandbythehistoricChurchas"faith"?"Surely,"mensay,"itisbetter to letsleepingdogs lie;surely it isbetternot tomarthepeaceoftheChurchbytoocarefulaneffortatdefinitionofterms.Ifthosewhoarecalled 'Liberals' in the Church will only consent to employ traditionallanguage, if they will only avoid offending friend as well as foe by theunpardonableecclesiasticalsinofplainnessofspeech,allwillbewell,andtheworkoftheChurchcangosatisfactorilyonasthoughtherewerenodivisionofopinionatall."

Many are theways inwhich such a policy is commended to our favor;plausible indeedare themethodsbywhichSatanseeks tocommendanuntruth;often theTempter speaks through the lipsof sincereandgoodmen. "Let us alone," some devout pastors say, "we are preaching thegospel; we are bringingmen and women into the Church; we have notimefordoctrinalcontroversy; letusaboveallhavepeace."Orelse it is

thegreatnessandbeneficenceoftheworkoftheorganizedChurchwhichcatchestheimaginationandinspiresthecryof"peaceandwork.""Letussinkourdoctrinaldifferences,"itisurged,"andgoonwithourwork;letusquitdefendingChristianityandproceedtopropagate it;whateverbeourtheologicaldifferencesletusconquertheworldforChrist."

Plausible words these are, and uttered sometimes no doubt, by trulyChristian men. For such men we have full sympathy: their eyes areclosed;theyhavenoinklingofthefacts;theyhavenonotionhowseriousistheissuethatfacestheChurch.Butforus,andforallwhoareawareofwhat is really going on, the policy of "peace and work," the policy ofconcealmentandpalliation,wouldbethedeadliestofsins.TheChurchisplacedbeforeaseriouschoice;itmustdecidewhetheritwillmerelytrytotrustGodasJesustrustedHim,orwhetheritwillcontinuetoputitstrustin JesusHimself.Upon that choice depends the questionwhich of twomutually exclusive religions is to bemaintained. One of the two is theredemptive religion known as Christianity; the other is a religion ofoptimistic confidence in human nature, which at almost everyconceivablepointisthereverseofChristianbelief.Wemustdecidewhichof the twowe shall choose.But above all things let us choosewith oureyesopen;andwhenwehavechosenletusputourwholesoulsintothepropagationofwhatwebelieve. IfChrist is theobjectof faith, asHe isheldby theNewTestament tobe, then letusproclaimHimnotonly inourpulpitsbutbyallouractivity in theChurch.There isnothingmoreunreasonablethantopreachthegospelwithourlipsandthencombatthegospel through the funds thatwe contribute to agencies and boards orthroughthevotesthatwecastinChurchcouncilsandcourts.

It is the encouragement of such inconsistency that places the mostseriousethicalstainuponModernisminevangelicalchurchestoday.Itisnot a stainwhich appearsmerely inweaknesses and inconsistencies ofindividualmen—forsuchfailingswehavethegreatestpossiblesympathy,beingkeenlyconsciousofworsemoral failures inourselves thancanbefoundinothermen—butitisastainthatisinherentinthesettledpolicyofagreatparty intheChurch.Concealmentof the issue, theattempttosluroveramightychangeasthoughfullcontinuitywerebeingpreserved,thedoubleuseoftraditionallanguage,theacceptanceonfalsepretences

ofthesupportofold-fashionedevangelicalmenandwomenwhohavenoinklingofwhatisreallybeingdonewiththeircontributionsorwiththeirvotes—thesearethingsthatwouldconvinceus,evenpriortohistoricalortheologicalinvestigation,thatthereissomethingradicallywrongwiththeModernistmovement of the present day. "By their fruits ye shall knowthem," said our Lord, and judged by that ethical standard the presentmovement will not stand the test. There are, indeed, exceptions to theparticular fault upon which we are now insisting—for example theexceptionformedbythehonestyoftheUnitarianChurches,forwhichwehavetheveryhighestpossiblerespect—butthechiefoutwardsuccessesofModernismhavebeenwonbythewrongmethodsofwhichwespeak.AtrueReformationwouldbe characterizedby justwhat ismissing in theModernismofthepresentday;itwouldbecharacterizedaboveallbyanheroic honesty which for the sake of principle would push allconsiderationofconsequencesaside.

SuchaReformationweonourpartbelievetobeneededtoday;only,webelieve that it would be brought about, not by a new religion whichconsists in imitationof thereducedJesusofmodernnaturalism,butbythe rediscovery of the gospel of Christ. This is not the first time in thehistoryoftheworldwhenthegospelhasbeenobscured.Itwasobscuredin theMiddleAges, for example; andhow long andhowdark, in somerespects,wasthattime!Butthegospelburst forthwithnewpower—thesamegospelthatPaulandAugustinehadproclaimed.Soitmaybeinourownday; the gospelmay come forth again to bring light and liberty tomankind.ButthisnewReformationforwhichwelongwillnotbebroughtaboutbyhumanpersuasions,orbyconsiderationofconsequences,orbythose who seek to save souls through a skillful use of ecclesiasticalinfluences,orbythosewhorefrainfromspeakingthetruththroughafearof "splitting the Church" or of making a poor showing in columns ofChurch statistics. How petty, in the great day when the Spirit of GodagainmovesintheChurch,allsuchconsiderationswillseem!No,whenthetrueReformationcomes,itwillcomethroughtheinstrumentalityofthoseuponwhomGodhaslaidHishand,towhomthegospelhasbecomea burning fire within them, who speak because they are compelled tospeak, who, caring nothing for human influences and conciliation andexternalChurchcombinationsandthepraiseorblameofmen,speakthe

wordthatGodhasgiventhemandtrustfortheresultstoHimalone.Inotherwords,itwillbebroughtaboutbymenoffaith.

Wedonotknowwhensuchaneventwillcome;andwhenitcomesitwillnotbetheworkofmenbuttheworkoftheSpiritofGod.Butitscomingwillbepreparedfor,atanyrate,notbytheconcealmentofissues,butbyclearpresentationofthem;notbypeaceintheChurchbetweenChristianandanti-Christianforces,butbyearnestdiscussion;notbydarkness,butby the light.Certainly itwillnotbehinderedbyanearnestendeavor tounderstandwhatfaith inChristreally is,andhowitdiffers fromafaiththatismerelyanattemptatimitatingChrist'sfaith.

Suchanendeavormayperhapsbefurtheredbyaconsiderationofoneortwooftheshibbolethswhichappearinthereligiousliteratureoftheday.Nothinglikecompletenesswillbenecessary;wemaybeginatalmostanypoint in the literatureof theModernistmovement, inorder todiscovertherootfromwhichitallcomes.

Thereis,forexample,thealternativebetweenagospelaboutJesus,andthegospelofJesus.TheChurch, it issaid,hasbeensomuchconcernedwithagospelaboutJesusthatthegospelofJesushasbeenneglected;weoughttoreversetheprocessandproclaimthegospelthatJesusHimselfproclaimed.

Withregardtothisproposal,itshouldbenoticedthateveninitsrelationtothequestionoftheseatofauthorityinreligion,itisnotsoinnocentasit might seem. It proposes that the seat of authority shall be "theteachingsofChrist."ButtheseatofauthorityforthehistoricChurchhasbeen not merely the teachings of Christ, but the whole Bible. For theBible, therefore,whichwasformerlyregardedastheWordofGod, is tobesubstitutedtheverysmallpartoftheBiblewhichconsistsinthewordswhichJesusspokewhenHewasonearth.Certainlytherearedifficultiesconnectedwith such a change,due, for example, to the fact that Jesus,who is tobeheldas the supremeandsoleauthority,placedat theverybasisofHisownlifeandteachingthatviewoftheauthorityofthewholeBiblewhich ishereso lightlybeingabandoned.Theviewwhichregardsthe"teachingsofChrist"asthesoleauthorityseemsthereforetobeself-contradictory;fortheauthorityofChristestablishestheauthorityofthe

Bible.Thetruthisthat"theteachingsofChrist"canbetrulyhonoredonlywhentheyaretakenasanorganicpartofthedivinerevelationfoundintheScripturesfromGenesistoRevelation;toisolateChristfromtheBibleistodishonorChristandrejectHisteaching.

ButthepointnowisnotthatthesubstitutionoftheteachingsofJesusforthewhole Bible as the seat of authority in religion is unjustifiable, butratherthatitisatanyratemomentous.Ifitmustbeaccomplished,letitatleastbeaccomplishedwithfullunderstandingoftheimportanceofthestep.

ThetrueseriousnessofthesubstitutionofthegospelofJesusforagospelaboutJesusisnot,however,limitedtothebearingofthisstepuponthequestion of the seat of authority in religion; even more serious is thedifferentattitudetowardJesuswhichthestepinvolves.Theadvocatesofa "gospel of Jesus" in the modern sense seem to imagine that theacceptanceofsuchagospelbringsJesusclosertousthanisdonebytheacceptance of a gospel about Jesus. In reality, the exact opposite is thecase.Ofcourseifthe"gospelaboutJesus"isnottrue,ifitsetsforthnotthe facts that inhere in JesusHimself, butmerely the false opinions ofotherpersonsaboutHim,or"interpretations"ofHimwhichhavemerelytemporary validity, then the gospel about Jesus does place a veil offalsehoodbetweenJesusandusandshouldberejectedinorderthatwemayfindcontactwithHimasHeactuallywas.ButentirelydifferentisthecaseifthegospelaboutJesussetsforththefacts.InthatcasethatgospelbringsusintoakindofcontactwithHimcomparedwithwhichthemereacceptanceofagospelwhichHeHimselfproclaimed isavery coldanddistantthing.

AcceptanceofwhatJesusHimselfproclaimeddoesnotinitselfmeananymorethanthatHeistakenasateacherandleader;itisonlywhatmightconceivably be done in the case of many other men. A man can, forexample,acceptthegospelofPaul;thatmeansmerelythatheholdstheteachingofPaultobetrue:buthecannotacceptagospelaboutPaul;forthatwouldgivetotheapostleaprerogativethatbelongsonlytohisLord.PaulhimselfexpressedwhatwemeanwhenhewrotetotheCorinthians:"WasPaulcrucifiedforyou"?ThegreatapostletotheGentiles, inotherwords,proclaimedagospel;buthewasnothimselfthesubstanceofthe

gospel,thelatterprerogativebeingreservedforJesusHimself.AgospelaboutJesusexaltsJesus,therefore,andbringsHimintofarclosercontactwithusthancouldeverbedonebyagospelofJesus.

ButwhatwasthisgospelwhichJesusproclaimed,thisgospelthatisnowto replace the gospel about Him which has been proclaimed by theApostle Paul and by the historic Church? Our only knowledge of it isobtained from the words of Jesus that are recorded in the NewTestament.ButthosewordsastheystandmakeitabundantlyplainthatthegospelwhichJesusproclaimedwasalso,at itsverycentre,agospelaboutHim;itdidfarmorethansetforthawayofapproachtoGodwhichJesusHimselffollowed,foritpresentedJesusasHimselfthewaywhichcould be followed by sinfulmen. According to theNew Testament ourLord even in the days of His flesh presented Himself not merely asTeacherandExampleandLeaderbutalso,andprimarily,asSaviour;HeofferedHimselftosinfulmenasOnewhoalonecouldgivethementranceintotheKingdomofGod;everythinginHisteachingpointedforwardtoHis redeemingwork inHis death and resurrection; the culmination ofJesus' gospel was the Cross. The significance of redemption could not,indeed, be fully pointed out until redemption had actually beenaccomplished; and our Lord therefore pointed forward to the fullerrevelationwhichwastobegiventhroughHisapostles:but,althoughonlybyway of prophecy, yet clearly enough,He did, evenwhenHewas onearth,tellmenwhatHehadcomeintotheworldtodo."TheSonofMan,"Hesaid,"camenottobeministeredunto,buttominister,andtogiveHislifearansomformany."

Somuchwillperhapsbegenerallyadmitted:ifthewordsofJesusastheyarerecordedintheGospelsareacceptedasauthentic,thentheseparationofthegospelaboutJesusfromagospelofJesusisradicallyfalse;forthegospelaboutJesus(whichisthegospelthatallthroughthecenturieshasbrought peace to burdened souls) was also the gospel which JesusHimself,eveninthedaysofHisflesh,proclaimed.

If, then,we are to obtain a Jesuswho keptHis ownPerson out ofHisgospel,andofferedtomenmerelythewayofapproachtoGodwhichHehadfollowedforHimself,wecannotdosobyanacceptanceof theNewTestament accountof Jesus'words as it stands, but cando so, if at all,

only by a critical process within that account. The truewords of Jesusmust be separated fromwords falsely attributed toHim beforewe canobtainthemoderngospelwhichomitsredemptionandtheCross.

But that critical process, upon investigation, is found to be impossible.Even in the earliest sources supposed, rightly or wrongly, by moderncriticismtounderlyourGospels,JesuspresentedHimselfnotmerelyasanexampleforfaithbutastheobjectoffaith.Heinvitedmennotmerelytohave faith inGod like the faithwhichHehad inGod,butHe invitedthemtohavefaithinHim.HeclearlyregardedHimselfasMessiah,notinsome lowermeaningof theword, but as theheavenlySonofManwhowastocomewiththecloudsofheavenandbetheinstrumentinjudgingthe world; He clearly pointed forward to some catastrophic event inwhichHewastohaveacentralplace,somecatastrophiceventbywhichtheKingdomofHeavenwastobeusheredin.ThetruthisthattheJesuswho preached a gospel of universal divine fatherhood and a sonshipwhichwasman'srightasmanneverexisteduntilmoderntimes;therealJesuspresentedHimselfnotmerelyasTeacherbutalsoasLordandasRedeemer. If, therefore,weare tohold to thereal"gospelofJesus,"wemustalsohold to"thegospelaboutJesus,"and theseparationbetweenthetwomustbegivenup.

AnotherwayinwhichtheoppositionbetweenareligionthatmakesJesusmerelytheexampleforfaithandareligionthatmakesHimprimarilytheobjectoffaithappearsinthemodernworld,istobefoundinthevaryinganswers to the question whether Jesus was or was not a "Christian."AccordingtoaverywidespreadwayofthinkingJesuswastheFounderoftheChristianreligionbecauseHewasthefirsttolivetheChristianlife,inotherwordsbecauseHewasHimselfthefirstChristian.Accordingtoourview, on the other hand, Jesus stands in a far more fundamental andintimaterelationtoChristianitythanthat;Hewas,wehold,theFounderof our religion not becauseHewas the first Christian, but becauseHemadeChristianitypossiblebyHisredeemingwork.

Atnopointdoestheissueinthemodernreligiousworldappearinmorecharacteristic fashionthan justhere.ManypersonsholduptheirhandsinamazementatourassertionthatJesuswasnotaChristian,whileweinturn regard it as the very height of blasphemy to say that He was a

Christian."Christianity,"tous,isawayofgettingridofsin;andthereforetosaythatJesuswasaChristianwouldbetodenyHisholiness.

"But,"itissaid,"doyoumeantotellusthatifamanlivesalifelikethelifeofJesusbut rejects thedoctrineof the redeemingworkofChrist inHisdeathandresurrection,he isnotaChristian?"Thequestion, inoneformoranother,isoftenasked;buttheanswerisverysimple.Ofcourseifaman really lives a life like the life of Jesus, all iswell; such aman isindeednotaChristian,butheissomethingbetterthanaChristian—heisabeingwhohasnever losthishighestateofsonshipwithGod.Butourtrouble is that our lives, to say nothing of the lives of these who soconfidentlyappealtotheirownsimilaritytoJesus,donotseemtobelikethelifeofJesus.UnlikeJesus,wearesinners,andhence,unlikeHim,webecome Christians; we are sinners, and hence we accept withthankfulness theredeeming loveof theLordJesusChrist,whohadpityonusandmadeusrightwithGod,throughnomeritofourown,byHisatoningdeath.

ThatcertainlydoesnotmeanthattheexampleofJesusisnotimportanttotheChristian;onthecontrary,it isthedailyguideofhislife,withoutwhichhewouldbelikeashipwithoutarudderonanunchartedsea.ButtheexampleofJesus isuseful to theChristiannotprior toredemption,butsubsequenttoit.

Inonesenseindeeditisusefulpriortoredemption:itisusefulinordertobringasinfulmanintodespairofeverpleasingGodbyhisownefforts;forifthelifeofJesusbethelifethatGodrequires,whocanstandinHisholy presence? Thus to the unredeemed the example of Jesus has animportantpart in theproclamationof that terrible lawofGodwhich istheschoolmastertobringmenuntoChrist;itservesbyitsloftypuritytoproducetheconsciousnessofsinandthustoleadmentotheCross.

But so far as any comfortorpositivehelp is concerned, the exampleofChrist is useful only to those who have already been redeemed. Wedisagree very strongly thereforewith those teachers andpreacherswhothink that Jesus should first be presented as a leader and example inorder that afterwards, perhaps, He may be presented as Saviour; wedeprecatethepopularbooksforyoungpeoplewhichappealtothesense

of loyalty as the first way of approach to Jesus; it seems to us verypatronizingandindeedblasphemouswhen,forexample,Jesus'choiceofalife-workispresentedasaguidetowardthechoiceofalife-workonthepartofboysandyoungmen.Thewholemethod,wethink,iswrong.Theexample of Jesus is, indeed, important, but it is not primary; the firstimpressiontogivetoachildisnotthatofthewaysinwhichJesusislikeus but that of the ways in which He differs from us; He should bepresentedfirstasSaviourandonlyafterwardsasExample;appealshouldbemadenot to latent forces capableof followingJesus' examplebut tothesenseofsinandneed.

Letitnotbesaidthatthismethodofapproachisillsuitedtotheyoung,andfoundedonafalsepsychology;onthecontrary,itseffectivenesshasbeenprovedthroughthe longcenturiesof theChurch's life.Nowthat ithas largelybeenabandonedboys andgirlsdrift away from theChurch,whereaswhen itwas followedtheygrewup intostalwartChristianmenandwomen.ItisverynaturalforachildofthecovenanttolearnfirsttotrustChristasSaviouralmostassoonasconsciouslifebegins,andthen,havingbecomeGod'schildthroughHim,tofollowHisblessedexample.There is a child's hymn—a child's hymn that I think the Christian canneveroutgrow—whichputsthematterright:

Odearly,dearlyhasHeloved,

AndwemustloveHimtoo,

AndtrustinHisredeemingblood,

AndtryHisworkstodo.

That is the true order of Christian pedagogy—"trust in His redeemingblood" first, and then "tryHisworks todo."Disasterwill always followwhenthatorderisreversed.

The Lord Jesus, then, came into this world not primarily to saysomething,noteventobesomething,buttodosomething;Hecamenotmerely to leadmen throughHis exampleout intoa "larger life,"but togivelife,throughHisdeathandresurrection,tothosewhoweredeadin

trespassesandsins;weareChristiansnotbecausewehavefaith inGodlikethefaithinGodwhichJesusHimselfhad,butbecausewehavefaithinHim.

ButcanwereallyhavefaithinHim?WecannotdosoifHebethemereinitiatorofthe"Christlife"whoispresentedinmuchmodernpreaching;butwe can do so ifHe be the living Saviour presented in theWord ofGod.

One fearfuldoubt,however, still assailsus. It comes fromwhatmaybecalled the cosmic aspects of human life, from the dread thought of theinfiniteabysswhichisallaboutusaswewalkuponthisearth.

Reflections on the nothingness of human life, itmust be admitted, areoftenratherdull;theyclothethemselvesreadilyincant.Butifathingistrue,itcannotbecomefalsebybeinghackneyed.Andasamatteroffact,itcannotbedeniedthatmanis imprisonedononeofthesmalleroftheplanets,thatheisenvelopedbyinfinityonallsides,andthatHelivesbutforadayinwhatseemstobeapitilessprocession.Thethingsinwhichheis interested, thewholeofhisworld, formbutanimperceptibleoasis inthedesertof immensity.Strange it is thathecanbeabsorbed in thingswhich from the vantage ground of infinitymust seem smaller than thesmallestplaythings.

Itcannotbedenied:manisafinitecreature;heisadenizenoftheearth.Fromonepointofviewhe isverymuch like thebeasts thatperish; likethemhe lives inaworldofphenomena;he issubject toasuccessionofexperiences, andhe doesnot understand any one of them. Science canobserve;itcannotexplain:ifittriestoexplain,itceasestobescienceandsometimesbecomesalmostlaughable.Maniscertainlyfinite.

Butthatisnotthewholetruth.Manisnotonlyfinite;forheknowsthatheisfinite,andthatknowledgebringshimintoconnectionwithinfinity.Helivesinafiniteworld,butheknows,atleast,thatitisnotthetotalityofthings.Helives inaprocessionofphenomena,buttosavehis lifehecannot help searching for a first cause. In the midst of his trivial life,there rises in his mind one strange and overpowering thought—thethoughtofGod.Itmaycomebyreflection,bysubtleargumentfromeffect

to cause, from thedesign to thedesigner.Or itmay comeby a "sunsettouch." Back of the red,mysterious, terrible, silent depths, beyond thesilentmeetingplaceofseaandsky,thereisaninscrutablepower.Inthepresenceof itman ishelplessasa stickor stone.He is ashelpless,butmore unhappy—unhappy because of fear.With what assurance canwemeettheinfinitepower?Itsworksinnature,despiteallnature'sbeauty,arehorrible in the inflictionof suffering.Andwhat ifphysical sufferingshouldnotbeall;whatofthesenseofguilt;whatifthecondemnationofconscienceshouldbebuttheforetasteofjudgment;whatifcontactwiththeinfiniteshouldbecontactwithadreadfulinfinityofholiness;whatifthe inscrutable cause of all things should turn out to be, after all, arighteousGod?

This great beyond of mystery—can Jesus help us there?Make Him asgreat as youwill, and still Hemay seem to be insufficient. Extend thedomainsofHispowerfarbeyondourken,andstilltheremayseemtobeashelvingbrinkwiththeinfinitebeyond.Andstillwearesubjecttofear.Themysteriouspowerthatexplainstheworldstill,wesay,willsweepinand overwhelm us and our Saviour alike. We are of all men mostmiserable;wehadtrustedinChrist;Hecarriedusalittleonourway,andthenleftus,helplessasbefore,onthebrinkofeternity.Thereisforusnohope; we stand defenseless at length in the presence of unfathomedmystery,unless—awild,fantasticthought—unlessourSaviour,thisJesusin whom we had trusted, were Himself in mysterious union with theeternal God. Then comes the full, rich consolation of God'sWord—themysterious sentence in Philippians: "who, being in the form of God,thought itnot robbery tobeequalwithGod"; the strange cosmologyofColossians:"whoistheimageoftheinvisibleGod,thefirst-bornofeverycreature:forbyhimwereallthingscreated,thatareinheaven,andthatareinearth,visibleandinvisible,whethertheybethrones,ordominions,orprincipalities,orpowers:allthingswerecreatedbyhim,andforhim:andhe is before all things, andbyhimall things consist"; themajesticprologueoftheFourthGospel:"InthebeginningwastheWord,andtheWord was with God, and the Word was God"; the mysteriousconsciousnessofJesus:"All thingsaredelivereduntomeofmyFather:andnomanknoweththeSon,buttheFather;neitherknowethanymantheFather,savetheSon,andhetowhomsoevertheSonwillrevealhim."

These thingshavebeendespisedas idle speculation,but in reality theyare the very breath of our Christian lives. They are, indeed, the battlegroundof theologians; theChurchhurledanathemasat thosewhoheldthatChrist, thoughgreat,was lessthanGod.Butthoseanathemaswerebeneficentandright.Thatdifferenceofopinionwasnotrifle;thereisnosuchthingas"almostGod."Thethoughtisblasphemy;thenextthinglessthan the infinite is infinitely less. If Christ be the greatest of finitecreatures,thenstillourheartsarerestless,stillwearemereseekersafterGod. But now is Christ, our Saviour, the One who says, "Thy sins areforgiven thee," revealed as veryGod.Andwebelieve. It is the supremeventureof faith; faith cangonohigher. Sucha faith is amystery touswhopossessit;itisridiculedbythosewhohaveitnot.Butifpossesseditovercomestheworld.InChristallthingsareours.ThereisnowforusnoawfulBeyondofmysteryandfear.Wecannot,indeed,explaintheworld,butwerejoicenowthatwecannotexplainit;tousitisallunknown,butitcontainsnomysteries forourSaviour;Heisonthethrone;Heisat thecentre; He is ground and explanation of all things; He pervades theremotest bounds; byHim all things consist. Theworld is full of dread,mysteriouspowers; theytouchusalreadyinathousandwoes.Butfromallof themwearesafe. "Whoshallseparateus fromthe loveofChrist?Shalltribulation,ordistress,orpersecution,orfamine,ornakedness,orperil,orsword?Asitiswritten,Forthysakewearekilledallthedaylong;weareaccountedassheepfor theslaughter.Nay, inall thesethingsweare more than conquerors through Him that loved us. For I ampersuaded,thatneitherdeath,norlife,norangels,norprincipalities,norpowers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth,noranyothercreature,shallbeabletoseparateusfromtheloveofGod,whichisinChristJesusourLord."

CHAPTERIV

FAITHBORNOFNEED

IthasbeenshowninthelastchapterthattheJesuswhoispresentedintheNewTestamentisonewhomamancantrust;therearenolimitstoHisgoodnessandno limitstoHispower.Butthatpresentationin itselfdoesnotaffordasufficientbasisforfaith;nomatterhowgreatandgoodbe the Saviour, we cannot trust Him unless there be some contactspecifically between ourselves andHim. Faith in a person involves notmerelytheconvictionthatthepersontrustedisabletosave,butalsotheconviction that he is able and willing to save us; that there should befaith, theremust be some definite relation between the person trustedand a specific need of the person who trusts. Themen and women towhomJesussaidintheGospels(insubstanceorinword):"Thyfaithhathsaved thee; go in peace," all had very definite needs that they trustedJesus to relieve.Onewas sick, onewas deaf, onewas blind; andwhenthey came to Jesus they were not merely convinced that He was ingeneralapowerfulhealer,buteachofthemwasconvinced,moreorlessfirmly,thatHecouldhealhispeculiarinfirmity,andeachofthemsoughthealinginhisownspecificcase.Soitiswithustoday.ItisnotenoughforustoknowthatJesusisgreatandgood;itisnotenoughforustoknowthatHewasinstrumentalinthecreationoftheworldandthatHeisnowseated on the throne of all being. These things are indeednecessary tofaith, but they arenot all that isnecessary; ifwe are to trust Jesus,wemustcometoHimpersonallyandindividuallywithsomeneedofthesoulwhichHealonecanrelieve.

ThatneedofthesoulfromwhichJesusalonecansaveissin.ButwhenIsay"sin,"Idonotmeanmerelythesinsoftheworldorthesinsofotherpeople,butImeanyoursin—yoursinandmine.Considerationofthesinsofotherpeopleisthedeadliestofmoralanodynes;itrelievesthepainofconscience, but it also destroys moral life. Very different is thatconvictionofsinwhichleadsamantohavefaithinChrist.

ThattrueconvictionofsinappearsastheprerequisiteoffaithinagreatverseintheEpistletotheGalatians,whichdescribesinbriefestcompassthetrueChristianwayofapproachtoChrist."Wherefore,"saysPaul,"thelaw was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." No doubt Paul isreferringspecificallytothelawofMosesastheschoolmastertobringtheJews toChrist; butweare fully justified in giving the verse a farwiderapplication. The particular way in which the Old Testament law,according to Paul, led the Jews to Christ was that it brought them todespair because of their sin, and so made them willing to accept theSaviour when He came. The "schoolmaster" of the Pauline figure ofspeechwasnot,inancientlife,ateacher;buthewasaslaveappointedinwell-to-do families of the time to gowith the children to school and ingeneralpreventthemfromhavinganyliberty.Thefigureofspeechinthatverse is only slightly varied, therefore, from that which appears justbefore, where the law is represented as a jailer. But for the law, Paulmeans, the Jewsmight have thought that their own righteousness wassufficient; but every time that they were tempted to seek escape fromcondemnation,thehighstandardofthelawshowedtothemhowveryfarshorttheyhadcomeofthewillofGod,andsotheywerepreventedfromfalsehopes.

Ofcourse,thisisonlyoneaspectoftheolddispensation;evenundertheold dispensation, according to Paul, therewas faith aswell as law; thegraceofGodwasrevealedaswellasHisawfulrighteousness;thereligionof the Old Testament is by no means represented by Paul as one ofunrelieved gloom. But so far asman's own effortswere concerned, thegloom, according to Paul, was complete; hope was to be found, not inman,butinGod'sgraciouspromiseofasalvationthatwastocome.

ThusthelawofMoses,accordingtoPaul,wasaschoolmastertobringtheJewstoChristbecauseitproducedtheconsciousnessofsin.Butifso,itisnatural tosuppose thatanyrevelationof the lawofGodwhich, like thelawofMoses,producestheconsciousnessofsinmaysimilarlyserveasaschoolmaster unto Christ. Indeed we have direct warrant for this wideextensionoftheapplicationoftheverse."WhentheGentiles,"Paulsaysin another passage, "which have not the law, do by nature the thingscontained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto

themselves."Here the lawofMoses isplainlybrought intorelation toalawunderwhichallmenstand; theOldTestamentScripturesmake thelawofGodplainerthanitistoothermen,butallmenhavereceived,intheir consciences, some manifestation of God's will, and are withoutexcusewhentheydisobey.Howeverthelawismanifested,then,whetherintheOldTestament,or(stillmoreclearly)intheteachingandexampleofJesus,orinthevoiceofconscience,itmaybeaschoolmastertobringmentoChristifitproducestheconsciousnessofsin.

ThatistheoldwayofcomingtoChrist—firstpenitenceatthedreadvoiceofthelaw,thenjoyatthegraciousinvitationoftheSaviour.Butthatway,inrecentyears,isbeingsadlyneglected;nothingismorecharacteristicofpresent religious conditions than the loss of the consciousness of sin;confidenceinhumanresourceshasnowbeensubstitutedforthethankfulacceptanceofthegraceofGod.

This confidence in human resources is expressed in many ways; it isexpressedeveninprayer.IrememberaservicewhichIattendedayearorso ago in an attractive village church. The preacher, who was a well-educated, earnestman,had at least the courage of his convictions, andgave expression to his optimistic religion of humanity not only in hissermonbutalsoinhisprayers.AfterquotingtheverseinJeremiahwhichreads, "Theheart isdeceitful aboveall things, anddesperatelywicked,"hesaid, ineffect(thoughIcannotrememberhisexactwords):"OLord,thou knowest that we cannot accept this interpretation; for we believethatmandoesnotwilltodoevilbutfailsonlyfromlackofknowledge."That was at least frank and consistent, and I must confess that I hadmuchmorerespectforitthanforthepiousphrasesinwhichthemodernreligionofhumanityisusuallyveiled.Itwaspaganismpureandsimple,but it was at least a respectable paganism not afraid of plainness ofspeech.And indeed itoughtnot tobe forgottenthatpaganismcanbeaveryrespectablething;themodernconfidenceinmanisnotunlikethatoftheancientStoics;andStoicism,withitsdoctrineofauniversalhumanbrotherhood and its anticipations of modern humanitarian effort, hassomehighethicalachievementstoitsaccount.

But the gospel of paganism, ancient and modern, the gospel that apreacher, whom I heard preach recently, commended as "the simple

gospelofhumanworth,"has its limitations; itsoptimismremains,afterall,uponthesurfaceoflife,andunderneaththerearedepthsthatitcannevertouch.It isatanyratequitedifferent fromChristianbelief; forattherootofChristianityisaprofoundconsciousnessofsin.Superficially,indeed, there is some similarity; the Modernist preacher speaks withapparent humility of the sad defects of human life, and of the need ofdivine assistance. But such humility does not touch the heart of thematteratall; indeed it really impliesasimilarity inkind, thoughnot indegree,betweenwhatnowisandwhatoughttobe.VerydifferentistheChristian attitude. To the Christian, sin does not differ from goodnessmerelyinthedegreewhichachievementhasattained;but it isregardedas transgression of a law that is absolutely fixed; the pagan sense ofimperfectioniswidelydifferentfromtheChristiansenseofsin.

At the root of theChristian attitude is a profound consciousness of themajestyofthemorallaw.Butthemajestyofthemorallawisobscuredinmanywaysatthepresenttime,andmostseriouslyofallinthesphereofeducation. Indeed, strangely enough, it is obscured in the sphere ofeducation justby thosewhoarebecomingmostkeenlyconsciousof themoral bankruptcy of modern life. There is something radically wrongwith our public education, it is said; an education that trains themindwithouttrainingthemoralsenseisamenacetocivilizationratherthanahelp;andsomethingmustquicklybedonetochecktheimpendingmoralcollapse.Tomeetthisneed,variousprovisionsarebeingmadeformoraltraining inourAmericanpublicschools;variousethicalcodesarebeingformedfortheinstructionofchildrenwhoareunderthecareoftheState.But the sad thing is that these efforts are only making the situationtenfoldworse; far fromcheckingtheravagesof immorality, theyareforthemostpartthemselvesnon-moralattheroot.Sometimestheyarealsofaulty indetails, aswhena recentmoral code indulges ina veiledanti-Christian polemic by a reference to differences of "creed" that will nodoubt be taken as belittling, and adopts the pagan notion of a humanbrotherhoodalreadyestablished,indistinctionfromtheChristiannotionofabrotherhoodtobeestablishedbybringingmenintoacommonunionwithChrist.Buttherealobjectiontosome,ifnotall,oftheseeffortsdoesnotdependupondetails;itdependsratheruponthefactthatthebasisofthe effort is radically wrong. The radical error appears with particular

clearness in a "Children's Morality Code" recently proposed by "TheCharacter Education Institution" in Washington. That code containseleven divisions, the sub-headings of which are as follows: I, "GoodAmericans Control Themselves"; II, "Good Americans Try to Gain andKeep Good Health"; III, "Good Americans are Kind"; IV, "GoodAmericansPlayFair";V, "GoodAmericans are Self-Reliant";VI, "GoodAmericans Do Their Duty"; VII, "Good Americans are Reliable"; VIII,"Good Americans are True"; IX, "Good Americans Try to do the RightThing in the Right Way"; X, "Good Americans Work in FriendlyCooperationwithFellow-Workers";XI,"GoodAmericansareLoyal."

Here we have morality regarded as a consequence of patriotism; theexperienceofthenationisregardedasthenormbywhichamoralitycodeis to be formulated. This (thoroughly non-moral) principle appears inparticularlycrassformin"PointTwo"oftheInstitution'sFive-PointPlanforCharacterEducationinElementarySchoolClassrooms:"Theteacher,"says the pamphlet, "presents theChildren'sMoralityCode as a reliablestatementoftheconductwhichisconsideredrightamongboysandgirlswhoare loyal toUncleSam,andwhich is justifiedby theexperienceofmultitudesofworthycitizenswhohavebeenUncleSam'sboysandgirlssince the foundation of the nation. The teacher advises the children tostudy thisMoralityCode inorder to findoutwhatUncleSam thinks isright.…"

Butwhatofthosenotinfrequentcaseswherewhat"UncleSam"thinksisright iswhatGod thinks iswrong? To say to a child, "Do not tell a liebecauseyouareanAmerican,"isatbottomanimmoralthing.Therightthingtosayis,"Donottellaliebecauseitiswrongtotellalie."AndIdonotthinkthatitisanunconstitutionalintrusionofreligionintothepublicschoolsforateachertosaythat.

In general, the holier-than-thou attitude toward other peoples, whichseems to be implied in the program of the Character EducationInstitutionalmostfrombeginningtoend,issurely,atthepresentcrisisinthe history of the world, nothing short of appalling. The child oughtindeedtobetaughttoloveAmerica,andtofeelthatwhetheritisgoodorbadit isourcountry.Buttheloveofcountryisaverytenderthing,andthebestwaytokillitistoattempttoinculcateitbyforce.Andtoteach,in

defianceofthefacts,thathonestyandkindnessandpurityarepeculiarlyAmerican virtues—this is surely harmful in the extreme. We blamedGermany,rightlyorwrongly,forthiskindofthing;yetnowinthenameofpatriotismweadvocateastruculentaninculcationofthesamespiritasPrussiacouldeverhavebeenaccusedofatitsworst.Surelytheonlytrulypatrioticthingtoteachthechildisthatthereisonemajesticmorallawtowhichourowncountryandallthecountriesoftheworldaresubject.

Butthemostseriousfaultofthisprogramfor"characterbuilding"isthatitmakesmoralityaproductofexperience,thatitfindsthenormofrightconductinthedeterminationofthat"whichisjustifiedbytheexperienceofmultitudes of worthy citizens who have been Uncle Sam's boys andgirls since the foundation of the nation." That is wrong, as we havealready observed, because it basesmorality upon the experience of thenation;butitwouldalsobewrongifitbaseditupontheexperienceofthewhole human race. A code which is the mere result of humanexperimentation is not morality at all (despite the lowly etymologicalorigin of our English word), but it is the negation of morality. Andcertainlyitwillnotwork.Moralstandardswerepowerfulonlywhentheywereinvestedwithanunearthlygloryandweretreatedasquitedifferentinkindfromallrulesofexpediency.Thetruthisthatdecencycannotbeproducedwithoutprinciple.Itisuselesstotrytokeepbacktheragingseaofpassionwiththeflimsymud-embankmentsofanappealtoexperience.Instead,therewillhavetoberecourseagain,despitethepropsaffordedby thematerialisticpaternalismof themodernState, to the stern, solidmasonryof the lawofGod.Anauthoritywhich isman-madecanneversecurethereverenceofman;societycanendureonlyifitisfoundedupontherockofGod'scommands.

It will not now be possible to propose in full our own solution of thedifficult educational problem ofwhichwe have just been speaking.Wehave indeed such a solution. Most important of all, we think, is theencouragement of private schools and Church schools; a secularizedpubliceducation,thoughperhapsnecessary,isanecessaryevil;thetruehopeofanypeopleliesinakindofeducationinwhichlearningandpietygo hand and hand. Christianity,we believe, is founded upon a body offacts;itis,therefore,athingthatmustbetaught;anditshouldbetaught

inChristianschools.

But taking thepublic schoolasanestablished institution,andasbeing,underpresentconditions,necessary,therearecertainwaysinwhichthedangerofthatinstitutionmaybediminished.

1. The function of the public school should be limited rather thanincreased. The present tendency to usurp parental authority should bechecked.

2. The public school should pay attention to the limited, but highlyimportant,functionwhichitisnowneglecting—namely,theimpartationofknowledge.

3.Themoralinfluenceofthepublic-schoolteachershouldbeexertedinpractical rather than in theoretical ways. Certainly the (thoroughlydestructiveandimmoral)groundingofmoralityinexperienceshouldbeavoided.Unfortunately,thetruegroundingofmoralityinthewillofGodmay, in our public schools, also have to be avoided. But if the teacherhimself knows the absolute distinction between right and wrong, hispersonalinfluence,withouttheoreticalgroundingandwithout"moralitycodes,"will appeal to thedistinctionbetween right andwrongwhich isimplantedinthesoulofthechild,andthemoraltoneoftheschoolwillbemaintained.Wedonot foramomentmean that that sortof training issufficient;fortheonlytruegroundingofmoralityisfoundintherevealedwillofGod:butatleastitwillavoiddoingharm.

4.Thepublic-schoolsystemshouldbekepthealthybytheabsolutelyfreepossibilityofthecompetitionofprivateschoolsandChurchschools,andtheStateshouldrefrainfromsuchregulationoftheseschoolsastomaketheirfreedomillusory.

5. Uniformity in education—the tendency which is manifested in theproposal of a Federal department of education in the United States—shouldbeavoidedasoneof theverygreatest calamities intowhichanynationcanfall.

6. The reading of selected passages from the Bible, in which Jews and

Catholics andProtestants andothers canpresumably agree, shouldnotbeencouraged,andstilllessshouldberequiredbylaw.TherealcentreoftheBibleisredemption;andtocreatetheimpressionthatotherthingsintheBiblecontainanyhopeforhumanityapartfromthatistocontradicttheBibleat itsroot.Eventhebestofbooks, if it ispresentedingarbledform,maybemadetosaytheexactoppositeofwhatitmeans.

7.Public-schoolchildrenshouldbereleasedatcertainconvenienthoursduringtheweek,sothattheparents,iftheychoose,mayprovidefortheirreligious instruction; but the State should entirely refrain both fromgrantingschoolcreditforworkdoneinthesehoursandfromexercisinganycontrolwhatevereitheruponattendanceoruponthecharacteroftheinstruction.

Suchare in general the alternativeproposals thatwemightmake ifweweredealingwiththeproblemwhichhasledtotheeffortsat"characterbuilding" of which we have spoken.We recognize to the full the goodmotivesofthosewhoaremakingsuchefforts;buttheeffortsarevitiatedbythefalseprinciplethatmoralityisbaseduponexperience;andsotheywill only serve, yet further, we fear, to undermine in the hearts of thepeopleasenseofthemajestyofthelawofGod.

Certainly if there be no absolute law of God, there can be noconsciousnessofsin;andiftherebenoconsciousnessofsin,therecanbeno faith in theSaviourJesusChrist. It isnowonder thatmanypersonsregardJesusmerelyastheinitiatorofa"Christlife"intowhichtheyareperfectly able, without more ado, to enter; it is no wonder that theyregard their lives as differing only in degree fromHis. Theywill nevercatch a real glimpse of the majesty of His Person and they will neverunderstandHisredeemingwork,untiltheycomeagainintocontactwiththemajestyof the law.Thenand thenonlywill theyrecognize theirsinand need, and so come to that renunciation of all confidence inthemselveswhichisthebasisoffaith.

ItmustbeadmittedthatthiswayofapproachtoChristisoftenroughandthorny.Thatdoesnotmean, indeed,that faith inChristmustalwaysbeprecededby agony of soul.Almost unlimited is the variety ofChristianexperience; and often faith seems to come at the same moment as

contrition.ThechildrenofChristianparents,inparticular,oftencometotrust Christ as their Saviour almost as soon as consciousness begins;thesechildrenofthecovenantknowthegraceofGodalmostassoonasthey know sin. But whatever be the particular form of Christianexperience,thewayofapproachtoChristthroughthelawofGodalwaysinvolvesarebuketohumanpride.

It is not surprising, therefore, that other ways of approach are oftenproposed.Thiswaybeingroughandthorny,otherwaysarebeingsought.It seemshard tomanymen to enter into theChristian life through thelittlewicketgate;andmanythereforeareclamberingupoverthewall.

In the first place, there is the purely intellectual way. The claims ofChristianity,itissaid,mustbeinvestigatedontheirmerits,bytheuseofa rigidly scientificmethod;andonly if theyareestablishedas truemaytheybeallowedtocontroltheemotionalandvolitionallife.

Forthismethodofapproach,aswillbeclearfromallthathasbeensaidintheprecedingexposition,wehavethewarmestsympathy; indeed,webelieve, there isnothingwrongwith themethod itself, so faras itgoes,butthetroubleliesintheapplicationofthemethod.Ifamanweretrulyscientific, we think, he would be convinced of the truth of Christianitywhetherhewereasaintorademon;sincethetruthofChristianitydoesnot at all depend upon the state of the soul of the investigator, but isobjectivelyfixed.Butthequestioniswhetheramethodwhichignorestheconsciousnessofsinisreallyscientificornot;andtheanswermustbe,wethink, that it is not. If you take account of all the facts, you will beconvincedofthetruthofChristianity;butyoucannottakeaccountofallthefacts ifyouignorethefactofsin.Youcannottakeaccountofall thefacts if, while searching the heavens above and the earth beneath, youneglectthefactsofyourownsoul.

Let us see how the ostensibly scientific approach to Christianity worksout. Inpursuanceof itwebegin inasystematicway;webring forward,first,ourargumentsfortheexistenceofapersonalGod.AndIformypartbelieve that they are rather good arguments; they have not altogetherbeen demolished, I think, by the criticism of Kant. If, then, we haveestablished the existence of God, the question arises whether He has

revealedHimselfinsuchfashionasthatpersonalcommunionwithHimbecomespossibleformankind.ProbablyitwillbeadmittedthatifHehasdonesoatall,HehasdonesointheChristianreligion;Christianitywillprobablybeadmittedtoofferthemostplausibleclaim,atleast,amongallthereligionsoftheworldtobebaseduponarealrevelationofGod.ButhaseventheChristianclaimaccrediteditself?Ithasdoneso—toputthematterinbriefestcompassanddealwithitatthereallycrucialpoint—ifJesusrosefromthedead;ithasnotdonesoifHedidnotrise.Nowthereiscertainlysomeevidence for theresurrectionofJesus.AdmittedlyHisintimate friends believed that He had risen, and upon that belief theChurchwasfounded.Butwhatinturncausedthatbelief?Manyanswershave been proposed to this question; but none of them is thoroughlysatisfactory,exceptthesimpleanswerthatthebeliefofthediscipleswasfoundeduponfact.Somuchwillberatherwidelyadmitted;theoriginoftheChristianChurch is admittedly a very puzzling fact; only ignorancecan deny the difficulty of the historical problem that it involves for allnaturalistichistorians.

Butadifficulty,itwillbesaid,isalsofoundinthetraditionalsolution,aswell as in the naturalistic solutions. The difficulty appears in thesupernatural character of the alleged event. If the resurrectionwere anordinary event, the evidence for it would admittedly be sufficient; butthen as amatter of fact it is not an ordinary event but amiracle, andagainsttheacceptanceofanysuchthingthereisanenormousweightofpresumption.

ThisobjectionIformypartamnotatallinclinedtotakelightly.Indeed,iftheevidencefortheresurrection,aswehaveoutlinedit,stoodalone,itmight, I think,be insufficient.Even ifadozenmenforwhosecharacterand attainments I had the highest respectwere to come into the roomandtellme,quiteindependently,thattheyhadseenamanrisefromthedead,IamnotsurewhetherIshouldbelievethemforamoment.Why,then,doIaccordtowitnessesofsolongago—witnessestoo,wholivedinacomparativelyunscientificage(thoughitsunscientificcharacterisoftenenormouslyexaggerated)—adegreeof credencewhich Imight refuse totrainedobserversofthepresentday?WhydoIbelieveintheresurrectionof Jesus when Imight not believe, even on the basis of overwhelming

testimony,intheresurrectionofoneofmycontemporaries?

Thequestionseemsatfirstsighthardtoanswer,buttheanswerisreallynot so difficult as it seems. The answer is that I believe in themiraclewhich isat the foundationof theChristianChurchbecause in that casethequestiondoesnotconcernmerelytheresurrectionofapersonaboutwhom I know nothing, a mere x or y, but it concerns specifically theresurrectionofJesus;andJesuswaslikenopersonwhohaseverlived.Itisunbelievable, I say, thatanyordinarymanshouldbe raised from thedead, but then Jesus was no ordinaryman; in His case the enormouspresumptionagainstmiracle is reversed; inHis case, far from itsbeinginconceivablethatHeshouldhavebeenraised,itisinconceivablethatHeshouldnothavebeenraised;suchanoneasHecouldnotpossiblyhavebeen holden of death. Thus the direct evidence for the resurrection issupplementedbyanimpressionofthemoraluniquenessofJesus'person.ThatdoesnotmeanthatifweareimpressedbythemoraluniquenessofJesus'person,thedirectevidencefortheresurrectionisunnecessary,orthat the Christian can be indifferent to it; but it does mean that thatimpression must be added to the direct evidence in order to produceconviction.

ButhowdoweknowthatJesus'moralcharacterisabsolutelyunique?Wedo so only because of our conviction of sin. Convinced of our ownimpurity, as revealed by the majesty of the divine law, we becomeconvincedofHisdissimilarity inkindfromus,andthuswesaythatHealone was pure. Thus even in order to establish the fact of theresurrection,thelessonofthelawmustbelearned.

In anotherway also the conviction of sin is necessary in order thatwemay believe in the resurrection of Christ and thus accept the claims ofChristianity.Theresurrection,aswehaveseen,ifitreallytookplace,wasamiracle; it involvedanintrusionof thecreativepowerofGodintothecourseof theworld.Sostupendousanevent isdifficult toacceptunlesswe can detect for it an adequate purpose; and the adequate purpose isdetected only by theman who is under conviction of sin. Such amanalone canunderstand theneedof redemption;he aloneknows that sinhasintroducedagreatrentintotheverystructureoftheuniverse,whichonlyacreativeactofGodcanclose.Thetrulypenitentmanrejoicesinthe

supernatural; for he knows that nothing natural can possiblymeet hisneed.He rejoices even in the new consciousness of the uniformity andunity of nature which has been so widely disseminated by modernscience;forthatuniformityofnatureonlyrevealswithnewclearnessthesheeruniquenessoftheredemptionofferedbyChrist.

ThuseveninordertoexhibitthetruthofChristianityatthebarofreason,itisnecessarytolearnthelessonofthelaw.Itisimpossibletoprovefirstthat Christianity is true, and then proceed on the basis of its truth tobecomeconsciousofone'ssin;forthefactofsinisitselfoneofthechieffoundationsuponwhichtheproofisbased.

Whenthat factofsin isrecognized,andwhento therecognitionof it isaddedafairscrutinyofthehistoricalevidence,thenitseemsthoroughlyreasonable to believe that Christianity is true. Anyone whose mind isclear,nomatterwhathispersonalattitudemaybe,will,wethink,acceptthetruthofChristianity;butnoone'smindisclearwhodeniesthefactsof his own soul: in order to come to the Christian view of Christ it isnecessary only to be scientific; but no one can be truly scientific whoignoresthefactofsin.

Wearenotignoringtheemotionalandvolitionalaspectsoffaith;wearenot denying that as a matter of fact, in humanity as it is actuallyconstituted, an intellectual conviction of the truth of Christianity isalwaysaccompaniedbyachangeofheartandanewdirectionforthewill.ThatdoesnotmeanthatChristianityistrueonlyforthosewhothuswilltoacceptit,andthatitisnottrueforothers;onthecontraryitistrue,wethink, even for the demons in hell as well as for the saints in heaven,though its truthdoes thedemonsnogood.But fora thing tobe true isonethingandforittoberecognizedastrueisanother;andinorderthatChristianity may be recognized as true by men upon this earth theblinding effects of sinmust be removed.Theblinding effects of sin areremovedbytheSpiritofGod;andtheSpiritchoosestodothatonlyforthose whom He brings by the new birth into the Kingdom of God.Regeneration,orthenewbirth,therefore,doesnotstandinoppositiontoa truly scientific attitude toward the evidence, but on the contrary it isnecessaryinorderthatthattrulyscientificattitudemaybeattained;itisnotasubstitutefortheintellect,butonthecontrarybyittheintellectis

made to be a trustworthy instrument for apprehending truth. The truestateofthecaseappearsinthecomprehensiveansweroftheWestminsterShorterCatechismtothequestion,"Whatiseffectualcalling?""Effectualcalling," says the Catechism, "is the work of God's Spirit, whereby,convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in theknowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He doth persuade andenableustoembraceJesusChrist,freelyofferedtousinthegospel."Thatdoes justice toallaspectsof thematter;convictionofsinandmiseryastheprerequisite of faith, the enlighteningof amindblindedby sin, therenewingofthewill;andallthesethingsproducedbytheSpiritofGod.

Inthesecondplace,insteadoffollowingthepurelyintellectualwaythathasjustbeendiscussed,mensometimestrytocometoChristthroughthesense of beauty. And indeed it is a beautiful thing—this life of Christrising like a fair flower amid the foulness of the Roman Empire, thisstrangeteachingsosimpleandyetsoprofound.Butthereisatleastoneobjection to the sense of beauty as the way of approach to Christ—itcannot be forced upon those who desire it not. There is no disputingabouttastes:onemanmayadmireJesus,anothermaypreferthepaganglories of ancient Greece or of the Italian Renaissance; and if it is amerelyestheticquestion,nouniversallyvaliddecisioncanbeattained.Ifthe way of approach is merely through the sense of beauty, then theuniversalityoftheChristianreligion,atanyrate,mustbegivenup.

Is the life and teachingofJesus,moreover, sobeautiful afterall?Jesussaidsomethingsthatoffendthesensibilitiesofmanypeople,aswhenHespokeof theouterdarknessand theeverlasting fire,andof thesin thatshall not be forgiven either in this world or in that which is to come.Thesethingscannotbecalledexactly"pretty";andbymanymentheyaresimply ignored. Some years ago I heard a preacher who, after thecustomary abuse of Calvin and others, obtained a smile from hiscongregation by quoting something that CottonMather had said abouthell.ThequestionthatmighthaveoccurredtomeasIlistenedwaswhythepreacherhadtogosofarafield.WhyshouldhehavehadrecoursetoCotton Mather, when Jesus would have done just as well? There arewordsofJesusabouthell,justasterribleasanythatcanbefoundinthewritingsofthetheologians;andthosewordsmighthaveobtainedasgood

a smile—from that congregation—as thewordsofJonathanEdwardsorCottonMatherortherest.

There is, however, one class of persons fromwhom thosewordswouldhaveobtainednosuchsmile,andtowhomtheywouldhaveseemednottomar onewhit the beauty of the teaching of our Lord. These are thepersons who have passed through the strange experience of theconviction of sin, the persons who hold the same view of sin andretributionthatJesusheld.Tosuchpersons,andtosuchpersonsalone,thebeautyofJesusiswithoutaflaw.Thatbeautycannotbeappreciatedwithout a knowledge of the holiness upon which it is based; and theholiness is unknown except to those who have been convicted of theirownsinthroughlearningthelessonofthelaw.

In the third place, men try to come to Christ through the desire forcompanionship;theyseekinHimafriendwhowillbefaithfulwhenotherfriends depart. But companionship with Jesus is not always thecomfortablethingthatitissometimesthoughttobe;JesusdidnotalwaysmakeiteasytobeadiscipleofHim."Letthedeadburytheirdead,"HetoldtheenthusiastwhocameeagerlytoHimbutwasnotwillingatonceto forsakeall. "one thing thou lackest,"Hesaid to the richyoungruler,and theyoungmanwentsorrowingaway. "He that isnotwithme,"Hesaid tomenwhowanted toenjoyHiscompanionshipwithoutdefinitelytakingsides, "isagainstme.""Ifanymancometome,andhatenothisfather,andmother,andwife,andchildren…hecannotbemydisciple."Itwasaveryseriousthing,inthoseGalileandays,tobeadiscipleofChrist.

And itwasaserious thingnotonly in thesphereofconductbutalso inthesphereofthought.TherecouldbenogreatermistakethantosupposethatamaninthosedayscouldthinkashelikedandstillbeafollowerofJesus. On the contrary the offence lay just as much in the sphere ofdoctrineasinthesphereoflife;theexclusiveclaimsofJesus—thatamanshould if necessary forsake all to follow Him—were grounded in thestupendousviewwhichHeheldofHisownPersonandmission;nomancould really enjoy the companionship of Jesus who did not admit Hisabsolutesway.

ThereweresomeindeedtowhomHisyokewaseasyandHisburdenwas

light;thereweresomewhorejoicedinHisloftydemandsastheveryhopeoftheirlives.Thesewerethemenwhohadcomeundertheconvictionofsin—the sinners, who without a plea except in His mercy heard thegraciouswords,"Thysinsareforgiventhee."

As it was then, so also it will be today: the companionship of Jesus isindeedagracious thing forburdenedsouls;but it isa terrible thing forthosewhohaveanytrustinarighteousnessoftheirown.NomancancallJesusfriendwhodoesnotalsocallHimLord;andnomancancallHimLordwhocouldnotsayfirst:"Departfromme;forIamasinfulman,OLord."AttherootofalltruecompanionshipwithJesus,therefore,istheconsciousness of sin and with it the reliance upon Hismercy; to havefellowshipwithHim it isnecessary to learn the terrible lessonofGod'slaw.

Finally,menseektocometoChristthroughthedesireforaworthyideal;indeed thatway is justnow themost commonly followedof all. "Imaynotbeveryorthodox,"saysmanyamodernman,"but IamaChristianbecauseIbelievethattheprinciplesofJesuswillsolvealltheproblemsofmylifeandalsoalltheproblemsofsociety."

ThemostobviousobjectiontothiswayofapproachtoJesusisthatitwillnotwork;anidealisquitepowerlesstoamanwhoisunderthethraldomof sin; and the real gloryofJesus is thatHebreaks that thraldom,andinsteadofgivingmerelyguidance,asanidealwoulddo,givesalsopower.

Thereis,however,alsoanotherobjection.Jesus,itissaid,canbetakenasthe supreme and perfect ideal for humanity. But is He really a perfectideal?ThereisonedifficultywhichmodernmenfindabouttakingHimassuch—thedifficultydue toHis stupendousclaims.Therecanbeno realdoubt,inthemindofahistorianwhoexaminesthefacts,butthatJesusofNazareth regardedHimselfas theMessiah;and therecanalsobenoreal doubt but thatHe regardedHimself as theMessiah notmerely insome lowermeaning of the term, but in the loftymeaning bywhich itdesignatedtheheavenlySonofMan,thegloriousfigurewhoappears intheseventhchapterofDanielinthepresenceoftheAncientofDays.ThisJesus of Nazareth, in other words, who is to be taken as the suprememoral ideal of the race, actually believed, as He looked out upon His

contemporaries,thatHewasonedaytosituponthethroneofGodandbetheirJudgeandtheJudgeofalltheearth!Wouldnotsuchapersonhavebeen,ifnotactuallyinsane,atleastunbalancedandunworthyofthefullconfidenceofmen?

There is only one way of overcoming this difficulty—it is to accept theloftyclaimsofJesusassobertruth.Iftheclaimsaredenied,then—argueas men will—the Galilean prophet ceases to be a supreme and perfectideal. But the claims can be accepted as true only when one takes thesame view of Jesus' mission as that which Jesus took, only when oneregardsHimasthedivineRedeemerwhocamevoluntarilyintotheworldtosavemankindfromtheguiltandpowerofsin.IfJesusisonlyanideal,Heisnotaperfectideal;forHeclaimedtobefarmore:butifHeistheSaviour from sin, then He is the perfect Example that can never besurpassed.ButHecanbeacceptedastheSaviourfromsinonlybythosewhoholdthesameviewofsinasthatwhichHeheld;andthatviewcanbeheldonlybythosewhohavelearnedthelessonofthelaw.

Thefactis,then,thatthereisnootherwayofcomingtoChristexcepttheold, old way that is found in the conviction of sin. The truth ofChristianity cannot be established by the intellect unless an importantpartoftheargumentisbaseduponthefactofsinwhichisrevealedbythelawofGod;thebeautyofJesus,whichattractsthegazeofmen,cannotbeappreciatedwithoutaknowledgeoftheholinessuponwhichitisbased;the companionship of Jesus is possible only to those who say first, indeep contrition: "Depart fromme; for I am a sinfulman,O Lord"; theexample of Jesus is powerless to those who are in the bondage of evilhabit, and it is not even a perfect example unless He be the divineRedeemerthatHeclaimedtobe.ThetrueschoolmastertobringmentoChristisfound,therefore,nowandalwaysinthelawofGod—thelawofGodthatgivestomentheconsciousnessofsin.

Anewandmorepowerfulproclamationof that lawisperhapsthemostpressingneedofthehour;menwouldhavelittledifficultywiththegospelif theyhadonly learned the lessonof the law.As it is, theyare turningaside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village ofMorality, and to the house ofMr. Legality, who is reported to be veryskillfulinrelievingmenoftheirburdens.Mr.Legalityhasindeedinour

daydisguisedhimselfsomewhat,butheisthesamedeceiverastheoneofwhom Bunyan wrote. "Making Christ Master" in the life, putting intopractice"theprinciplesofChrist"byone'sownefforts—thesearemerelynew ways of earning salvation by one's own obedience to God'scommands.Andtheyareundertakenbecauseofalaxviewofwhatthosecommandsare.Soitalwaysis:alowviewoflawalwaysbringslegalisminreligion;ahighviewof lawmakesamanaseekeraftergrace.PrayGodthat the high view may again prevail; that Mount Sinai may againoverhangthepathandshootforthflames,inorderthatthenthemenofour timemay, likeChristian in theallegory,meetsometrueEvangelist,whoshallpointthemouttheold,oldway,throughthelittlewicketgate,totheplacesomewhatascendingwheretheyshallreallyseetheCrossandthefigureofHimthatdidhangthereon,thatatthatsighttheburdenoftheguiltofsin,whichnohumanhandcouldremove,mayfallfromtheirback into a sepulchre beside the way, and that then, with wondrouslightnessandfreedomandjoy,theymaywalktheChristianpath,throughtheValleyofHumiliationandtheValleyoftheShadowofDeath,andupovertheDelectableMountains,untilatlasttheypasstriumphantacrosstheriverintotheCityofGod.

CHAPTERV

FAITHANDTHEGOSPEL

Ifwhatwehavesaidsofarbecorrect,thereisnowlivingaSaviourwhoisworthyofourtrust,evenChristJesustheLord,andadeadlyneedofoursouls for which we come to Him, namely, the curse of God's law, theterrible guilt of sin.But these thingsarenot all that isneeded inorder

thatwemayhavefaith.It isalsonecessarythatthereshouldbecontactbetweentheSaviourandourneed.ChristisasufficientSaviour;butwhathasHedone,andwhatwillHedo,notmerelyforthemenwhowerewithHiminthedaysofHisflesh,butforus?HowisitthatChristtouchesourlives?

The answer which theWord of God gives to that question is perfectlyspecificandperfectlyplain.Christtouchesourlives,accordingtotheNewTestament,throughtheCross.Wedeservedeternaldeath,inaccordancewiththecurseofGod'slaw;buttheLordJesus,becauseHelovedus,tookuponHimselftheguiltofoursinsanddiedinsteadofusonCalvary.Andfaith consists simply inour acceptanceof thatwondrous gift.Whenweacceptthegift,weareclothed,entirelywithoutmeritofourown,bytherighteousness of Christ; when God looks upon us, He sees not ourimpuritybutthespotlesspurityofChrist,andacceptsus"asrighteousinHissight,onlyfortherighteousnessofChristimputedtous,andreceivedbyfaithalone."

ThatviewoftheCross,itcannotbedenied,runscountertothemindofthe natural man. It is not, indeed, complicated or obscure; on thecontrary it is so simple that a child can understand, andwhat is reallyobscureisthemanifoldmodernefforttoexplaintheCrossawayinsuchfashionastomakeitmoreagreeabletohumanpride.Butcertainly it ismysterious, and certainly it demands for its acceptance a tremendoussenseofsinandguilt.Thatsenseofsinandguilt,thatmoralawakeningofasouldeadinsin,istheworkoftheSpiritofGod;withouttheSpiritofGodnohumanpersuasionwilleverbringmentofaith.Butthatdoesnotmeanthatweshouldbecarelessaboutthewayinwhichweproclaimthegospel:becausetheproclamationofthemessageisinsufficienttoinducefaith, it does not follow that it is unnecessary; on the contrary it is themeanswhichtheSpiritHimselfgraciouslyusesinbringingmentoChrist.Everyeffort,therefore,shouldbemade,withthehelpofGod,toremoveobjectionstothis"wordoftheCross"andtopresentitinallitsgraciouspower.

Nosystematiceffortcanindeedherebemadetodealwiththeobjections.Allthatcanbedoneistomentiononeortwoofthem,inorderthatourpresent point, that the Cross of Christ is the special basis of Christian

faith,maybecomeplain.

Inthefirstplace,then,theviewoftheCrosswhichhasjustbeenoutlinedis often belittled as beingmerely a "theory of the atonement."We canhavethefactoftheatonement,itissaid,nomatterwhatparticulartheoryofitwehold,andindeedevenwithoutholdinganyparticulartheoryofitatall.So thissubstitutionaryview, it issaid, isafterallonlyone theoryamongmany.

Thisobjectionisbaseduponamistakenviewofthedistinctionbetweenfact and theory, and upon a somewhat ambiguous use of the word"theory."Whatismeantbya"theory"?Undoubtedlythewordoftenhasratheranunfavorablesound;andtheuseofitinthepresentconnectionmightseemtoimplythattheviewoftheatonementwhichisdesignatedasa"theory"isamereeffortofmantoexplaininhisownwaywhatGodhasgiven.ButmightnotGodhaverevealedthe"theory"ofathingjustastrulyasthethingitself;mightHenotHimselfhavegiventheexplanationwhenHegavethething?Inthatcasetheexplanationjustasmuchasthething itself comes to uswith a divine authority, and it is impossible toacceptonewithoutacceptingtheother.

Wehavenotyet,however,quitegotten to theheartof thematter.Mensay that they accept the fact of the atonement without accepting thesubstitutionarytheoryofit,andindeedwithoutbeingsureofanytheoryof it at all. The trouble with this attitude is that the moment we say"atonement" we have already overstepped the line that separates factfrom theory; an "atonement" even in the most general and mostindefinite sense that could conceivably be given to the word, cannotpossibly be a mere fact, but is a fact as explained by its purpose andresults. If we say that an event was an "atonement" for sin or an"atonement" in the senseofanestablishmentofharmonybetweenGodandman, we have donemore than designate themere external event.Whatwehavereallydoneistodesignatetheeventwithanexplanationofitsmeaning.SotheatonementwroughtbyChristcanneverbeabarefact,inthesensewithwhichwearenowdealing.Thebare fact issimplythedeathofaJewuponacrossinthefirstcenturyofourera,andthatbarefact is entirely without value to anyone; what gives it its value is theexplanationof it as ameansbywhich sinfulmanwasbrought into the

presence of God. It is impossible for us to obtain the slightest benefitfromamerecontemplationof thedeathofChrist;all thebenefitcomesfromourknowledgeof themeaningof thatdeath,or inotherwords (ifthetermbeusedinahighsense)fromour"theory"ofit.If,therefore,wespeak of the bare "fact" of the atonement, as distinguished from the"theory"ofit,weareindulginginamisleadinguseofwords;thebarefactis the death, and themoment we say "atonement" we have committedourselvestoatheory.Theimportantthing,then, is,sincewemusthavesometheory,thattheparticulartheorythatweholdshallbecorrect.

But, it may be said, might not God really have accomplished somewonderfulthingbythedeathofChristwithoutrevealingtous,exceptinthemostgeneral terms,what itwas?MightHenothave toldussimplythatoursalvationdependsuponthedeathofChristwithoutatalltellinguswhythatisso?WeanswerthatHecertainlymighthavedoneso;butthequestioniswhetherHehasactuallydoneso.Therearemanythingswhich Hemight conceivably have done and yet has not actually done.Conceivably, for example, He might have saved us by placing us in acondition of unconsciousness and then awakening us to a new life inwhichsinshouldhavenoplace.ButitisperfectlyplainthatasamatteroffactHehasnotdoneso;andevenwe,withourpoor finite intelligence,may perhaps see that His way is better than that. So it is perfectlyconceivable thatHemighthavesavedusbythedeathofChristwithoutrevealing toushowHedidso; in thatcaseweshouldhave toprostrateourselves before a crucifix with an understanding far lower than thatwhich is found in the lowest forms of RomanCatholic piety.Hemightconceivably have treated us thus. But, thankGod,Hehas not done so;thankGodHehasbeenpleased,inHisinfinitegrace,todealwithusnotaswith sticks and stones, but aswithpersons; thankGodHehasbeenpleased to reveal to us in the Cross of Christ ameaning that stills thedespairingvoiceof conscienceandputs inourheartsa songof joy thatshallresoundtoHispraisesolongaseternityendures.

ThatrichnessofmeaningisfoundonlyintheblesseddoctrinethatupontheCrosstheLordtookourplace,thatHeofferedHimself"asacrificetosatisfy divine justice, and reconcile us toGod." There are indeed otherways of contemplating the Cross, and they should certainly not be

neglectedbytheChristianman.Butitisasadandfatalmistaketotreatthose other ways as though they lay on the same plane with this onefundamentalway;inrealitytheother"theories"oftheatonementlosealltheirmeaningunlesstheyaretakeninconnectionwiththisoneblessed"theory."WhentakenwiththiswayoflookingupontheCross,theotherwaysarefullofhelpfulnesstotheChristianman;butwithoutittheyleadonly to confusion and despair. Thus the Cross of Christ is certainly anobleexampleofself-sacrifice;but if itbeonlyanobleexampleofself-sacrifice, it has no comfort for burdened souls; it certainly shows howGodhatessin;butifitdoesnothingbutshowhowGodhatessin,itonlydeepensourdespair; it certainly exhibits the loveofGod,but if it doesnothingbut exhibit the loveofGod it is ameremeaningless exhibitionwhichseemsunworthyofGod.ManythingsaretaughtusbytheCross;but the other things are taught us only if the really centralmeaning ispreserved, thecentralmeaninguponwhichall therestdepends.Onthecross thepenaltyofour sinswaspaid; it isas thoughweourselveshaddied in fulfillment of the just curse of the law; the handwriting ofordinancesthatwasagainstuswaswipedout;andhenceforthwehaveanentirelynewlifeinthefullfavorofGod.

There is, however, another objection to this "word of the Cross." Theobjectioncomesfromthosewhoplacefaithinapersoninoppositiontoacceptance of a doctrine, especially a doctrine that is based uponwhathappened long ago. Can we not, it is said, trust Christ as a presentSaviourwithoutacceptingadoctrinethatexplainsthedeaththatHediedinthefirstcenturyofourera?Thisquestion, inoneformoranother, isoften asked, and it is often answered in the affirmative. Indeed, thedoctrinal message about Christ is often represented as a barrier thatneedstobedoneawayinorderthatwemayhaveChristHimself;faithinadoctrine shouldbe removed, it is said, inorder that faith inaPersonmayremain.

Whateverestimatemayfinallybemadeofthiswayofthinking,itmustatanyratebeadmittedatthestartthatitinvolvesacompletebreakwiththeprimitive Christian Church. If any one thing must be clear to thehistorian, it is that Christianity at the beginning was founded squarelyuponanaccountofthingsthathadhappened,uponapieceofnews,orin

other words, upon a "gospel." The matter is particularly clear in thesummarywhich Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3–7 gives of the primitive Jerusalemtradition:"HowthatChristdiedforoursinsaccordingtotheScriptures;andthathewasburied,andthatheroseagainthethirddayaccordingtothe Scriptures." The earliest Christian Church in Jerusalem clearlywasfoundednotmerelyuponwhatalwayswastruebutuponthingsthathadhappened,notmerelyuponeternaltruthsofreligionbutuponhistoricalfacts.Thehistoricalfactsuponwhichitwasfoundedwere,moreover,notbarefactsbutfactsthathadameaning;itwasnotonlysaidthat"Christdied"—thatwouldbe(at least if theword"Christ"weretakenasamerepropernameandnot in the full, loftysignificationof "Messiah")abarefact—but itwassaid"Christdied foroursins,"and thatwasa factwiththemeaningofthefact—inotherwordsitwasadoctrine.

ThispassageisofcoursenotisolatedintheNewTestamentteaching,butismerely a summary ofwhat is really the presupposition of thewhole.CertainlythegroundingofChristianityuponhistoricalfacts,uponeventsas distinguished frommere eternal principles, cannot be regarded as apointinwhichtheapostolicChurchwasincontradictiontotheteachingwhichJesusHimselfgaveinthedaysofHisflesh,butfindsitjustificationin thewordswhichJesusuttered.Of course if Jesus really, as theNewTestament books all represent, came—to use the language of a certaindistinguished preacher—not primarily to say something but to dosomething, and if that something was done by His death andresurrection,thenitisnaturalthatthefullexplanationofwhatwasdonecouldnotbegivenuntilthedeathandresurrectionhadoccurred.Itisagreatmistake,therefore,toregardtheSermonontheMountassomehowmoresacredormorenecessarytothenurtureoftheChristianlifethan,for example, the eighth chapter of Romans. But although the fullexplanationofredemptioncouldnotbegivenuntiltheredeemingeventhadtakenplace,yetourLorddid,bywayofprophecy,eveninthedaysofHis flesh, point forward towhatwas to come.He did point forward tocatastrophiceventsbywhichsalvationwastobegiventomen;alleffortstoeliminatethiselementinHisteachingabouttheKingdomofGodhavefailed.DuringJesus'earthlyministrytheredeemingworkwhichtheOldTestamentprophetshadpredictedwasstillinthefuture;totheapostolicChurch itwas in thepast:butbothJesusand theapostolicChurchdid

proclaim, the one by way of prophecy, the other by way of historicaltestimony,aneventuponwhichthehopesofbelieverswerebased.

ThusthenotionthatinsistenceuponthemessageofredemptionthroughthedeathandresurrectionofourLordplacesabarrierbetweenourselvesand Him was not shared by the earliest Christian Church; on thecontrary,intheapostolicagethatmessagewasregardedasthesourceofall light and joy. And in the present instance, as in so many otherinstances,itcanbeshownthattheapostles(andourLordHimself)wereright. The truth is that thewhole opposition between faith in a personand acceptance of amessage about the personmust be given up. It isbased,aswehavealreadyseen,uponafalsepsychology;apersoncannotbe trustedwithout acceptance of the facts about the person.But in thecase of Jesus the notion is particularly false; for it is just themessageaboutJesus,themessagethatsetsforthhisCrossandresurrection,thatbrings us into contact with Him. Without that message He would beforever remote—a great Person, but one with whomwe could have nocommunion—butthroughthatmessageHecomestobeourSaviour.Truecommunion with Christ comes not when a man merely says, incontemplatingtheCross,"Thiswasarighteousman,"or"ThiswasasonofGod,"butwhenhesayswithtearsofgratitudeandjoy,"HelovedmeandgaveHimselfforme."

ThereisawonderfulclauseintheWestminsterShorterCatechismwhichputsthetruestateofthecaseinclassicform."FaithinJesusChrist,"saystheCatechism,"isasavinggrace,wherebywereceiveandrestuponHimalone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the gospel." In that lastclause,"asHeisofferedtousinthegospel,"wehavethecentreandcoreof thewholematter.TheLordJesusChristdoesusnogood,nomatterhowgreatHemaybe,unlessHeisofferedtous;andasamatteroffactHe is offered tous in thegoodnewsofHis redeemingwork.Thereareother conceivableways inwhichHemighthavebeenoffered tous;butthishastheadvantageofbeingGod'sway.AndIratherthinkthatinthelongrunwemaycometoseethatGod'swayisbest.

At the beginning, it is true, there may be much that we cannotunderstand; thereare thingsabout thewayof salvation thatwemayatfirsthavetotakeinthefullestsense"onfaith."Thegreatestoffenceofall,

perhaps, is thewondrous simplicity of the gospel,which is so differentfromtheplanswhichweonourparthadmade.LikeNaamantheSyrianwe are surprisedwhenour rich fees andour letters of introduction arespurned,whenallourefforts tosaveourselvesbyourowncharacterorour own goodworks are counted as not of the slightest avail. "Are notAbana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus," we say, "better than all thewaters of Israel?" Are not our own efforts to put into operation the"principlesofJesus,"orto"makeChristMaster"byourowneffortsinourlives,betterthanthisstrangemessageoftheCross?ButlikeNaamanwemay find, ifweputawayourpride, ifwearewilling to takeGodatHisword, ifweconfessthatHiswayisbest, thatourflesh,sofoulwithsin,maycomeagainlikethefleshofalittlechildandwemaybeclean.

Andthenwillberevealedtous the fullerwondersofsalvation; then,asthe years go by, we shall come to understand evermore andmore theglory of the Cross. It may seem strange at first that Christ should beofferedtousnotinsomeotherway,butsospecificallyinthisway;butaswegrowinknowledgeandingraceweshallcometoseewithincreasingfullnessthatnowaycouldpossiblybebetterthanthis.Christisofferedtousnotingeneral,but"inthegospel";butinthegospelthereisincludedallthattheheartofmancanwish.

Weoughtnever, therefore, tosetpresentcommunionwithChrist,assomanyaredoing, inoppositiontothegospel;weoughtnever tosaythatwe are interested inwhatChrist does for us now, but are not somuchinterested in what He did long ago. Do you know what soon happenswhenmentalkinthatway?Theanswerisonlytooplain.Theysoonloseall contactwith the realChrist;what they call "Christ" in the soul sooncomestohavelittletodowiththeactualperson,JesusofNazareth;theirreligion would really remain essentially the same if scientific historyshouldprovethatsuchapersonasJesusneverlived.Inotherwords,theysooncametosubstitutetheimaginingsoftheirownheartsforwhatGodhasrevealed;theysubstitutemysticismforChristianityasthereligionoftheirsouls.

Thatdanger shouldbeavoidedby theChristianmanwithallhismightandmain.Godhasgivenusananchorforoursouls;HehasanchoredustoHimselfbythemessageoftheCross.Letusnevercastthatanchoroff;

letusneverweakenourconnectionwiththeeventsuponwhichourfaithis based. Such dependence upon the past will never prevent us fromhavingpresentcommunionwithChrist;ourcommunionwithHimwillbeasinward,asintimate,asuntrammelledbyanybarriersofsense,asthecommunionofwhichthemysticsboast;butunlikethecommunionofthemysticsitwillbecommunionnotwiththeimaginingsofourownhearts,butwiththerealSaviourJesusChrist.Thegospelofredemptionthroughthe Cross and resurrection of Christ is not a barrier between us andChrist,but it is theblessedtie,bywhich,withthecordsofHis love,HehasboundusforevertoHim.

AcceptanceoftheLordJesusChrist,asHeisofferedtousinthegospelofHis redeeming work, is saving faith. Despairing of any salvation to beobtainedbyourownefforts,wesimplytrustinHimtosaveus;wesaynolonger, as we contemplate the Cross,merely "He saved others" or "Hesavedtheworld"or"HesavedtheChurch";butwesay,everyoneofus,by the strange individualizing power of faith, "He loved me and gaveHimselfforme."Whenamanoncesaysthat,inhisheartandnotmerelywithhislips,thennomatterwhathisguiltmaybe,nomatterhowfarheis beyond anyhumanpale, nomatter how little opportunity he has formakinggoodtheevilthathehasdone,heisaransomedsoul,achildofGodforever.

Atthispoint,aquestionmayperhapsbeasked.WehavesaidthatsavingfaithisacceptanceofChrist,notmerelyingeneral,butasHeisofferedtousinthegospel.Howmuch,then,ofthegospel,itmaybeasked,doesamanneedtoacceptinorderthathemaybesaved;what,toputitbaldly,are theminimumdoctrinal requirements inorder thatamanmaybeaChristian?That isaquestionwhich, inone formoranother, Iamoftenasked;butitisalsoaquestionwhichIhaveneveranswered,andwhichIhavenottheslightestintentionofansweringnow.IndeeditisaquestionwhichIthinknohumanbeingcananswer.Whocanpresumetosayforcertainwhatistheconditionofanotherman'ssoul;whocanpresumetosaywhethertheotherman'sattitudetowardChrist,whichhecanexpressbutbadlyinwords,isanattitudeofsavingfaithornot?ThisisoneofthethingswhichmustsurelybelefttoGod.

There is indeedacertainreasonwhyit isnatural toaskthequestionto

whichwe have just referred; it is natural because of the existence of avisible Church. The visible Church should strive to receive, into acommunionforprayerandfellowshipandlabor,asmanyaspossibleofthose who are united to Christ in saving faith, and it should strive toexcludeasmanyaspossibleofthosewhoarenotsounitedtoHim.Ifitdoesnotpractiseexclusionaswellasinclusion,itwillsooncometostandfornothingatall,butwillbemergedinthelifeoftheworld;itwillsoonbecomelikesaltthathaslostitssavour,fitonlytobecastoutandtobetroddenunderfootofmen.

In order, therefore, that the purity of the Churchmay be preserved, aconfession of faith in Christ must be required of all those who wouldbecomeChurchmembers.Butwhatkindofconfessionmust itbe?I formypart think that it ought to be notmerely a verbal confession, but acredibleconfession.Oneoftheverygreatestevilsofpresent-dayreligiouslife, it seems to me, is the reception into the Church of persons whomerely repeat a formofwords such as "I acceptChrist asmy personalSaviour," without giving the slightest evidence to show that they knowwhat such words mean. As a consequence of this practice, hosts ofpersonsarebeingreceivedintotheChurchonthebasis,ashasbeenwellsaid,ofnothingmorethanavagueadmirationforthemoralcharacterofJesus, or else on the basis of a vague purpose of engaging inhumanitarianwork.OnesuchpersonwithintheChurchdoesmoreharmto the cause of Christ, I for my part believe, than ten such personsoutside;andthewholepracticeoughttoberadicallychanged.Thetruthis that the ecclesiastical currency in our day has been sadly debased;Churchmembership, aswell asChurchoffice, no longermeanswhat itought tomean. In view of such a situation, we ought, I think, to havereality at least; insteadof comfortingourselveswith columnsof churchstatistics, we ought to face the facts; we ought to recall this papercurrencyandgetbacktoastandardofgold.

To that end, it should, I think, bemademuchharder than it now is toenter the Church: the confession of faith that is required should be acredible confession; and if it becomes evident upon examination that acandidatehasnonotionofwhatheisdoing,heshouldbeadvisedtoenteruponacourseofinstructionbeforehebecomesamemberoftheChurch.

Such a course of instruction, moreover, should be conducted not bycomparatively untrained laymen, but ordinarily by the ministers; theexcellentinstitutionofthecatecheticalclassshouldbegenerallyrevived.Those churches, like the Lutheran bodies in America, which havemaintainedthatinstitution,haveprofitedenormouslybyitsemployment;andtheirexampledeservestobegenerallyfollowed.

Afterall,however, such inquiries into thestateof thesoulsofmenandwomen and children who desire to enter into the Church must beregardedasat thebestvery roughandaltogetherprovisional.Certainlyrequirements for Church membership should be distinguished in thesharpestpossiblewayfromrequirementsfortheministry.Theconfusionofthesetwothingsintheecclesiasticaldiscussionsofthepastfewyearshas resulted in great injustice touswhoare called conservatives in theChurch. We have been represented sometimes as though we wererequiring an acceptance of the infallibility of Scripture or of theconfession of faith of our Church from those who desire to becomeChurchmembers,whereasinpointoffactwehavebeenrequiringthesethings only from candidates for ordination. Surely there is a veryimportant distinction here.Many persons—to take a secular example—canbeadmittedtoaneducationalinstitutionasstudentswhoyetarenotqualified for a position in the faculty. Similarly many persons can beadmittedtoChurchmembershipwhoyetoughtnottobeadmittedtotheministry; they are qualified to learn, but not qualified to teach; theyshould not be allowed to stand forth as accredited teachers with theofficialendorsementoftheChurch.

This analogy, it is true, does not by any means altogether hold: theChurchisnot,wethink,merelyaneducationalinstitution,butthevisiblerepresentativeintheworldofthebodyofChrist;anditsmembersarenotmerelyseekersafterGod,butthosewhohavealreadyfound;theyarenotmerely interestedinChrist,butareunitedtoChristbytheregeneratingactoftheSpiritofGod.Nevertheless,althoughtheanalogydoesnotfullyhold,itdoesholdfarenoughtoillustratewhatwemean.ThereisawidemarginofdifferencebetweenqualificationsforChurchmembershipandqualifications for office—especially the teaching office that we call theministry. Many a man, with feeble, struggling belief, torn by many

doubts, may be admitted into the fellowship of the Church and of thesacraments; it would be heartless to deprive him of the comfort whichsuch fellowship affords; to such persons the Church freely extends itsnurture to the end that theymaybe led into ever fullerknowledgeandever firmer faith.But toadmit suchpersons to theministrywouldbeacrimeagainstChrist'slittleones,wholooktotheministryforanassuredwordastothewaybywhichtheyshallbesaved.Itisnot,however,evensuchpersonstowhomchieflywehavereferencewhenweadvocatetodaya greater care in admittingmen to theministry. It is notmenwho arestruggling with doubts and difficulties about the gospel to whoseadmission we chiefly object, but men who are perfectly satisfied withanother gospel; it is not men of ill-assured faith, but men of assuredunbelief.

Even with regard to Church membership, as distinguished from theministry,thereis,aswehaveseen,alimitbeyondwhichexclusionmustcertainly be practised; not only a desire to enter the Church should berequired but also some knowledge ofwhat entering theChurchmeans,not only a confessionof faithbut a reasonably credible confession.Butthepointthatwearenowmakingisthatsuchrequirementsoughtclearlytoberecognizedasprovisional;theydonotdetermineaman'sstandingbeforeGod,buttheyonlydetermine,withthebestjudgmentthatGodhasgiventofeebleandignorantmen,aman'sstandinginthevisibleChurch.That is one reasonwhy wemust refuse to answer, in any definite andformalway,thequestionastotheminimumdoctrinalrequirementsthatarenecessaryinorderthatamanmaybeaChristian.

Thereis,however,alsoanotherreason.Theotherreasonisthattheveryasking of the question often be tokens an unfortunate attitude withregardtoChristiantruth.Forourpartwehavenotmuchsympathywiththe present widespread desire of finding some greatest commondenominatorwhichshallunitemenofdifferentChristianbodies;forsuchagreatestcommondenominator isoftenfoundtobeverysmall indeed.Somemenseemtodevotemostoftheirenergiestothetaskofseeingjusthow little of Christian truth they can get along with. For our part, weregarditasaperilousbusiness;weprefer,insteadofseeinghowlittleofChristiantruthwecangetalongwith,toseejusthowmuchofChristian

truth we can obtain.We ought to search the Scriptures reverently andthoughtfully and pray God that he may lead us into an ever fullerunderstandingofthetruththatcanmakeuswiseuntosalvation.Thereisnovirtuewhateverinignorance,butmuchvirtueinaknowledgeofwhatGodhasrevealed.

CHAPTERVI

FAITHANDSALVATION

We have been engaging, in the latter part of the last chapter, insomethinglikeadigression,anditistimetoreturntothepointatwhichweleftoff.Whenaman,weobserved,acceptsChrist,notingeneralbutspecifically "as He is offered to us in the gospel," such acceptance ofChrist is saving faith. It may involve a smaller or a greater amount ofknowledge.Thegreater theamountofknowledgewhich it involves, thebetterforthesoul;butevenasmalleramountofknowledgemaybringatrueunionwithChrist.WhenChrist,asheisofferedtousinthegospelofHis redeemingwork, is thusaccepted in faith, the soulof themanwhobelievesissaved.

ThatsalvationoftheChristian,inoneofitsaspects,iscalled"justificationby faith;" and the doctrine of justification by faithmust be consideredspecifically,thoughbriefly,atthepresentpointinourdiscussion.

Therewillperhaps,however,beanobjectiontotheterminologythatweareventuringtoemploy."Justification,"itwillbesaid, isadistressinglylongword;andas for theword"doctrine," thathasa forbiddingsound.Insteadofsuchterminologysurelyweoughttofindsimplerwordswhich

willbringthematterhometomodernmeninlanguagesuchastheyareaccustomedtouse.

Thissuggestionistypicalofwhatisoftenbeingsaidatthepresenttime.Manypersonsarehorrifiedbytheuseofatheologicalterm;theyseemtohaveanotionthatmodernChristiansmustbeaddressedalwaysinwordsof one syllable, and that in religion we must abandon the scientificprecisionoflanguagewhichisfoundtobesousefulinotherspheres.Inpursuanceofthistendencywehavehadpresentedtousrecentlyvarioustranslations of the Bible which reduce the Word of God more or lessthoroughlytothelanguageofthemodernstreet,orwhich,asthematterwas put recently in my hearing by an intelligent layman, "take all thereligionoutof theNewTestament."Butthewholetendency,weforourpart think, ought to be resisted. Back of it all seems to lie the strangeassumption thatmodernmen, particularlymodernuniversitymen, cannever by any chance learn anything; they do not understand thetheologicalterminologywhichappearsinsuchrichnessintheBible,andthatisregardedastheendofthematter;apparentlyitdoesnotoccurtoanyone that possibly they might with profit acquire the knowledge ofBiblical terminology which now they lack. But I formy part am by nomeansreadytoacquiesce.Iamperfectlyready,indeed,toagreethattheBibleandthemodernmanoughttobebroughttogether.Butwhatisnotalwaysobservedisthattherearetwowaysofattainingthatend.OnewayistobringtheBibledowntothelevelofthemodernman;buttheotherwayistobringthemodernmanuptotheleveloftheBible.Formypart,Iaminclined toadvocate the latterway.AndIambynomeansready torelinquishtheadvantagesofapreciseterminologyinsummarizingBibletruth. In religion as well as in other spheres a precise terminology ismentallyeconomicalintheend;itrepaysamplytheslighteffortrequiredforthemasteryofit.ThusIamnotatallashamedtospeak,eveninthisdayandgeneration,of"thedoctrineofjustificationbyfaith."

Itshouldnotbesupposed,however,thatthatdoctrineisanabstruseorintricatething.Onthecontraryitisaverysimplething,anditisinstinctwithlife.

Itisananswertothegreatestpersonalquestioneveraskedbyahumansoul—the question: "How shall I be right with God; how do I stand in

God'ssight;withwhatfavordoesHelookuponme?"Therearethose,itmustbeadmitted,whoneverraisethatquestion;therearethosewhoareconcernedwiththequestionoftheirstandingbeforemen,butneverwiththe question of their standing before God; there are those who areinterested inwhat "people say,"butnot in thequestionwhatGodsays.Suchmen,however,arenotthosewhomovetheworld;theyareapttogowiththecurrent;theyareapttodoasothersdo;theyarenottheheroeswho change the destinies of the race. The beginning of true nobilitycomeswhenamanceasestobeinterestedinthejudgmentofmen,andbecomesinterestedinthejudgmentofGod.

Butifwecangainthatmuchinsight,ifwehavebecomeinterestedinthejudgment of God, how shall we stand in that judgment?How shall webecomerightwithGod?Themostobviousansweris:"ByobeyingthelawofGod,bybeingwhatGodwantsus tobe."There isabsolutelynothingwrongintheoryaboutthatanswer;theonlytroubleisthatforusitdoesnotwork.IfwehadobeyedthelawofGod,ifwewerewhatGodwantsustobe,allwouldnodoubtbewell;wecouldapproachthejudgmentseatofGodandrelysimplyuponHisjustrecognitionofthefacts.But,alas,wehavenotobeyedGod'slaw,buthavetransgresseditinthought,wordanddeed; and far frombeingwhatGodwantsus tobe,we are stainedandsoiledwith sin.The stain isnotmerelyon the surface; it isnot a thingthat can easilybewipedoff; but it permeates the recessesof our souls.AndtheclearerbeourunderstandingofGod's law, thedeeperbecomesourdespair.SomemenseekarefugefromcondemnationinalowviewofthelawofGod;theylimitthelawtoexternalcommands,andbyobeyingthose commands theyhope tobuyGod's favor.But themomentamangainsavisionofthelawasitis—especiallyasitisrevealedinthewordsandexampleofJesus—atthatmomentheknowsthatheisundone.IfourbeingrightwithGoddependsuponanythingthatisinus,wearewithouthope.

Another way, however, has been opened into God's presence; and theopeningofthatwayissetforthinthegospel.Wedeservedeternaldeath;we deserved exclusion from the household of God; but the Lord JesustookuponHimselfalltheguiltofoursinsanddiedinsteadofusonthecross.Henceforththelaw'sdemandshavebeensatisfiedforusbyChrist,

itsterrorforusisgone,andclothednolongerinourrighteousnessbutintherighteousnessofChristwestandwithoutfear,asChristwouldstandwithout fear, before the judgment seat ofGod.Men say that that is anintricate theory; but surely the adjective ismisplaced. It ismysterious,butitisnotintricate;itiswonderful,butitissosimplethatachildcanunderstand.

Two objections to the doctrine of justification, however, need to beconsideredeveninabriefpresentationsuchasthatinwhichwearenowengaged.

In the first place, it is said, "justification" is a "forensic" term; it isborrowed,thatis,fromthelaw-courts;itsmellsofmustyvolumesboundin legal calf; and we moderns prefer other sources for our figures ofspeech;weprefertoconceiveofsalvationinavital,ratherthaninalegal,way.

In answer itmay be said, of course, that justification by faith is by nomeansalloftheChristiandoctrineofsalvation;ithasasitsothersidethedoctrineof regenerationor thenewbirth.What theChristianhas fromGodisnotmerelyanewandrightrelationtoHiminwhichtheguiltofsiniswipedout,butalsoanewlifeinwhichthepowerofsinisbroken;theChristianviewofsalvationisvitalaswellasforensic.Thismodernwayofthinking,ontheotherhand,errsinbeingone-sided;iterrs,notindeedininsisting upon the "vital" aspect of salvation, but in maintaining thatsalvationisonlyvital.Whenthevitalaspectofsalvationisthusseparatedfrom the forensic aspect, the consequences are serious indeed; whatreally happens is that the whole ethical character of Christianity isendangeredordestroyed.ItisimportanttounderstandthattheChristianhasanewlifeinadditiontoanewstandingbeforethejudgmentseatofGod; but to be interested in the new life to the exclusion of the newstandingbeforeGod is todeprive thenew life of itsmoral significance.For it is only as judged in accordance with some absolute norm ofrighteousnessthatthatnewlifediffersfromthelifeofplantsorbeasts.

Theultimatequestion,however,thatisinvolvedintheobjectionconcernsthevalidityofretributivejustice.Theobjectionregardsasderogatorytothedoctrineof justificationthefactthatitusesthelanguageofthelaw-

courts.Butisthatfactreallyderogatorytothedoctrine?Weforourpartthinkthatitisnot,forthesimplereasonthatweholdatotallydifferentviewofthelaw-courtsfromtheviewthattheobjectorholds.Atthispoint,asatsomanyotherpoints,thereisrevealedthefar-reachingcharacterofthe disagreement in the modern religious world. The disagreementconcerns not merely what is ordinarily called religion, but it concernsalmost every department of human life. In particular it concerns theunderlyingtheoryofhumanjustice.

The objector regards as derogatory the fact that our doctrine ofjustification uses the language of the law-courts. But he does so onlybecauseofthelimitedfunctionwithwhichaccordingtohisviewthelaw-courts must be content. According to his view our courts of law areconcerned only with the reform of the criminal or the protection ofsociety;inconnectionwithourcourtshethinksthatthewholenotionofretributive justice must be given up. Very different is our view; andbecauseitisdifferent,thefactthatthedoctrineofjustificationuseslegallanguageappears tous tobenota reproachbutahigh commendation.Courts, we think, even human courts, far from exercising a merelyutilitarian function, are founded upon a principle that is rooted in theverybeingofGod.Theydo,indeed,alsoexercisetheutilitarianfunctionsofwhichwehavejustspoken;theydoseekthereformofthecriminalandtheprotectionofsociety:andtheymustneverallowtheseconsiderationstobeforgotten.Butbackofallthatliestheirreduciblefactofretributivejustice. We do not mean that human judges can ever speak in anyinfalliblewaywiththevoiceofGod;humanlimitationsmustconstantlybeborneinmind;atrulyjustandfinalsettlementmustoftenbelefttoahigherAssize.Butstill,whenallthatandmoreisadmitted,thereremainsabasisofeternalsignificanceineverytruecourtoflaw.Thatsignificanceis, indeed, todayoftenobscured; the lowutilitarian theory ofwhichwehavejustspokenhasinvadedonlytoofrequentlyourcourtrooms,andputtrivialconsiderationofconsequences inplaceof themajestyof the law.Men are complaining of the result, but are notwilling to dealwith thecause.Theyarecomplainingloudlyofthegrowthofcriminality;theyarefeverishly filling statute books with all sorts of prohibitions; they aretrying their best to prevent the disintegration of society. But thewholeeffortisreallyquitevain.Therealtroubledoesnotlieinthedetailsofour

laws,butintheunderlyingconceptionofwhatlawis.

Even in the field of detail, it is true, there is room for improvement—improvement in a verydifferentdirection,however, from that inwhichcontemporary law-makers are accustomed to turn, improvement in thedirection not of increasedmultiplication of statutes, but of a return tosimplicity. Insteadof themassof trivialandoften irksomeprohibitionswhich now clog our statute books, legislatures ought to contentthemselveswithwhatisdemandedbytheoverwhelmingmoraljudgmentofthepeople;onewaytoencouragerespectforlaw,wethink,wouldbetomake law more respectable. The real trouble, however, is morefundamental than all that; it lies, not in matters of detail, but in theunderlyingprinciple.Respectforhumanlawscannot,inthelongrun,bemaintained unless there is such a thing, in the ultimate constitution ofthings,asjustice;mereutilitarianismwillneverchecktherebellionoftheflesh;human judgeswillbe respectedonlywhenagain theyareclothedwithamajestywhichissuesultimatelyfromthelawofGod.

Itisnot,therefore,atallderogatorytothedoctrineofjustificationthatituses the language of a court of law; for a court of law represents—inobscurefashion,itistrue—afactinthebeingofGod.MensayindeedthattheyprefertoconceiveofGodasaFatherratherthanasaJudge;butwhymustthechoicebemade?ThetruewaytoconceiveofHimistoconceiveofHimbothasaFatherandasaJudge.Fatherhood,asweknowituponthis earth, representsoneaspectofGod;but to isolate that aspect is todegrade it and deprive it of its ethical quality. Important indeed is thedoctrine of the Fatherhood of God; but it would not be important if itwerenotsupplementedbythedoctrineofGodasthefinalJudge.

TheotherobjectiontotheChristiandoctrineofjustificationcanbedealtwith just as briefly; since the objection, upon examination, soondisappears.Justification,wearetold,involvesamerelegaltrickwhichisderogatorytothecharacterofGod;accordingtothisdoctrine, it issaid,God is representedaswaitinguntilChristhaspaid thepriceof sinasasubstituteforthesinnerbeforeHewillforgive;HeisrepresentedasbeingboughtoffbythedeathofChristsothatHepronouncesasrighteous inHis sight thosewho are not really righteous at all. "How degrading allthatis,"themodernmanexclaims;"howmuchbetteritwouldbesimply

to say that God is more willing to forgive than man is willing to beforgiven!" Thus the doctrine of justification is represented as doingdespitetotheloveofGod.

This objection ignores a fundamental feature of the doctrine which isbeingcriticized;itignoresthefactthataccordingtotheChristanviewitisGodHimself and not someone elsewho in the atoning death of Christpaysthepriceofsin—GodHimselfinthepersonoftheSonwholovedusandgaveHimselfforus,andGodHimselfinthepersonoftheFatherwhoso loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. For us, theChristianholds,salvationisasfreeastheairwebreathe;God'salonethecost,andoursthewondrousgain.SuchaviewexaltstheloveofGodfarmore than iseverdonebymodern theoriesas to the forgivenessofsin:for those theoriesarealike indenying, in the lastanalysis, thedreadfulrealityandirrevocablenessofguilt; theyseektosavetheloveofGodbydenying the moral constitution of His universe, and in doing so theyfinally destroy even thatwhich they started out to conserve; the divinelovewhichtheyseektosaveattheexpenseofHisjusticeturnsouttobebutaneasycomplacencywhichisnoloveatall.Itismisleadingtoapplythe term "love" to a sentiment that costs nothing. Very different is theloveofwhichtheBiblespeaks;forthatlovebroughttheLordJesustothecross.TheBibledoesnotholdouthopes to the sinnerbypalliating thefact of sin; on the contrary it proclaims that fact with a terribleearnestnesswhichotherwisehasnotbeenknown.Butthen,onthebasisofthisruthlessilluminationofthemoralfactsoflife,itprovidesafullandcomplete and absolutely free way of escape through the sacrifice ofChrist.

Nodoubtthatwayisnotofourownchoosing;andnodoubtitmayseemstrange.ItmayseemtobeastrangethingthatOneshouldbeartheguiltofothers'sins.AndindeedforanyonesaveChristthatwouldhavebeenfarbeyondeventhepoweroflove.Itisperfectlytruethatonemancannotbeartheguiltofanotherman'ssins;theinstancesof"vicarious"sufferinginhumanlife,whichhavebeenbroughttoourattentionasbeinginthesamecategorywith the sufferingsofChrist, serveonly to showhow farthemenwhoadducethemarefromcomprehendingwhatismeantbytheCross.Butbecauseaweakandsinfulmancannotbeartheguiltofothers'

sins,itdoesnotfollowthatChristcannotdoso.Andasamatteroffact,thankGod,He has done so; at the Cross the burden ofmen's sins hasrolled away, and there has come a peace with God that the world cannever know. We are certainly not intending to exalt emotion at theexpense of objective proof; we are opposed with all our might to thesubstitution of "experience" as the seat of authority in religion for theWordofGod:buttheHolySpiritintheindividualsouldoesbearwitness,we think, to the truthfulnessof theWord,anddoesbearwitness to thesavingefficacyoftheCross,whenHecries"Abba,Father"inourhearts.Thatcry,wethink,isatrueechooftheblessedsentenceofacquittal,theblessed "justification," which a sinner receives when Christ is hisadvocateatthejudgmentseatofGod.

We have been speaking of "justification." It depends, we have seen,altogether upon the redeeming work of Christ. But another veryimportantquestionremains.IfjustificationdependsupontheredeemingworkofChrist,howisthebenefitofthatredeemingworkappliedtotheindividualsoul?

The most natural answer might seem to be that the soul applies thebenefitofChrist'sworktoitselfbyitsownappropriationofthatwork;itmight seem natural to regard themerits of Christ as a sort of fund orstorewhichcanbedrawnuponatwillbyindividualmen.Butifonethingisclear,itisthatsuchisnottheteachingoftheWordofGod;ifonethingisplain,itisthattheNewTestamentpresentssalvation,ortheentranceintoGod'sKingdom,astheworknotofman,butofGodandonlyofGod.TheredeemingworkofChristisappliedtotheindividualsoul,accordingtotheNewTestament,bytheHolySpiritandbyHimalone.

Whatthendowemeanwhenwespeakof"justificationbyfaith"?Faith,afterall,issomethinginman;andthereforeifjustificationdependsuponourfaithitdependsapparentlyuponusaswellasuponGod.

The apparent contradiction is welcome; since it leads on to a trueconceptionoffaith.Thefaithofman,rightlyconceived,canneverstandin opposition to the completeness with which salvation depends uponGod; it cannevermean thatmandoespart,whileGodmerelydoes therest;forthesimplereasonthatfaithconsistsnotindoingsomethingbut

inreceivingsomething.Tosaythatwearejustifiedbyfaithisjustanotherwayofsayingthatwearejustifiednotinslightestmeasurebyourselves,butsimplyandsolelybytheOneinwhomourfaithisreposed.

At this point appears the profound reason forwhat at first sightmightseemtobeasurprisingfact.WhyisitthatwithregardtotheattainmentofsalvationtheNewTestamentassignssuchanabsolutelyexclusiveplacetofaith;whydoesitnotalsospeak,forexample,ofourbeingjustifiedbylove? If it did so, it would certainly be more in accord with moderntendencies; indeed, one popular preacher actually asserts that Paul'sfundamental doctrinewas salvation by love rather than justification byfaith. But of course that onlymeansmaking thewish the father to thethought;asamatteroffact,whetherwelikeitornot,itisperfectlyclearthatPauldidnotspeakofsalvationbylove,butthathespokeinsteadofjustification by faith. Surely the thing requires an explanation; andcertainlyitdoesnotmeanthattheapostlewasinclinedtodepreciatelove.On thecontrary, inonepassageheexpresslyplaces loveaheadof faith."And now abideth faith, hope, love," he says, "these three; but thegreatest of these is love." Why then, if he places love higher, does heattribute, so far as the attainment of salvation is concerned, such anabsolutelyexclusiveplacetofaith?AndwhydidnotJesussay:"Thylovehath saved thee, go in peace," but rather: "Thy faith hath saved thee"?WhydidHesayonlythattothemenandwomenwhocametoHiminthedaysofHisflesh;andwhydoesHesayonlythat,inaccordancewiththewholeNewTestament,toburdenedsoulstoday?

Theanswer to thisquestion is really abundantlyplain.The true reasonwhyfaithisgivensuchanexclusiveplacebytheNewTestament,sofarasthe attainment of salvation is concerned, over against love and overagainsteverythingelseinmanexceptthingsthatcanberegardedasmereaspects of faith, is that faith means receiving something, not doingsomething or even being something. To say, therefore, that our faithsavesusmeansthatwedonotsaveourselveseveninslightestmeasure,but thatGodsavesus.Verydifferentwouldbe the case ifour salvationwere said to be through love; for then salvation would depend upon ahighqualityofourown.Andthat iswhattheNewTestament,aboveallelse,isconcernedtodeny.TheverycentreandcoreofthewholeBibleis

thedoctrineofthegraceofGod—thegraceofGodwhichdependsnotonewhit upon anything that is in man, but is absolutely undeserved,resistlessandsovereign.ThetheologiansoftheChurchcanbeplacedinan ascending scale according as they have graspedwith less or greaterclearness that one great central doctrine, that doctrine that givesconsistencytoall therest;andChristianexperiencealsodependsfor itsdepthand for itspowerupon theway inwhich thatblesseddoctrine ischerished in the depths of the heart. The centre of the Bible, and thecentre of Christianity, is found in the grace of God; and the necessarycorollaryofthegraceofGodissalvationthroughfaithalone.

Wearebroughtatthispointtoaprofoundfactaboutfaith,afactwithoutwhicheverythingelse thatwehave tried tosaywouldbevalueless.Thefact towhichwe refer is this: that it isnot as aqualityof the soul thatfaith saves aman, but only as the establishment of contactwith a realobjectofthefaith.

This fact, in present-day thinking, is generally denied; and from thedenialof itproceedmanyof theevils, intellectualandotherwise,whichbesetthereligiousworld.Faithis,indeed,nowadaysbeingexaltedtotheskies; but the sad fact is that this very exaltation of faith is leadinglogicallyandinevitablytoabottomlessskepticismwhichistheprecursorofdespair.

Thewholetroubleisthatfaithisbeingconsideredmerelyasabeneficentqualityofthesoulwithoutrespecttotherealityorunrealityofitsobject;and the moment faith comes to be considered in that way, in thatmomentitisdestroyed.

Yet at first sight the modern attitude seems to be full of promise; itavoids, for example, the immense difficulty involved in differences ofcreed.Letaman,itisurged,holdtobetruewhateverhelpshim,andlethimnotinterferewithwhateverhelpshisneighbor.Whatdifferencedoesitmake,weareasked,whatdoestheworkjustsotheworkisdone;whatdifferencedoesitmakewhetherthediseaseiscuredbyChristianScienceorbysimple faith inChristJesus?Somepeopleseemto findevenbarematerialism a helpful doctrine—conducive to a calm and healthy life,preventing morbid fears and nervous strains. If so, why should we

unsettletheir"faith"bytalkingaboutguiltandretribution?

There is unfortunately one great obstacle in the way of such a broadeclecticism.Itisaveryrealobstacle,thoughattimesitseemstobenotabit practical. It is the old obstacle—truth. That was a great scheme ofLessing's Nathan der Weise, to let Judaism, Mohammedanism, andChristianitylivepeacefullysidebyside,eachcontributingitsquotatothecommon good of humanity; and the plan has attained enormouspopularitysinceLessing'sdaybytheadmission,totheproposedleagueofreligions,ofallthefaithsofmankind.Butthegreattroubleis,acreedcanbe efficient only so long as it is held to be true; if I make my creedeffectiveinmylifeIcandosoonlybecauseIregarditastrue.ButinsodoingIamobligedbyaninexorablenecessitytoregardthecreedofmyneighbor,ifitiscontradictorytomine,asfalse.Thatweakenshisfaithinhiscreed,providedheisatallaffectedbymyopinions;heisnolongersosureofthetruthofit;andsosoonasheisnolongersureofthetruthofit,it loses its efficiency. Or if, in deference to my neighbor and theusefulnessofhiscreed,Ikeepmycreedinthebackground,thattendstoweakenmyfaithinmycreed;Icometohavethefeelingthatwhatmustbekept inthedarkwillnotbearthe lightofday;mycreedceasestobeeffectiveinmylife.Thefactisthatallcreedsarelayingclaimtothesamething,namely truth.Consequently,despiteall that is said, thecreeds, iftheyaretobeheldwithanyfervor,iftheyarereallytohaveanypower,mustbeopposedtooneanother;theysimplycannotallowoneanothertowork on in peace. If, therefore,wewant thework to proceed,wemustfaceandsettlethisconflictofthemeans;wecannotcallonmen'sbeliefstohelpusunlesswedeterminewhat it is that is tobebelieved.A faiththat can consent to avoid proselytizing among other faiths is not reallyfaithatall.

An objection, however, may remain. What we have said may perhapssound very logical, and yet it seems to be contradicted by the actualexperience of the race. Physicians, for example, are very practicalpersons;andyet they tellus that faith inveryabsurd thingssometimesbrings beneficent and far-reaching results. If, therefore, faith in suchdiverseandcontradictorythingsbringsresults,ifitrelievesthedistressesof suffering humanity, how can we have the heart to insist on logical

consistency inthethingsthatarebelieved?Onthecontrary, it isurged,letusbesatisfiedwithanykindoffaithjustsoitdoesthework;itmakesnodifferencewhatisbelievedjustsothehealthgivingattitudeoffaithisthere; the less dogmatic faith is, the purer it is, because it is the lessweakenedbythedangerousalloyofknowledge.

Itisperfectlyclearthatsuchanemploymentoffaithisbringingresults.Butthecuriousthingisthatiffaithbeemployedinthisparticularwayitisalwaysemploymentofthefaithofotherpeoplethatbringstheresults,andneveremploymentofone'sownfaith.Forthemanwhocanspeakinthis way is himself always not a believer but a skeptic. The basal factaboutfaithisthatallfaithhasanobject;allfaithisnotonlypossessedbysomeone,butitconsistsinconfidenceinsomeone.Anoutsidermaynotthink that it is really the object that does the work; from his scientificvantage ground, he may see clearly that it is just the faith itself,consideredmerelyasapsychologicalphenomenon,thatistheimportantthing,andthatanyotherobjectwouldhaveansweredaswell.Buttheonewhodoesthebelievingisalwaysconvincedjustexactlythatit isnotthefaith but the object which is helping him; the moment he becomesconvincedthattheobjectwasnotreallyimportantandthatitwasreallyjust his own faith that was helping him, at that moment his faithdisappears. Itwas thatprevious falsebelief, then—thebelief that itwasthe object and not the faith that was doing thework—it was that falsebeliefthathelpedhim.

Nowthingsthatarefalsewillapparentlydosomeratherusefulthings.Ifwe may be permitted to use again, and to apply a little further, anillustrationthatwehavealreadyusedinadifferentconnection,itmayberemarked that a counterfeit note will buy many useful commodities—untilitisfoundout.Itwill,forexample,buyadinner;andadinnerwillkeepamanalivenomatterhowitisobtained.ButjustwhenIambuyingthedinnerforsomepoormanwhoneedsitverybadlyindeed,anexperttells me that that useful result is being accomplished by a counterfeitnote. "The miserable theorizer!," I may be tempted to exclaim, "themiserable traditionalist, the miserable demolisher of everything thatpragmatismholdsmostdear!Whilehe isdiscussingthequestionof theoriginofthatnote—thougheveryup-to-datemanknowsthattheoriginof

a thing is unimportant, and thatwhat is really important is the goal towhichittends—whileheisgoingintolearneddetailsabouttheprimitivehistoryofthatnote,apoormanissufferingfor lackof food."Soit is, ifthecurrentviewbecorrect,withfaith;faith,wearetold,issoveryusefulthatwemustnotaskthequestionwhetherthethingsthat it leadsustoacceptaretrueorfalse.

Plausiblearethewaysinwhichmenareseekingtojustifythiscirculationofcounterfeitcurrencyinthespiritualsphere;itisperfectlyright,wearetold, so long as it is not found out. That principle has even beeningeniouslyappliedtotheordinarycurrencyoftherealm;ifacounterfeitnotewere absolutely perfect, it has been said, so that by no possibilitycoulditeverbedetected,whatharmshouldwebedoingtoamanifwepasseditouttohimwithhischange?Probablyitwillnotbenecessarytopointout—atleasttothereadersofthepresentbook—thefallacyinthismoral tourde force; and that fallacywould really apply to the spiritualcurrency as well as to five-dollar notes. By circulating bad money weshouldbediminishingthevalueofgoodmoney,andsoshouldberobbingthe generality of our fellow-men. But after all, that question is purelyacademic;asamatterof fact counterfeitnotesarenever surenot tobefound out. And neither is bad currency in the spiritual sphere. It is adangerousthingtoencouragefaithinwhatisnottrue,forthesakeoftheimmediate benefitswhich such faith brings; because the greater be thebuilding that is erected on such a foundation, the greater will be theinevitablecrashwhenthecrashfinallycomes.

Suchcounterfeitsshouldberemoved,notintheinterestsofdestruction,but in order to leave room for the pure gold the existence of which isimpliedbythepresenceofthecounterfeits.Thereiscounterfeitmoneyintheworld,butthatdoesnotmeanthatallmoneyiscounterfeit.Indeeditmeans the exact opposite. There could be no counterfeitmoney unlessthereweregenuinemoneyfor it to imitate.Andtheprincipleapplies tothespiritualrealm.Thereisintheworldmuchfaithinwhatisfalse;butthere could hardly be faith in what is false unless there were alsosomewhere faith inwhat is true.NowweChristians think thatwehavefoundfaithinwhatistruewhenwehavefaithintheLordJesusChristasHeisofferedtousinthegospel.Wearewellawareofwhathasbeensaid

against thatgospel;wearewellawareof theunpopularity thatbesetsaman themomentheholdsanyone thing tobe trueand rejects as falsewhateveriscontradictorytoit;wearefullyconsciousoftheriskthatweare takingwhenwe abandon amerely eclectic attitude and put all ourconfidenceinonethingandonethingonly.Butwearereadytotaketherisk.Thisworld is adarkplacewithoutChrist;wehave foundnoothersalvation either in ourselves or in others; and for our part, therefore,despitedoubtsandfears,wearepreparedtotakeChristatHiswordandlaunch forth into the deep at His command. It is a great venture, thisventureoffaith;therearedifficultiesinthewayofit;wehavenotsolvedall mysteries or resolved all doubts. But though our minds are stilldarkened, though we have attained no rigidly mathematical proof, wehaveattainedatleastcertitudeenoughtocauseustoriskourlives.WillChristdesertuswhenwehavethuscommittedourselvestoHim?TherearemenaboutuswhotellusthatHewill;therearevoiceswithinusthatwhispertousdoubts;butwemustact inaccordancewiththebest lightthatisgivenus,anddoingsowehavedecidedforourparttodistrustourdoubtsandbaseourlives,despiteall,uponChrist.

Theefficacyoffaith,then,dependsnotuponthefaithitself,consideredasa psychological phenomenon, but upon the object of the faith, namelyChrist.FaithisnotregardedintheNewTestamentasitselfameritoriousworkorameritoriousconditionofthesoul;butitisregardedasameanswhichisusedbythegraceofGod:theNewTestamentneversaysthatamanissavedonaccountofhisfaith,butalwaysthatheissavedthroughhis faith or bymeans of his faith; faith ismerely themeanswhich theHoly Spirit uses to apply to the individual soul the benefits of Christ'sdeath.

And faith in one sense is a very simple thing.We have been engaged,indeed, inasortofanalysisof it;butwehavebeendoingso,not intheinterestsofcomplexity,but,onthecontrary,inordertocombatthefalsenotions by which simplicity is destroyed. We have not for a momentmeant to imply thatall the logical implicationswhichwehave found infaith are always consciously or separately in themind of themanwhobelieves;mysteriousindeedisthechemistryofthesoul,andawholenewworld of thought as well as life is often conveyed to a man in an

experienceoffaiththatseemstobeassimpleasthefallingofaleaffromthe bough and as inevitable as the flow of a mighty river to the sea.Certainly,atbottom, faith is inonesenseaverysimple thing; it simplymeans that abandoning the vain effort of earning one'sway intoGod'spresencewe accept the gift of salvationwhich Christ offers so full andfree.Suchisthe"doctrine"—letusnotbeafraidoftheword—suchisthe"doctrine"ofjustificationthroughfaithalone.

Thathasbeenaliberatingdoctrineinthehistoryoftheworld;toitwasdue thebreakingofmediaevalbondageat theReformation; to it isdueultimatelythecivillibertythatwepossesstoday.Andnowthatitisbeingabandoned, civil liberty is slowly but steadily being destroyed in theinterestsofasoul-killingcollectivismthatisworseinsomerespectsthanthetyranniesofthepast.Letushopethattheprocessmaybearrestedintime. If we are interested in what God thinks of us, we shall not bedeterredbywhatmenthink;theverydesireforjustificationinthesightofGodmakes us independent of the judgment ofmen.And if the verydesireforjustificationisliberating,howmuchmoretheattainmentofit!ThemanwhohasbeenjustifiedbyGod,themanwhohasacceptedasafreegifttheconditionofrightnesswithGodwhichChristoffers,isnotamanwhohopesthatpossibly,withdueeffort,ifhedoesnotfail,hemayfinallywin through tobecomeachildofGod.Buthe isamanwhohasalreadybecomeachildofGod.IfourbeingchildrenofGoddependedinslightestmeasureuponus,wecouldneverbesurethatwehadattainedthe high estate. But as amatter of fact it does not depend upon us; itdependsonlyuponGod.Itisnotarewardthatwehaveearnedbutagiftthatwehavereceived.

CHAPTERVII

FAITHANDWORKS

Becauseofthefundamentalnatureoffaith,asithasbeensetforth,onthebasisoftheNewTestamentteaching, inthelastchapter, it isnaturaltofind that in theNew Testament faith, as the reception of a free gift, isplaced in sharpest contrast with any intrusion of human merit; it isnaturaltofindthatfaithissharplycontrastedwithworks.Thecontrastisreally implied by theNewTestament throughout, and in one book, theEpistle to the Galatians, it forms the express subject of the argument.Thatbookfromthebeginningtotheendisamightypolemicindefenceofthedoctrineofjustificationbyfaithalone;andassuchithasrightlybeencalled the Magna Charta of Christian liberty. At the beginning of thesixteenthcenturytheworldwaslyingindarkness;butGodthenraisedupamanwhoreadthisEpistlewithhisowneyes,andtheReformationwasborn. So it may be in our own day. Again the world is sinking intobondage; the liberty of the sons of God is again giving place to thebondage of a religion ofmerit: butGod still lives, andHis Spirit againmaybringthecharterofourlibertytolight.

Meanwhileastrangedarknesscoverstheeyesofmen;themessageofthegreat Epistle, so startlingly clear to the man whose eyes have beenopened,ishiddenbyamassofmisinterpretationasabsurdinitswayasthe mediaeval rubbish of the fourfold sense of Scripture which theReformationbrushedaside.Grammatico-historical interpretation isstillbeing favored in theory, butdespite is beingdone to it (bypreachers ifnot by scholars) in practice; and the Apostle is being made to sayanythingthatmenwishhimtohavesaid.AnewReformation,wethink,like theReformationof thesixteenthcentury,wouldbemarked,amongotherthings,byareturntoplaincommonsense;andtheApostlewouldbeallowed,despiteourlikesanddislikes,tosaywhathereallymeanttosay.

ButwhatdidtheApostle, intheEpistletotheGalatians,reallymeantosay;againstwhatwashewritinginthatgreatpolemic;andwhatwashesettingupinplaceofthatwhichhewasendeavoringtodestroy?

Theanswerwhichmanymodernwritersaregivingtothisquestionisthat

theApostle isarguingmerelyagainstanexternalceremonial religion inthe interests of a religion based on great principles; that he is arguingagainstapiecemealconceptionofmoralitywhichmakesmoralityconsistin a series of disconnected rules, in the interests of a conception thatdrawsouthumanconductnaturallyfromacentralrootinlove;thatheisarguing,inotherwords,againstthe"letterofthelaw"intheinterestsofits"spirit."

Thisinterpretation,wethink,involvesanerrorwhichcutsawaytheveryvitals of the Christian religion. Like other fatal errors, indeed, it doescontainanelementoftruth;inonepassage,atleast,intheEpistletotheGalatians Paul does seem to point to the external character of theceremonial law as being inferior to the higher (or to use modernterminology, more "spiritual") stage to which religion, under the newdispensation,hadcome.Butthatpassageisisolatedmerely,andcertainlydoes not in itself give the key to the meaning of the Epistle. On thecontrary, even in that passage, when it is taken in its context, theinferiorityof theolddispensationas involvingceremonialrequirementsisreallyputmerelyasasignofaninferioritythatisdeeperstill;anditisthat deeper inferioritywhich theEpistle as awhole is concerned to setforth.TheceremonialcharacteroftheOldTestamentlaw,soinferiortotheinwardnessofthenewdispensation,wasintendedbyGodtomarktheinferiority of any dispensation of law as distinguished from adispensationofgrace.

Ofcourseawordofcautionshouldagainat thispointbe injected.Paulnevermeanstosaythattheolddispensationwasmerelyadispensationof law;healwaysadmits,and indeed insistsupon, theelementofgracewhichranthroughitfrombeginningtoend,theelementofgracewhichappearedinthePromise.ButhisopponentsinGalatiahadrejectedthatelement of grace; and their use of the Old Testament law, asdistinguished from its right use as a schoolmaster unto Christ, reallymadeoftheolddispensationadispensationoflawandnothingmore.

Whatthen,accordingtoPaul,wasthereal,underlyinginferiorityofthatdispensation of law; how was it to be contrasted with the newdispensation which Christ had ushered in? It is hard to see how theanswertothisquestioncanreallyberegardedasobscure;theApostlehas

poured forthhisvery soul tomake thematterplain.Most emphaticallythe contrastwas not between a lower law and a higher law; itwas notbetweenanexternal, piecemeal conceptionof the lawanda conceptionwhich reduces it to great underlying principles; but it was a contrastbetweenanykindoflaw,nomatterhowsublimated,providedonlyitbeconceivedofasawayofobtainingmerit,andtheabsolutelyfreegraceofGod.

This contrast is entirely missed by the interpretation that prevailspopularly in the Modernist Church: the advocates of "salvation bycharacter" have supposed that the polemic of the Apostle was turnedmerely against certain forgotten ceremonialists of long ago, while inreality it is turned quite as much against them. It is turned, indeed,againstanymanwhoseekstostandinGod'ssightonthebasisofhisownmeritinsteadofonthebasisofthesacrificewhichChristofferedtosatisfydivine justiceuponthecross.Thetruth is that theprevailingModernistinterpretationofGalatians,whichisinsomerespectsapparentlyjusttheinterpretation favored by the Roman Church, makes the Apostle sayalmosttheexactoppositeofwhathemeans.

TheModernistreturntomediaevalismintheinterpretationofGalatiansisno isolated thing,but isonlyoneaspectofamisinterpretationof thewhole Bible; in particular it is closely akin to a misinterpretation of agreatsentenceinoneoftheotherEpistlesofPaul.Thesentencetowhichwerefer is found in2Corinthians3:6:"The letterkilleth,but theSpiritgivethlife."

That sentence is perhaps themost frequentlymisused utterance in thewhole Bible. It has indeed in this respect much competition: manyphrasesintheNewTestamentarebeingusedtodaytomeanalmosttheirexactopposite,asforexample,whenthewords,"GodinChrist"andthelike,aremadetobeanexpressionofthevaguepantheismsopopularjustnow,or aswhen the entire gospel of redemption is regardedas ameresymbolofanoptimisticviewofmanagainstwhichthatdoctrinewas inrealityastupendousprotest,oraswhenthedoctrineoftheincarnationisrepresentedas indicatingtheessentialonenessofGodandman!One isremindedconstantlyatthepresenttimeofthewayinwhichtheGnosticsofthesecondcenturyusedBiblicaltextstosupporttheirthoroughlyun-

Biblical systems.Thehistoricalmethodof study, inAmerica at least, isvery generally being abandoned; and the New Testament writers arebeingmadetosayalmostanythingthattwentieth-centuryreaderscouldhavewishedthemtosay.

This abandonment of scientific historical method in exegesis, which ismerely one manifestation of the intellectual decadence of our day,appearsatcountlesspointsincontemporaryreligiousliterature;butatnopointdoes it appearwith greater clearness than in connectionwith thegreatutterance inIICorinthianstowhichwehavereferred.Thewords:"Theletterkilleth,buttheSpiritgivethlife,"areconstantlyinterpretedtomeanthatweareperfectlyjustifiedintakingthelawofGodwithagrainof salt; they are held to indicate that Paul was no "literalist," but a"Liberal,"whobelievedthattheOldTestamentwasnottrueindetailandtheOldTestamentlawwasnotvalidindetail,butthatallGodrequiresisthatwe should extract the few great principleswhich theBible teachesand not insist upon the rest. In short, the words are held to involve acontrastbetweentheletterofthelawand"thespiritofthelaw";theyareheldtomeanthatliteralismisdeadly,whileattentiontogreatprincipleskeepsamanintellectuallyandspirituallyalive.

Thus has one of the greatest utterances in the New Testament beenreducedtocomparativetriviality—atrivialitywithakerneloftruthinit,to be sure, but triviality all the same. The triviality, indeed, is merelyrelative;nodoubtitisimportanttoobservethatattentiontothegeneralsenseofabookoralawisfarbetterthansuchareadingofdetailsasthatthecontextinwhichthedetailsarefoundisignored.ButallthatisquiteforeigntothemeaningoftheApostleinthispassage,andis,thoughquitetrue and quite important in its place, trivial in comparison with thetremendousthingthatPaulishereendeavoringtosay.

WhatPaulisreallydoinghereisnotcontrastingtheletterofthelawwiththespiritofthelaw,butcontrastingthelawofGodwiththeSpiritofGod.When he says, "The letter killeth," he is making no contemptuousreferencetoapedanticliteralismwhichshrivelsthesoul;butheissettingforththeterriblemajestyofGod'slaw.Theletter,the"thingwritten,"inthelawofGod,saysPaul,pronouncesadreadsentenceofdeathuponthetransgressor;but theHolySpiritofGod,asdistinguished fromthe law,

giveslife.

The lawofGod,Paulmeans, is,as law,external. It isGod'sholywill towhich we must conform; but it contains in itself no promise of itsfulfilment;itisonethingtohavethelawwritten,andquiteanotherthingtohaveitobeyed.Infact,becauseofthesinfulnessofourhearts,becauseofthepoweroftheflesh,therecognitionofGod'slawonlymakessintakeonthedefinite formof transgression; itonlymakessinmoreexceedingsinful.ThelawofGodwaswrittenontablesofstoneorontherollsoftheOldTestamentbooks,butitwasquiteadifferentthingtogetitwrittenintheheartsandlivesofthepeople.Soitistoday.Thetextisofverywideapplication. The law of God, however it comes to us, is "letter"; it is a"thingwritten,"externaltotheheartsandlivesofmen.ItiswrittenintheOldTestament;itiswrittenintheSermonontheMount;itiswritteninJesus' stupendous command of love for God and one's neighbor; it iswritteninwhateverwaywebecomeconsciousofthecommandsofGod.Letnoonesaythatsuchanextensionofthetextinvolvesthatveryanti-historicalmodernizingwhichwehavejustdenounced;onthecontraryitisamplyjustifiedbyPaulhimself."WhentheGentiles,"Paulsays,"whichhave not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these,havingnotthelaw,arealawuntothemselves."TheOldTestamentlawisjustaclear,authenticpresentationofalawofGodunderwhichallmenstand.

And that law, according to Paul, issues a dreadful sentence of eternaldeath. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die"; not the hearer of the law isjustifiedbutthedoerofit.And,alas,nonearedoers;allhavesinned.ThelawofGodisholyandjustandgood;itisinexorable;andwehavefallenunderitsjustcondemnation.

ThatisatbottomwhatPaulmeansbythewords,"Theletterkilleth."Hedoesnotmeanthatattentiontopedanticdetailsshrivelsanddeadensthesoul. No doubt that is true, at least within certain limits; it is a usefulthought. But it is trivial indeed compared with what Paul means.Somethingfarmoremajestic, farmoreterrible, ismeantbythePaulinephrase. The "letter" that theApostlemeans is the same as the curse ofGod'slawthathespeaksofinGalatians;itisthedreadfulhandwritingofordinances thatwas against us; and thedeathwithwhich it kills is the

eternaldeathofthosewhoareforeverseparatedfromGod.

Butthatisnotallofthetext."Theletterkilleth,"Paulsays,"buttheSpiritgiveth life."There isnodoubtaboutwhathemeansby "theSpirit."Hedoes notmean the "spirit of the law" as contrasted with the letter; hecertainlydoesnotmeanthelaxinterpretationofGod'scommandswhichisdictatedbyhumanlustorpride;hecertainlydoesnotmeanthespiritofman.NorealstudentofPaul,whateverbehisownreligiousviews,candoubt, I think, but that theApostlemeans theSpirit ofGod.God's lawbrings death because of sin; but God's Spirit, applying to the soul theredemptionofferedbyChrist,bringslife.Thethingthatiswrittenkilleth;buttheHolySpirit, inthenewbirth,or,asPaulsays, thenewcreation,givethlife.

The contrast runs all through theNew Testament.Hopelessness underthelawisdescribed,forexample,intheseventhchapterofRomans."Ohwretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of thisdeath?"Butthishopelessnessistranscendedbythegospel."ForthelawoftheSpiritoflifeinChristJesushathmademefreefromthelawofsinanddeath."3Thelaw'sjustsentenceofcondemnationwasborneforusbyChrist who suffered in our stead; the handwriting of ordinances whichwas against us—the dreadful "letter"—was nailed to the cross, and wehaveafreshstartinthefullfavorofGod.AndinadditiontothisnewandrightrelationtoGod,theSpiritofGodalsogivesthesinneranewbirthandmakeshimanew creature.TheNewTestament frombeginning toenddealsgloriouslywith thisworkofgrace.Thegivingof lifeofwhichPaulspeaksinthistextisthenewbirth,thenewcreation;itisChristwholiveth in us.Here is the fulfillment of the great prophecy of Jeremiah:"ButthisshallbethecovenantthatIwillmakewiththehouseofIsrael;Afterthosedays,saiththeLord,Iwillputmylawintheirinwardparts,and write it in their hearts." The law is no longer for the Christian acommand which it is for him by his own strength to obey, but itsrequirements are fulfilled through themightypowerof theHolySpirit.Thereisthegloriousfreedomofthegospel.ThegospeldoesnotabrogateGod'slaw,butitmakesmenloveitwithalltheirhearts.

How is it with us? The law of God stands over us; we have offendedagainst it in thought,wordanddeed; itsmajestic "letter"pronouncesa

sentenceofdeathagainstoursin.Shallweobtainaspecioussecuritybyignoring God's law, and by taking refuge in an easier law of our owndevising?Or shall the Lord Jesus, asHe is offered to us in the gospel,wipeoutthesentenceofcondemnationthatwasagainstus,andshalltheHolySpiritwriteGod'slawinourheart,andmakeusdoersofthelawandnothearersonly?Soandonlysowillthegreattextbeappliedtous:"Theletterkilleth,buttheSpiritgivethlife."

Thealternativethatunderliesthisverse,then,andthatbecomesexplicitinGalatiansalso,isnotanalternativebetweenanexternalorceremonialreligionandwhatmenwouldnowcall(byamisuseoftheNewTestamentword)a "spiritual" religion, important though that alternativenodoubtis; but it is an alternative between a religion ofmerit and a religion ofgrace. TheEpistle to theGalatians is directed just asmuch against themodernnotionof"salvationbycharacter"orsalvationby"makingChristMaster"inthelifeorsalvationbyamereattempttoputintopractice"theprinciplesofJesus,"asitisdirectedagainsttheJewishceremonialistsoflong ago: forwhat theApostle is concerned to deny is any intrusionofhumanmerit into thework bywhich salvation is obtained. That work,accordingtotheEpistletotheGalatiansandaccordingtothewholeNewTestament,istheworkofGodandofGodalone.

AtthispointappearsthefallpoignancyofthegreatEpistlewithwhichwehavebeendealing.Paul isnotmerelyarguingthataman is justifiedbyfaith—somuchnodoubthisopponents,theJudaizers,admitted—butheisarguingthatamanisjustifiedbyfaithalone.WhattheJudaizerssaidwasnotthatamanis justifiedbyworks,butthatheis justifiedbyfaithandworks—exactlythethingthatisbeingtaughtbytheRomanCatholicChurchtoday.Nodoubttheyadmittedthatitwasnecessaryforamantohave faith inChrist in order tobe saved:but theyheld that itwas alsonecessaryforhimtokeepthelawthebesthecould;salvation,accordingtothem,wasnotbyfaithaloneandnotbyworksalonebutbyfaithandworkstogether.Aman'sobediencetothelawofGod,theyheld,wasnot.indeed, sufficient for salvation, but it was necessary; and it becamesufficientwhenitwassupplementedbyChrist.

Against this compromising solution of the problem, the Apostle insistsuponasharpalternative:amanmaybesavedbyworks(ifhekeepsthe

law perfectly), or hemay be saved by faith; but he cannot possibly besaved by faith and works together. Christ, according to Paul, will doeverything ornothing; if righteousness is in slightestmeasure obtainedby our obedience to the law, then Christ died in vain; if we trust inslightestmeasureinourowngoodworks,thenwehaveturnedawayfromgraceandChristprofitethusnothing.

To the world, thatmay seem to be a hard saying: but it is not a hardsayingtothemanwhohaseverbeenatthefootoftheCross;it isnotahardsayingtothemanwhohasfirstknownthebondageofthelaw,thewearyeffortatestablishmentofhisownrighteousnessinthepresenceofGod,and thenhascometounderstand,as inawondrous flashof light,thatChrist has done all, and that theweary bondagewas vain.What agreattheologianistheChristianheart—theChristianheartthathasbeentouchedbyredeeminggrace!ThemanwhohasfelttheburdenofsinrollawayatthesightoftheCross,whohassaidoftheLordJesus,"HelovedmeandgaveHimself forme,"whohas sungwithToplady: "Nothing inmy hand I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling"—thatman knows in hisheartofheartsthattheApostleisright,thattotrustChristonlyforpartisnottotrustHimatall,thatourownrighteousnessisinsufficienteventobridge the smallest gapwhichmight be left open betweenus andGod,thatthereisnohopeunlesswecansafelysaytotheLordJesus,withoutshadow of reservation, without shadow of self-trust: "Thoumust save,andThoualone."

That is the centre of the Christian religion—the absolutely undeservedandsovereigngraceofGod,savingsinfulmenbythegiftofChristuponthecross.Condemnationcomesbymerit;salvationcomesonlybygrace:condemnationisearnedbyman;salvationisgivenbyGod.Thefactofthegrace of God runs through the New Testament like a golden thread;indeed for it theNewTestament exists. It is found in thewordswhichJesus spoke in the days of His flesh, as in the parables of the servantcoming in fromthe fieldandof the laborers inthevineyard; it is foundmore fully set forth after the redeemingworkwas done, after theLordhad uttered his triumphant "It is finished" upon the cross. EverywherethebasisoftheNewTestamentisthesame—themysterious,incalculable,wondrous,graceofGod."Thewagesofsinisdeath;butthegiftofGodis

eternallifethroughJesusChristourLord."

The receptionof thatgift is faith: faithmeansnotdoing somethingbutreceiving something; it means not the earning of a reward but theacceptanceofagift.Amancanneverbesaidtoobtainathingforhimselfifheobtains itby faith; indeed tosay thatheobtains itby faith isonlyanotherwayofsayingthathedoesnotobtainitforhimselfbutpermitsanother to obtain it for him. Faith, in other words, is not active butpassive;andtosaythatwearesavedbyfaithistosaythatwedonotsaveourselvesbutaresavedonlybytheoneinwhomourfaithisreposed;thefaithofmanpresupposesthesovereigngraceofGod.

Even yet, however, we have not sounded the full depths of the NewTestamentteaching;wehavenotyetfullysetforththeplaceinsalvationwhichtheBibleassignstothegraceofGod.Asortofrefuge,inwhatwehavesaidso far,mayseemtohavebeen left for theprideofman.Mandoesnotsavehimself,wehavesaid;Godsaveshim.Butmanacceptsthatsalvationbyfaith;andfaith,thoughanegativeact,seemstobeakindofact:salvationisfreelyofferedbyGod;theofferofitdoesnotdependatalluponman;yetamanmightseemtoobtainasortofmeritbynotresistingthatofferwhenonceitisgivenhimbyGod.

Buteventhislastrefugeofhumanprideissearchedoutanddestroyedbythe teaching of God'sWord; for the Bible represents even faith itself—littlemerit as it could in any case involve—as thework of the Spirit ofGod. The Spirit, according to a true summary of the New Testament,worksfaithinusandtherebyunitesustoChristinoureffectualcalling;sovereignandresistlessisGod'sgrace;andourfaithismerelythemeanswhich the Spirit uses to apply to us the benefits of Christ's redeemingwork.

ThemeanswasofGod's choosing,notours; and it isnot forus to say,"WhatdoestThou?"Yetevenwe,weakandignorantthoughweare,cansee,Ithink,whythisparticularmeanswaschosentouniteustoChrist;why faith was chosen instead of love, for example, as the channel bywhichsalvationcouldenterintoourlives.Loveisactive;faithispassive;hencefaithnotlovewaschosen.IftheBiblehadsaidthatwearesavedbylove, theneven thoughour lovewasaltogether thegiftof theSpirit,we

mighthave thought that itwasourown,andsowemighthaveclaimedsalvationasourright.Butas it is,notonlywerewesavedbygrace,butbecauseofthepeculiarmeanswhichGodusedtosaveus.weknewthatweweresavedbygrace;itwasoftheverynatureoffaithtomakeusknowthatwewerenotsavingourselves.Evenbeforewecouldloveasweoughttolove,evenbeforewecoulddoanythingorfeelanythingaright,weweresavedby faith;wewere savedbyabandoningall confidence inourownthoughts or feelings or actions and by simply allowing ourselves to besavedbyGod.

In one sense, indeed, we were saved by love; that indeed is an evenprofounderfactthanthatweweresavedbyfaith.Yes,weweresavedbylove, but it was by a greater love than the love in our cold and sinfulhearts;weweresavedbylove,butitwasnotourloveforGodbutGod'sloveforus,God'sloveforusbywhichhegavetheLordJesustodieforusuponthecross."Hereinislove,notthatwelovedGod,butthatHelovedus,andsenthisSontobethepropitiationforoursins."Thatlovealoneisthelovethatsaves.Andthemeansbywhichitsavesisfaith.

Thus the beginning of the Christian life is not an achievement but anexperience; the soul of themanwho is saved is not, at themoment ofsalvation,active,butpassive;salvationistheworkofGodandGodalone.That does not mean that the Christian is unconscious when salvationentershislife;itdoesnotmeanthatheisplacedinatrance,orthathisordinary faculties are in abeyance; on the contrary the great transitionoftenseemstobeaverysimplething;overpoweringemotionalstress isbynomeansalwayspresent;andfaithisalwaysaconsciousconditionofthe soul. There is, moreover, a volitional aspect of faith, in which itappearstothemanwhobelievestobeinducedbyaconsciouseffortofhiswill,aconsciouseffortofhiswillbywhichheresolvestoceasetryingtosave himself and resolves to accept, instead, the salvation offered byChrist.Thepreacherofthegospeloughttoappeal,wethink,ineverywayinhispower,totheconsciouslifeofthemanwhomheistryingtowin;heought toremove intellectualobjectionsagainst the truthofChristianity,andadducepositivearguments;heought toappeal to theemotions;heoughttoseek,byexhortation, tomovethewill.All thesemeansmaybeused, and have been used countless times, by the Spirit of God; and

certainly we have not intended to disparage them by anything that wehavejustsaid.Butwhatwedomaintainisthatthoughnecessarytheyarenotsufficient;theywillneverbringamantofaithinChristunlessthereiswith them themysterious, regeneratingpower of theSpirit ofGod.Wearenotpresumingtotreatherethepsychologyoffaith;andcertainlywedonotthinkthatsuchapsychologyoffaithisatallnecessarytothemanwho believes; indeed the less he thinks about his own states ofconsciousnessandthemorehethinksaboutChristthebetteritwilloftenbeforhissoul.Butthismuchatleastcanbesaid:evenconsciousstatescanbeinducedinsupernatural fashionbytheSpiritofGod,andsuchaconscious state is the faith by which a man first accepts Christ as hisSaviourfromsin.

But if thebeginningof theChristian life is thusnotanachievementbutanexperience,ifamanisnotreallyactive,butpassive,whenheissaved,iffaithistobeplacedinsharpcontrastwithworks,whatbecomesoftheethicalcharacteroftheChristianreligion,whatbecomesofthestimuluswhich it has always given to human individuality and to the sense ofhumanworth, what becomes of the vigorous activitywhich, inmarkedcontrastwithsomeoftheothergreatreligionsoftheworld,ithasalwaysencouragedinitsadherents?Suchquestionsareperfectlylegitimate;andtheyshowthatweareveryfarfromhavinggiven,uptothepresentpoint,anyadequateaccountof the relation, in theChristian religion,betweenfaithandworks,orbetweendoctrineandlife.

Thatrelationmustthereforenowbeexamined,thoughstillbriefly,alittlemoreindetail.

Theexaminationmaybestbebegunbyaconsiderationofwhathasbeenregarded by some devout readers of the Bible as a serious difficulty,namely the apparent contradiction between the second chapter ofGalatiansandthesecondchapteroftheEpistleofJames."Amanisnotjustifiedbytheworksofthelaw,butonlythroughfaithinChristJesus,"saysPaul;"Yeseethenhowthatbyworksamanis justifiedandnotbyfaith only," says James.8 These two verses in their juxtapositionconstituteanancientBiblicaldifficulty.IntheversefromGalatiansamanissaidtobecomerightwithGodbyfaithaloneapartfromworks;intheversefromJamesheissaidtobecomerightwithGodnotbyfaithalone

butbyfaithandworks.Iftheversesaretakenoutoftheirwidercontextandplacedsidebyside,acontradictioncouldscarcelyseemtobemorecomplete.

The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith alone,whichwe have justtreatedatconsiderablelength,is,aswehaveseen,theveryfoundationofChristian liberty. Itmakes our standingwith God dependent not at alluponwhatwehavedone,butaltogetheruponwhatGodhasdone.Ifoursalvationdependeduponwhatwehaddone,then,accordingtoPaul,weshould still be bondslaves; we should still be endeavoring feverishly tokeepGod'slawsowellthatattheendwemightpossiblywinHisfavor.Itwould be a hopeless endeavor because of the deadly guilt of sin; weshouldbe likedebtorsendeavoring topay,but in theveryeffortgettingdeeperanddeeperintodebt.Butas it is, inaccordancewiththegospel,GodhasgrantedusHisfavorasanabsolutelyfreegift;Hehasbroughtusinto right relation toHimselfnoton thebasisofanymeritofours,butaltogetheronthebasisofthemeritofChrist.Greatistheguiltofoursins;butChristtookitalluponHimselfwhenHediedforusonCalvary.Wedonotneed,then,tomakeourselvesgoodbeforewebecomeGod'schildren;butwe can come toGod just asweare, all ladenwithour sins, andbequite certain that the guilt of sinwill be removed and thatwe shall bereceived.WhenGodlooksuponus,toreceiveusortocastusoff,itisnotwethatHeregardsbutourgreatAdvocate,ChristJesustheLord.

Suchisthegloriouscertaintyofthegospel.ThesalvationoftheChristianis certain because it depends altogether upon God; if it depended inslightest measure upon us, the certainty of it would be gone. Henceappears the vital importance of the great Reformation doctrine ofjustification by faith alone; that doctrine is at the very centre ofChristianity.ItmeansthatacceptancewithGodisnotsomethingthatweearn; it isnotsomethingthat issubjecttothewretcheduncertaintiesofhumanendeavor;butitisafreegiftofGod.ItmayseemstrangethatweshouldbereceivedbytheholyGodasHischildren;butGodhaschosentoreceiveus; ithasbeendoneonHis responsibilitynotours;Hehasaright to receivewhomHewill intoHispresence; and in themysteryofHisgraceHehaschosentoreceiveus.

That central doctrine of theChristian faith is really presupposed in the

wholeNewTestament;butitismadeparticularlyplainintheEpistlesofPaul.ItissuchpassagesastheeighthchapterofRomans,thesecondandthirdchaptersofGalatians,andthefifthchapterofIICorinthians,whichsetforthinplainestfashiontheverycentreofthegospel.

But in theEpistleofJames thereseemsat firstsight tobeadiscordantnoteinthisgreatNewTestamentchorus."Yeseethen,"saysJames,"howthatbyworksamanisjustified,andnotbyfaithonly."IfthatmeansthatamanispronouncedrighteousbeforeGodpartlybecauseofthemeritofhisownworksandonlypartlybecauseofthesacrificeofChristacceptedbyfaith,thenJamesholdsexactlythepositionofthebitteropponentsofPaulwhoarecombatedintheEpistletotheGalatians.Thoseopponents,the "Judaizers" as they are called, held, as we have seen, that faith inChrist isnecessarytosalvation(inthattheyagreedwithPaul),buttheyheld that the merit of one's own observance of the law of God is alsonecessary.Amanissaved,notbyfaithaloneandnotbyworksalone,butby faith and works together—that was apparently the formula of theJudaizingopponents ofPaul.TheApostle rightly saw that that formulameantareturntobondage.IfChristsavesusonlypartway,andleavesagaptobefilledupbyourowngoodworks,thenwecanneverbecertainthat we are saved. The awakened conscience sees clearly that our ownobediencetoGod'slawisnotthekindofobediencethatisreallyrequired;it isnotthatpurityoftheheartwhichisdemandedbytheteachingandexample of ourLord.Our obedience to the law is insufficient to bridgeeventhesmallestgap;weareunprofitableservants,andifweeverenterintoanaccountwithourJudgeweareundone.Christhasdonenothingfor us orHe has done everything; to depend even in smallestmeasureuponourownmeritistheveryessenceofunbelief;wemusttrustChristfor nothing or we must trust Him for all. Such is the teaching of theEpistletotheGalatians.

ButintheEpistleofJamesweseematfirstsighttobeinadifferentcircleof ideas. "Justified by faith alone," says Paul; "Justified not by faithalone,"saysJames.IthasbeenadifficultytomanyreadersoftheBible.But like other apparent contradictions in the Bible it proves to be acontradictionmerelyofformandnotofcontent;anditservesonlytoleadthedevoutreaderintoadeeperandfullerunderstandingofthetruth.

Thesolutionofthedifficultyappearsinthedefinitionoftheword"faith."TheapparentcontradictionisduesimplytothefactthatwhenJamesinthis chapter says that "faith" alone is insufficient, hemeans a differentthingbytheword"faith"fromthatwhichPaulmeansbyitwhenhesaysthatfaithisall-sufficient.ThekindoffaithwhichJamesispronouncinginsufficient ismade clear in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter:"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils alsobelieve, and tremble." The kind of faith which James pronouncesinsufficientisthefaithwhichthedevilsalsohave;itisamereintellectualapprehension of the facts about God or Christ, and it involves noacceptanceofthosefactsasagiftofGodtoone'sownsoul.ButitisnotthatkindoffaithwhichPaulmeanswhenhesaysthatamanissavedbyfaith alone. Faith is indeed intellectual; it involves an apprehension ofcertainthingsasfacts;andvainisthemodernefforttodivorcefaithfromknowledge. But although faith is intellectual, it is not only intellectual.Youcannothave faithwithouthavingknowledge;butyouwillnothavefaith ifyouhaveonlyknowledge.Faith is theacceptanceofagiftat thehandsofChrist.Wecannotacceptthegiftwithoutknowingcertainthingsabout the gift and about the giver. Butwemight know all those thingsandstillnotacceptthegift.Wemightknowwhatthegiftisandstillnotacceptit.Knowledgeisthusabsolutelynecessarytofaith,butitisnotallthat is necessary. Christ comes offering us that right relation to GodwhichHewroughtforusonthecross.Shallweacceptthegiftorshallwehold it indisdain?Theacceptanceof thegift is called faith. It is a verywonderful thing; it involves a change of the whole nature of man; itinvolves a new hatred of sin and a new hunger and thirst afterrighteousness. Such a wonderful change is not the work of man; faithitself isgivenusbytheSpiritofGod.ChristiansnevermakethemselvesChristians;buttheyaremadeChristiansbyGod.

All that is clear from what has already been said. But it is quiteinconceivable that a man should be given this faith in Christ, that heshouldacceptthisgiftwhichChristoffers,andstillgooncontentedlyinsin.For thevery thingwhichChristoffersus is salvation fromsin—notonlysalvationfromtheguiltofsin,butalsosalvationfromthepowerofsin.TheveryfirstthingthattheChristiandoes,therefore,istokeepthelawofGod:hekeeps itno longerasawayofearninghissalvation—for

salvationhasbeengivenhimfreelybyGod—buthekeepsitjoyouslyasacentralpartofsalvationitself.ThefaithofwhichPaulspeaksis,asPaulhimselfsays,afaiththatworksthroughlove;andloveisthefulfillingofthewholelaw.PaulwouldhaveagreedfullywithJamesthatthefaithofwhichJamesspeaksinourpassageisquiteinsufficientforsalvation.ThefaiththatPaulmeanswhenhespeaksof justificationby faithalone isafaiththatworks.

ButifthefaithregardedinsufficientbyJamesisdifferentfromthefaithcommended by Paul, so also the works commended by James aredifferentfromtheworksregardedinefficaciousbyPaul.Paulisspeakingofworksofthelaw,heisspeakingofworksthatareintendedtoacquiremeritinorderthatGod'sfavormaybeearned;JamesontheotherhandisspeakingofworkslikeAbraham'ssacrificeofIsaacthataretheresultoffaithandshowthatfaithisrealfaith.

The difference, then, between Paul and James is a difference ofterminology,notofmeaning.Thatdifferenceof terminologyshows thatthe Epistle of James was written at a very early time, before thecontroversywiththeJudaizershadarisenandbeforetheterminologyhadbecome fixed. If James had been writing after the terminology hadbecomefixed,whathewouldhavesaidisthatalthoughamanisjustifiedbyfaithaloneandnotatallbyworks,yetonemustbesurethatthefaithisrealfaithandnotamereintellectualassentlikethatofthedemonswhobelieveandtremble.Whatheactuallydoesistosayjustthatindifferentwords. James is not correcting Paul, then; he is not even correcting amisinterpretationofPaul;butheisunconsciouslypreparingforPaul;heispreparingwell fortheclearerandmoregloriousteachingof thegreatEpistles.

TheEpistleofJamesoughttobegivenitsdueplaceinthenurtureoftheChristianlife.IthassometimesbeenregardedastheEpistleofworks.Butthat does not mean that this Epistle ignores the deeper and moremeditativeelementsintheChristianlife.Jamesisnoadvocateofamere"gospel of street-cleaning"; he is no advocate of what is falsely calledtodaya"practical,"asdistinguishedfromadoctrinal,Christianity;he isnot a man who seeks to drown an inward disquiet by a bustlingphilanthropy. On the contrary he is a great believer in the power of

prayer; he exalts faith and denounces doubt; he humbles man andglorifiesGod:"Gotonow,yethatsay,Todayortomorrowwewillgointosuch a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain;whereasyeknownotwhatshallbeonthemorrow.Forwhatisyourlife?It is evena vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and thenvanishethaway.Forthatyeoughttosay,IftheLordwill,weshalllive,anddothis,or that." The man who wrote these words was no mere advocate of a"practical" religion of this world; he was no mere advocate of what iscalledtoday"thesocialgospel";buthewasamanwhoviewedthisworld,asthewholeNewTestamentviewsit,inthelightofeternity.

SothelessonofJamesmaybelearnedwithoutviolencebeingdonetothedeepest things of the Christian faith—certainly without violence beingdonetothegospelwhichPaulproclaims.ItwasascleartoPaulasitwastoJamesthatmenwhohadbeensavedbyfaithcouldnotcontinuetoliveunholy lives. "Be not deceived," says Paul: "neither fornicators, noridolaters,noradulterers…northieves,norcovetous,nordrunkards,norrevilers,norextortioners,shallinheritthekingdomofGod."Itisdifficultto see how anything could be much plainer than that. Paul just asearnestly as James insists upon the ethical or practical character ofChristianity;PaulaswellasJamesinsistsuponpurityandunselfishnessin conduct as an absolutely necessary mark of the Christian life. AChristian,accordingtoPaul(asalsoreallyaccordingtoJames),issavednotbyhimselfbutbyGod;buthe is savedbyGodnot inorder thathemaycontinueinsin,butinorderthathemayconquersinandattainuntoholiness.

IndeedsoearnestisPaulaboutthismatterthatattimesitlooksalmostasthoughhebelievedChristianseveninthislifetobealtogethersinless,asthoughhebelievedthatiftheywerenotsinlesstheywerenotChristiansatall.SuchaninterpretationoftheEpistleswouldindeedbeincorrect;itis contradicted, inparticular,by the loving carewithwhich theApostleexhorted and encouraged thosemembersofhis congregationswhohadbeen overtaken in a fault. As a pastor of souls Paul recognized thepresenceofsineveninthosewhowerewithinthehouseholdoffaith;anddealt with it not only with severity but also with patience and love.Neverthelessthefactisprofoundlysignificantthatinthegreatdoctrinal

passages of the Epistles Paul makes very little reference (though suchreference is not altogether absent) to the presence of sin in Christianmen.Howisthatfacttobeexplained?IthinkitistobeexplainedbytheprofoundconvictionoftheApostlethatalthoughsinisactuallyfoundinChristiansitdoesnotbelongthere;itisnevertobeacquiescedinforonesingle moment, but is to be treated as a terrible anomaly that simplyoughtnottobe.

Thus according to Paul the beginning of the new life is followed by abattle—a battle against sin. In that battle, as is not the case with thebeginningof it, theChristiandoesco-operatewithGod;he ishelpedbyGod'sSpirit,buthehimself,andnotonlyGod'sSpiritinhim,isactiveinthefight.

At thebeginningof theChristian life there isanactofGodandofGodalone.ItiscalledintheNewTestamentthenewbirthor(asPaulcallsit)thenewcreation.Inthatactnopartwhateveriscontributedbythemanwho isbornagain.Andnowonder!Amanwho isdead—eitherdead inphysical death or "dead in trespasses and sins"—can do nothingwhatever, at least in the sphere in which he is dead. If he could doanythinginthatsphere,hewouldnotbedead.Suchamanwhoisdeadintrespasses and sins is raised to new life in the new birth or the newcreation.Tothatnewbirthhehimselfcannotcontributeatall,anymorethanhecontributedtohisphysicalbirth.Butbirthisfollowedbylife;andthoughamanisnotactiveinhisbirthheisactiveinthelifethatfollows.Soitisalsointhespiritualrealm.Wedidnotcontributeatalltoournewbirth; thatwasanactofGodalone.But thatnewbirth is followedbyanew life, and in the new lifewehave been given byHimwhobegat usanew the power of action; it is that power of action that is involved inbirth. Thus theChristian life is begunby an act ofGod alone; but it iscontinuedbyco-operationbetweenGodandman.Thepossibilityofsuchco-operation is due indeed only to God; it has not been achieved inslightest measure by us; it is the supreme wonder of God's grace. ButoncegivenbyGoditisnotwithdrawn.

ThustheChristianlifeinthisworldisnotpassivebutactive;itconsistsinamightybattle against sin.Thatbattle is awinningbattle, because themanthatengagesinithasbeenmadealiveinthefirstplacebyGod,and

becausehehasagreatCompaniontohelphimineveryturnofthefight.But,thoughawinningbattle,itisabattleallthesame;anditisnotonlyGod'sbattlebutours.Thefaithofwhichwehavebeenspeakingconsistsnot in doing something but in receiving something; but it is followedeverytimebyalifeinwhichgreatthingsaredone.

This aspect of faith is put in classic fashion by the Apostle Paul in awonderful phrase in theEpistle to theGalatians. "Neither circumcisionavaileth any thing," says Paul, "nor uncircumcision; but faith whichworkethbylove."Inthatphrase,"faithwhichworkethbylove,"or,moreliterally, "faith working through love," a whole world of experience iscompressedwithinthecompassoffourwords.

Surely that is a text for a practical age; the world may perhaps againbecomeinterestedinfaithif itseesthatfaithisathingthatworks.Andcertainlyourpracticalagecannotafford to rejectassistancewherever itcanbefound;forthetruthisthatthispracticalageseemsjustnowtobesignallyfailingtoaccomplishresultsevenonitsownground;itseemstobesignallyfailingto"makethingsgo."

Strangelyenoughthepresentfailureoftheworldtomakethingsgoisduejust to thatemphasisuponefficiencywhichmightseemtomake failureimpossible; it istheparadoxofefficiencythat itcanbeattainedonlybythosewhodonotmakeittheexpressobjectoftheirdesires.Themodernone-sided emphasis upon the practical has hindered the progress ofhumanity,wethink,inatleasttwoways.

Thefirstwayhasalreadybeentreatedinwhatprecedes.Menaresoeageraboutthework,weobserved,thattheyhaveneglectedaproperchoiceofmeanstoaccomplishit;theythinkthattheycanmakeuseofreligion,asameans to an end, without settling the question of the truth of anyparticular religion; they think that they can make use of faith as abeneficentpsychologicalphenomenonwithoutdeterminingwhether thethingthatisbelievedistrueorfalse.Thewholeeffort,asweobserved,isvain;suchapragmatistuseoffaithreallydestroysthethingthatisbeingused. If therefore thework is to proceed,we cannot in this pragmatistfashionavoid,butmustfirstfaceandsettle,thequestionofthemeans.

Inthesecondplace,menaresoeagertodayabouttheworkthattheyaresometimes indifferent to the question what particular kind of work itshallbe.Theefficient,energeticmanisoftenbeingadmiredbytheworldatlarge,andparticularlybyhimself,quiteirrespectiveofthecharacterofhisachievements.Itoftenseemstomakelittledifferencewhetheramanengagesintheaccumulationofmaterialwealthorinthequestofpoliticalpower or in the management of schools and hospitals and charities.Whetherheengagesinrobberyorinmissions,heissureofrecognition,providedonlyhesucceeds,providedonlyheis"amanwhodoesthings."Buthoweverstimulatingsuchaprizingofworkforitsownsakemaybetothe individual, it is obviously not conducive to any great advance forhumanityasawhole.Ifmylaborisgoingtobeopposedtotheworkofmyneighbor,wemightbothofusenjoyagood,old-fashioned,comfortablerest,sofarasanygeneralprogressisconcerned.Oureffortssimplycanceleach other. Consequently, although a great deal of energy is beingdisplayed in theworld today, one cannothelphaving the feeling that avast deal of it is being wasted. The truth is that if we are to be trulypracticalmen,wemustfirstbetheorizers.Wemustfirstsettleuponsomeonegreattaskandsomeonegreatforceforitsaccomplishment.

ThePauline textmakesproposals inbothdirections. Itproposesbothataskandaforcetoaccomplishit."Faithworkingitselfoutthroughlove"—loveisthework,faiththemeans.

Itshouldbenoticedinthefirstplacethatthisworkandthismeansareopentoeveryone.InChristJesusneithercircumcisionavailethanythingnoruncircumcision;thereisneitherJewnorGreek,thereisneitherbondnorfree,thereisnomaleandfemale;nothingisrequiredexceptwhatiscommontoallmen.Ifwe like theworkwecannotsay that it isbeyondourreach.

Theworkislove,andwhatthatisPaulexplainsinthelastdivisionofthesameEpistle.It isnotamereemotion, it isnotevenamerebenevolentdesire;itisapracticalthing.Wesometimessayofaratherunprincipledanddissipatedman: "He isweak, buthehas a goodheart." Suchmeregood-heartednessisnotChristianlove.Christianloveincludesnotmerelythe wish for the welfare of one's fellow-men, not merely even thewillingnesstohelp,butalsothepower.InordertoloveintheChristian

sense,amanmustbenotonlybenevolent,butalsostrongandgood;hemustlovehisfellow-menenoughtobuilduphisownstrengthinordertouseitfortheirbenefit.

Suchataskisverydifferentfrommuchoftheworkthatisactuallybeingdoneintheworld.Inthefirstplace,itisaspiritualnotamaterialwork.Itisreallyastonishinghowmanymenarealmostwhollyabsorbedinpurelymaterial things. Verymanymen seem to have no higher conception ofworkthanthatofmakingthedirtfly:thegreatestnationisthoughttobethe nation that has the largest income and the biggest battleships; thegreatest university, even, to be the one that has the finest laboratories.Suchpracticalmaterialismneednotbealtogetherselfish;theproductionof material goods may be desired for others as well as for one's self.Socialismmaybetakenasanexample.Itisnotaltogetherselfish.But—atleast in itsmost consistent forms—it errs in supposing that the properdistributionofmaterialwealthwillbeapanacea.Indeed,suchahabitofthoughthasnotbeenaltogetherabsentfromtheChurchitself.Whereverthe notion is cherished that the relief of physical suffering is somehowmore important—more practical—than thewelfare of the human spirit,therematerialthingsarebeingmadethechiefobjectofpursuit.Andthatis not Christian love. Christian love does not, indeed, neglect men'sphysicalwelfare;itdoesnotgiveamanasermonwhenheneedsbread.Itrelievesdistress; itdelights inaffordingeven the simplestpleasure toachild.But italwaysdoes these thingswith theconsciousnessof theoneinestimablegiftthatithasinreserve.

Inthesecondplace,Christianloveisnotmerelyintellectualoremotional,but also moral. It involves nothing less than the keeping of the wholemoral law. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thoushaltlovethyneighborasthyself."Christianitymayprovideasatisfactoryworld-view,itmaygivemencomfortandhappiness,itmaydeprivedeathofitsterrors,itmayproducetheexaltationofreligiousemotion;butitisnot Christianity unless it makes men better. Furthermore, love is apeculiar kind of observance of the moral law. It is not a mereperformance of a set of external acts. That may be hypocrisy orexpediency. Nor is it a mere devotion to duty for duty's sake. That isadmirableandpraiseworthy,butitisthechildhoodstageofmorality.The

Christianisnolongerundertheschoolmaster;hisperformanceofthelawsprings not from obedience to a stern voice of duty but from anoverpoweringimpulse;helovesthelawoftheLord;hedoesrightbecausehecannothelpit.

In the third place, love involves, I think, a peculiar conception of thecontent of the law. It regardsmorality primarily as unselfishness. Andwhatavastdealofthecultureoftheworld,withallitspompandglitter,isselfishtothecore!Geniusexploitstheplainmen;Christdiedforthem:andHisdisciplesmustfollowinthefootstepsoftheirLord.

Inthe fourthplace,Christian love isnotmerely love forman; it isalso,andevenprimarily,loveforGod.WehaveobservedthatloveforGodisnot themeansbywhichwearesaved: theNewTestamentdoesnotsay"Thy lovehathsaved thee,"but "Thy faithhathsaved thee"; itdoesnotsay,"Love theLordJesusChrist,andthoushaltbesaved,"but"Believeon the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." But that does notmeanthattheNewTestamentdepreciateslove;itdoesnotmeanthatifamandidlove,andalwayshadloved,GodtheFatherandtheLordJesusChristandhis fellow-men,asheought to love them,hewouldnotbeasavedman;itonlymeansthatbecauseofsinnounregeneratemanwhohas ever lived has actually done that. Love, according to the NewTestament,isnotthemeansofsalvation,butitisthefinestfruitofit;amanissavedbyfaith,notbylove;butheissavedbyfaithinorderthathemaylove.

Such, then, is the work. How may it be accomplished? "Simply byaccomplishing it," says the "practical" man; "no appeal need be madeexcepttothesovereignwill;anytimeamandesirestostophisevilwaysandbegintoserveGodandhisfellow-men,thewayisperfectlyopenforhimtodoit."Yethereistheremarkablething:thewayisalwaysperfectlyopen, and yet theman never enters upon it; he always can, but neverdoes.Someofusfeelthelogicalnecessityofseekingacommoncauseforsuchauniformeffect.Andthecommoncausethatwefindissin.

Of course if there is no such thing as sin, then nothing is needed toovercome it, and nothing stands in the way of Christian love. Theexistenceofsin,asweobserved,isquitegenerallydeniedinthemodern

world.Itisdeniedinatleasttwoways.Inthefirstplace,mensometimessayineffectthatthereisnosin,butonlyimperfection;whatwecall"sin"isjustoneformofimperfection.Ifso,itmayperhapswellbearguedthatthehumanwillissufficientforhumantasks.Wehaveobviouslymadeatleastsomeprogress,itissaid;wehaveadvancedbeyondthe"stoneage";acontinuationofthesameeffortswillnodoubtbringusstillfurtheronourway; and as for perfection—that is as impossible for us in the verynatureofthingsasinfinity.Inthesecondplace,itissaid,thereisnosinbut only sins. It is admitted that moral evil is different in kind fromimperfection,butitisthoughttopossessnounity;everyindividualchoiceisthoughttobeindependentofeveryother;amanisthoughttobefreeevery time tochooseeithergoodorevil;nooneelsecanhelphim, it issaid,andnooneneedhelphim.

Paul's view of sin is opposed to both of these. In the first place, sin,according to Paul, is deadly guilt, and in the second place it is notinherent merely in the individual acts. It is a mighty power, in thepresenceofwhichmanishelpless."ItisnomoreIthatdoit,butsinthatdwelleth inme." "But," itmay be objected, "what a dangerous form ofexpressionthatis!IfitisnomoreIthatdoit,myresponsibilityisgone;howcanIstillfeelguilt?IfIamtobeguilty,thensinmustbeapropertysimplyandsolelyofmyconsciousacts."Yetexperiencecuriouslyreversessuchapriori reasoning;history teaches that themenwhohaveactuallyfeltmostdeeplytheguiltofsinhavebeenjustthemenwhoregardeditasa great force lying far beneath the individual acts. And a closerexaminationrevealsthereason.Ifeachactstandsbyitself,thenawrongchoiceatanyparticulartimeis,comparativelyspeaking,atriflingthing;itmayeasilyberectifiednexttime.Suchaphilosophycanhardlyproduceany great horror and dread of sin. But if sin is regarded as a unitarypower, irreconcilably opposed to what is good, then acts of sin,apparentlytriflinginthemselves,showthatweareunderthedominionofsuchapower;thesinglewrongactioncannolongerberegardedbyitself,but involves assent to a Satanic power, which then leads logically,irresistiblytothedestructionofeveryrightfeeling,ofeverymovementoflove,ofpity,ofsympathy.WhenwecometoseethatwhatPaulcallstheflesh is amighty power,which is dragging us resistlessly down into anabyssofevilthathasnobottom,thenwefeelourguiltandmisery,then

welookaboutforsomethingstrongertohelpusthanourownweakwill.

SuchapowerisfoundbytheApostlePaulinfaith;itisfaith,hesays,thatproduces,orworksitselfoutin,thelifeoflove.ButwhatdoesPaulmeanwhen he says that "faithworks"? Certainly he does notmeanwhat themodern pragmatist skeptic means when he uses the same words;certainly he does not mean that it is merely faith, considered as apsychologicalphenomenon,andindependentofthetruthorfalsehoodofits object, that does thework.What he doesmean ismade abundantlyclear in the last sectionof this sameEpistle to theGalatians,where thelifeofloveispresentedinsomedetail.Inthatsectionnothingwhateverissaidaboutfaith;itisnotfaiththatisthererepresentedasproducingthelifeoflovebuttheSpiritofGod;theSpiritisthererepresentedasdoingexactlywhat, in the phrase "faithworking through love," is ascribed tofaith.Theapparent contradiction leadsuson to the right conceptionoffaith.Truefaith,strictlyspeaking,doesnotdoanything;itdoesnotgive,butreceives.Sowhenonesaysthatwedosomethingbyfaiththatisjustanotherwayofsayingthatwedonothing—atleastthatwedonothingofourselves.Itisoftheverynatureoffaith,strictlyspeaking,todonothing.Sowhenitissaidthatfaithworksthroughlove,thatmeansthatthroughfaith,insteadofdoingsomethingforourselvesweallowsomeoneelsetohelpus.That forcewhichentersour lifeat thebeginning throughfaith,before we could do anything at all to please God, and which thenstrengthensandsupportsusinthebattlethatithasenabledustobegin,isthepoweroftheSpiritofGod.

Sointhemidstofapracticalworld,theChristianexhibitsapracticallifeoflove—abusylifeofhelpfulness,feedingthehungry,givingdrinktothethirsty, receiving thestrangers,clothing thenaked,visiting thesickandtheprisoners.Andallthataccomplishednotbyhisownunaidedefforts,notevenmerelybyhisownfaith,butbythegreatobjectofhisfaith,theall-powerfulGod.

The Christian preacher, then, comes before the world with a greatalternative.Shallwecontinuetodependuponourownefforts,orshallwereceive by faith the power ofGod? Shallwe content ourselveswith thematerials which this world affords, seeking by endlessly newcombinations toproduceabuilding that shall endare;or shallwebuild

withthematerialsthathavenoflaw?Shallwegivemennewmotives,oraskGodtogivethemanewpower?Shallweimprovetheworld,orprayGodtocreateanewworld?Theformeralternativeshavebeentriedandfoundwanting: thebestofarchitects canproducenoenduringbuildingwhenall thematerials are faulty; goodmotivesarepowerlesswhen theheartisevil.Struggleaswemay,weremainjustapartofthisevilworlduntil,byfaith,wecry:"Notbymight,norbypower,butbyThySpirit,OLordofHosts."

CHAPTERVIII

FAITHANDHOPE

It has been shown in the last chapter that theChristion life is a life oflove,and that it isproducedby thepowerof theSpiritofGod receivedthroughfaithinChrist.SuchistheChristianwork,andsuchisthepowerthataccomplishesit.Butwhatisthegoal,whatistheendforwhichtheworkisdone?

Thatthereissomegoalbeyondissuggestedevenbytheverycharacterofthemeans by which we accomplish even this present task. Just as thepowerof sinwasnotexhaustedby theevil actionscommittedhereandnow,sothepoweroftheSpiritisnotexhaustedbyHispresentfruits.Justassinwasfelttocontaininfinitepossibilitiesofevil,tobeleadingtowarddreadful unfathomed depths, to contain a certain fearful looking for ofjudgment, so thepowerof theSpirit is felt toextendevenbeyondwhatHe is now accomplishing. The Christian has within him a mysteriouspower of goodness, which is leading him by paths he knows not to anunknownandblessedcountry.The"practical"manoftheworldseesbutlittle of the true life of the Christian. He sees but the bare outwardmanifestationoftheinfinitepowerwithin.It isnoproofoftheabsolutetruth of Christianity that it has made the world better; for thatachievementitsharesperhapswithotherreligions,thoughnodoubttheyhave it in far less degree. Other religions make men better: butChristianity alonemakes them good; for Christianity alone can exhibitoneabsolutelygoodhumanlife,andwithitthepromisethatotherlives

will oneday be conformed to that. TheChristian alonehas really closeandvitalcontactwithabsolutegoodness—agoodnessthatcontainsinitsverynatureandpresence thepromise thatevery lastvestigeof evilwillfinallyberemoved.

SotheChristian's loveforhisfellowmen,whichissomuchadmiredbytheworld, seems to the Christian himself to be in one sense but a by-product;itisbutaneffectofthegreaterloveforGodandbutonestepinitsunfolding.TherelationoftheChristiantothatforcethatsustainsandguideshimisnotthatofadeadinstrumentinthehandoftheworkman,but thatofa freemantohis loving father.Thework is felt tobeall themore ourwork because it is alsoGod'swork. That personal relation oflovebetweentheChristianandhisGod isnotseenby theworld,but totheChristianit,anditalone,containsthepromiseoffinalgoodness.

The Christian, then, produces the practical life of love on the way tosomethinggreater;theChristianlivesbyhope.Thatissometimesmadeareproach. The Christian does what is right, it is said, because of therewardsofheaven.Howmuchnobleristhemanwhodoeswhatisrightsimply because it is right, or because it will lead to the happiness ofgenerations yet unborn, even though he believes that for himself thegraveendsall!Thereproachwouldperhapsbejustifiedifheaveninvolvesmere selfish enjoyment. But as a matter of fact heaven involves notmerely enjoyment, not merely happiness, but also goodness, andgoodness realized in communion with the One who alone is good. Toregardthatcommunionasbrokenoffforeverindeathdoesnotinactualpracticelead,asatfirstsightitmightseemasthoughitwouldnaturallylead, to a height of unselfish service in which without thought ofindividualsurvivalamanwouldliveforthesakeoftherace.Fortheraceisworthyofaman'sservice,notifitiscomposedofmerecreaturesofaday, whose life is essentially like the life of the beasts, but only if it iscomposedofmenwithimmortalsouls.Adegradedviewofhumanlifebywhich it is deprived of its eternal significance does not in the long runlead to unselfish service, but it leads to decadence and despair. At theveryheartoftheChristianreligion,atanyrate,despitewhatisbeingsaidtoday,isthehopeofheaven.Thathopeisnotselfish,butitisthehighestandnoblest thought,perhaps, thathaseverbeenplaced in themindof

man; it is thehighestandnoblest thoughtbecause it involvesnotmereselfish enjoyment but the glory of God. For the glory of God, realizedthrough the creatures thatHe hasmade, eternity will not be too long.Man'schiefendisnotmerelytoglorifyGodandenjoyHim,butitis"toglorifyGodandtoenjoyHimforever."

This thought of heaven runs all through the New Testament; and it isparticularlyprominentintheteachingofJesus.Notonlyis it importantinitself,moreover,butithasaveryimportantbearinguponthesubjectofthepresent littlebook.Faith iscloselyconnected intheNewTestamentwithhope;anditiscontrastedinnotablepassageswithsight.Incontrastwithsightitisrepresentedasawaybywhichwecanlearnofthingsthataretobeoursinthefutureworld.If,therefore,wearetounderstandinanyadequatemannerwhattheNewTestamentsaysaboutfaith,wemustattendverycarefullytowhattheNewTestamentsaysaboutheaven.

But we cannot understand at all what the New Testament says aboutheaven,unlessweattendalsotowhattheNewTestamentsaysabouthell;intheNewTestamentheavenandhellappearincontrast.Thatcontrastisfoundmostclearlyofall,strangethoughitmayseemtosomepersons,intheteachingofJesus.Jesusspeaksnotonlyaboutheavenbutalso,withverygreatplainness,abouthell."Fearnotthemwhichkillthebody,"saidourLord(toquoteatypicalutterance),"butarenotabletokillthesoul:butratherfearhimwhichisabletodestroybothsoulandbodyinhell."

These words were not spoken by Jonathan Edwards; they were notspoken by Cotton Mather; they were not spoken by Calvin, or byAugustine,orbyPaul.ButtheywerespokenbyJesus.

AndwhentheyareputtogetherwithmanyotherwordslikethemintheGospels,theydemonstratetheutterfalsityofthepictureofJesuswhichisbeing constructed in recent years. According to that picture, Jesuspreached what was essentially a religion of this world; he advocated afilial attitude toward God and promoted amore abundant life ofman,withoutbeinginterestedinvulgardetailsastowhathappensbeyondthegrave;inthewordsofProfessorEllwood,he"concernedhimselfbutlittlewiththequestionofexistenceafterdeath."

In order to destroy this picture, it is necessary only to go through aGospelharmonyandnotethepassageswhereJesusspeaksofblessednessandwoeinafuturelife.Ifyoudothat,youmaybesurprisedattheresult;certainly youwill be surprisedat the result if youhavepreviouslybeenaffected in slightest degree by the misrepresentation of Jesus whichdominatesthereligiousliteratureofourtime.Youwilldiscoverthatthethoughtnotonlyofheavenbutalsothethoughtofhellrunsall throughtheteachingofJesus.

It runs through the most characteristic parables of Jesus—the solemnparables of the rich man and Lazarus, the unrighteous steward, thepounds, the talents, the wheat and the tares, the evil servant, themarriageoftheking'sson,thetenvirgins.ItisequallyprominentintherestofJesus'teaching.Thejudgmentsceneofthetwenty-fifthchapterofMatthew is only the culmination of what is found everywhere in theGospels: "These shall go away into everlasting punishment: but therighteous into life eternal." There is absolutely nothing peculiar aboutthis passage amid the sayings of Jesus. If there ever was a religiousteacher who could not be appealed to in support of a religion of thisworld,ifthereeverwasateacherwhoviewedtheworldundertheaspectofeternity,itisJesusofNazareth.

These passages and a great mass of other passages like them areimbeddedeverywhereintheGospeltradition.SofarasIknoweventhemost radical criticismhashardly tried to remove this element inJesus'teaching. But it is not merely the amount of Jesus teaching about thefuture life which is impressive; what is even more impressive is thecharacter of it. It does not appear as an excrescence in theGospels, assomethingwhichmightberemovedandyetleavetherestoftheteachingintact. If this elementwere removed,whatwouldbe left?Certainlynotthe gospel itself, certainlynot the goodnewsof Jesus' savingwork; forthatisconcernedwiththesehighissuesofeternallifeanddeath.ButnoteventheethicalteachingofJesuswouldbeleft.TherecanbenogreatermistakethantosupposethatJesuseverseparatedtheologyfromethics,orthatifyouremoveHistheology—HisbeliefsaboutGodandjudgment,aboutfuturewoeforthewickedandfutureblessednessforthegood—youcan have His ethical teaching intact. On the contrary, the stupendous

earnestness of Jesus' ethics is rooted in the constant thought of thejudgmentseatofGod."Andifthineeyeoffendthee,pluckitout,andcastitfromthee:itisbetterfortheetoenterintolifewithoneeye,ratherthanhavingtwoeyestobecastintohellfire."Thesewordsarecharacteristicofall of Jesus' teaching; the stupendous earnestness of His commands isintimatelyconnectedwiththealternativeofeternalwealorwoe.

That alternative is used by Jesus to arousemen to fear. "And fear notthemwhichkillthebody,butarenotabletokillthesoul:butratherfearhimwhichisabletodestroybothsoulandbodyinhell."LukerecordsasimilarsayingofJesus:"AndIsayuntoyoumyfriends,Benotafraidofthemthatkillthebody,andafterthathavenomorethantheycando.ButI will forewarn youwhom ye shall fear: Fear him,which after he hathkilledhathpowertocastintohell;yea,Isayuntoyou,Fearhim."6Thereare those who tell us that fear ought to be banished from religion; weought,itissaid,nolongertoholdbeforemen'seyesthefearofhell;fear,itissaid,isanignoblething.Thosewhospeakinthiswaycertainlyhaveno right to appeal to Jesus; for Jesus certainly did employ, andinsistently, themotive of fear. If you eschew altogether that motive inreligion,youareinstrikingcontradictiontoJesus.Here,asatmanyotherpoints, a choice must be made between the real Jesus and much thatbearsHisnametoday.Butwhoisright?IsJesusright,orarethoserightwhoputoutoftheirmindsthefearofhell?Isfearaltogetheranignoblething;isamannecessarilydegradedbybeingafraid?

I think that itdependsaltogetherupon thatofwhichone isafraid.Thewords of the text that we have been considering, with the solemninculcationoffear,arealsoaringingdenunciationoffear;the"FearHim"is balanced by "Fear not." The fear of God is here made a way ofovercomingthefearofman.AndtheheroiccenturiesofChristianhistoryhave provided abundant testimony to the efficaciousness of that way.WiththefearofGodbeforetheireyes,theheroesofthefaithhavestoodboldlybefore kings andgovernors and said: "Here I stand, I cannotdootherwise, God help me, Amen." It is certainly an ignoble thing to beafraidofbondsanddeathatthehandsofmen;itiscertainlyanignoblething to fear thosewho use power to suppress the right. Such fear hasalwaysbeenovercomebytruemenoffaith.

Even the fear ofGod, indeed,might be degrading. It all depends uponwhat manner of being you hold God to be. If you think that God isaltogethersuchanoneasyourself,yourfearofHimwillbeadegradingthing.IfyouthinkofHimasacapricioustyrant,enviousofthecreaturesthat He has made, you will never rise above the grovelling fears ofCaliban.Butitisverydifferentwhenyoustandinthepresenceofallthemoralorderintheuniverse;itisverydifferentwhenGodcomeswalkingin thegardenandyouarewithoutexcuse; it is verydifferentwhenyouthinkof thatdreaddaywhenyourpunydeceptionswill falloffandyouwill stand defenceless before the righteous judgment throne. It is verydifferent when not the sins of the other people but your own sins arebeing judged.Canwe really comebefore the judgment seatofGodandstandfearlesslyuponourrights?OrcanwereallyrepeatwithHenleythewell-knownwords:

Outofthenightthatcoversme,

Blackasthepitfrompoletopole,

Ithankwhatevergodsmaybe

Formyunconquerablesoul.

orthis:

Itmattersnothowstraitthegate,

Howchargedwithpunishmentsthescroll,

Iamthemasterofmyfate:

Iamthecaptainofmysoul.

Is this the way to overcome fear? Surely it is not.We can repeat suchwordsonlybythedisguisedcowardiceofignoringfacts.

Asamatteroffact,oursoulisnotunconquerable;wearenotmastersofourfateorcaptainsofoursoul.Manyamanhascontemplatedsomefouldeed at first with horror, and said, "Am I a dog that I should do this

thing?" And then has come the easy descent into the pit, the gradualweakening of the moral fibre, so that what seemed horrible yesterdayseemsexcusabletoday;untilatlast,atsomesadhour,withthememoryofthehorrorofsinstillinthemind,amanawakestotherealizationthatheisalreadywallowinginthemire.Suchisthedreadfulhardeningthatcomesfromsin.Eveninthislifewearenotmastersofourfate;weareofourselvescertainlynotcaptainsofourbodies,andweareofourselves,Ifear,notevencaptainsofoursouls.

It ispitiablecowardice to try toovercomefearby ignoring facts.Wedonotbecomemastersofourfatebysayingthatweare.Andsuchblatancyofpridefutileasitis,isnotevennobleinitsfutility.Itwouldbenobletorebelagainstacapricious tyrant;but it isnotnoble torebelagainst themorallawofGod.

Arewe,then,foreversubjecttofear?Istherenaught,forussinners,butacertainfearfullookingforofjudgmentandfieryindignation?Jesuscametotellus,No!Hecametodeliverusfromfear.Hedidnotdoso,indeed,byconcealingfacts;Hepaintednofalsepictureofthefuturelifeasalifeofundifferentiatedfutilitysuchas thatwhichthe"mediums"reveal;Heencouraged no false notion of a complacent God who could make acompact with sin. But he delivered men from fear by leading them totrustinHim.Terribleistheissueofeternallifeandeternaldeath;woetothemanwhoapproachesthatissueinhisownrighteousness;butChristcanenableustofaceeventhat.

EventheChristian,itistrue,mustfearGod.Butitisanewkindoffear.Itisafear,atthemost,ofchastisementandrebuke,notoffinalruin;itisafear,indeed,ratherofwhatmighthavebeenthanofwhatis;itisafearofwhatwouldhavecomewerewenotinChrist.Withoutsuchfeartherecanbe, forus sinners,no true love; for loveof a saviour isproportioned toone'shorrorofthatfromwhichonehasbeensaved.Andhowstrongarethelivesthatarefilledwithsuchalove!Theyarelivesbravenotbecausethe factshavebeen ignored,butbecausetheyhavebeenfaced; theyarelivesfoundeduponthesolidfoundationofthegraceofGod.Ifthatisthefoundationofourlives,weshallnotfearwhenwecometothehourthatotherwisewiseweshoulddread.It isabeautifulthingwhenaChristianwhohasreceivedJesusasHisSaviourcomestothemomentofdeath;it

is a beautiful thing to fall asleep in Jesus, and, as one enters that darkcountryofwhichnoneothercantell,totrustthedearLordandSaviourandbelievethatweshallthereseeHisface.

Thus faith is notmerely founded upon knowledge; but also it leads toknowledge. Itprovides informationabouta futureworld thatotherwisewould be unknown. Our discussionwould be incomplete if we did notexaminealittlemorefullythisaspectoffaith.

TheexaminationmaybebasedupononegreatverseintheEpistletotheHebrews,inthechapterthatdealsexpresslywithfaith."Nowfaith,"saystheauthorofHebrewsatthebeginningofthatchapter,"isthesubstanceofthingshopedfor,theevidenceofthingsnotseen."

Thesewordsarenotadefinitionoracompleteaccountoffaith:theytellwhatfaithis,buttheydonottellallthatitis,andtheydonotseparateitfrom all that it is not. There are other utterances also in the NewTestament, which are sometimes treated as definitions and yet are notdefinitionsatall.ThuswhenJamessaysthat"purereligionandundefiledbeforeGodand theFather is this,Tovisit the fatherlessandwidows intheiraffliction,andtokeephimselfunspottedfromtheworld,"heisnotgivingadefinitionoracompletedescriptionofreligion;heistellingwhatreligion is,buthe isnot tellingall that it is:pure religion is tovisit thefatherlessandwidowsandtokeephimselfunspottedfromtheworld,butitisfarmorethanthat.Orwhenitissaidthat"Godislove,"thatdoesnotmeanatallthatGodisonlylove.Itisaverygreatlogicalerrortosingleoutsuchanaffirmationandtreatitasthoughitwereadefinition;manysuchaffirmationswouldbenecessary inorder toobtainanything likeacomplete account of God; God is love, butHe ismany other things aswell.

So when it is said that faith is "the substance of things hoped for, theevidence of things not seen," that does notmean that the substance ofthingshopedforortheevidenceofthingsnotseenisalwaysfaith,orthatfaithisonlywhatitisheresaidtobe.Whatwehaveinthisverseisnotalloffaith,butoneparticularaspectofit.Butsincethisparticularaspectisanaspectwhichisusuallybeingneglectedtoday,thistextmayperhapsbeconsideredjustnowwithspecialprofit.Theaspectoffaithwhichishere

placedintheforegroundisonespecialpartoftheintellectualaspectofit;faithishereregardedascontributingtothesumofhumanknowledge.

Atthepresenttimeitisthefashiontoignorethisaspectoffaith:indeedfaith and knowledge, as we have already observed, are often divorced;theyaretreatedasthoughtheybelongedtotwoentirelydifferentspheres,andcouldthereforeneverbyanychancecomeeitherintorelationorintocontradiction.Thisseparationbetweenfaithandknowledgehasalreadybeen considered so far as thebasis of faith is concerned; true faith,wehaveobserved,isalwaysbaseduponknowledge.Buttruefaithisnotonlybaseduponknowledge,butalsoitleadstomoreknowledge;anditisthisaspectof faith that ispresented inclassic formin thegreatverseat thebeginningoftheeleventhchapterofHebrews.

"Faith," the author ofHebrews says, "is the substance of things hopedfor."Thewordheretranslated"substance"istranslatedintheAmericanRevised Version "assurance." But the difference is not important. Thepointineithercaseisthatbyfaithfutureeventsaremadetobecertain;the old translationmerely puts the thing a little more strongly: futureevents, itmeans,becomethroughfaithsocertainthat isasthoughtheyhadalready takenplace; the things that arepromised tousbecome,byour faith in thepromise, socertain that it isas thoughwehad theverysubstanceoftheminourhandshereandnow.Ineithercase,whetherthecorrect translationbe "substance"or "assurance," faith ishere regardedasprovidinginformationaboutfutureevents;itispresentedasawayofpredictingthefuture.

Therearevariouswaysofpredictingthefuture;faithisoneway,butitisnot theonlyway.Anotherway isprovided, for example, by astronomy.On the twenty-fourth day of January, 1925, there was visible in theeastern part of the United States a total eclipse of the sun. Elaboratepreparationsweremade inorder to takeobservations; theexpertsweresofirmlyconvincedthat theeclipsewouldtakeplacethat largesumsofmoneywere investedon thebasisof the conviction. In connectionwithanothereclipse that tookplacea fewyearsbefore,evenmoreexpensivepreparations were made. On that occasion the eclipse was visible in amuchlessaccessibleregion,andvariousexpeditionshadtobesentmanythousands of miles in order that the observations might be made; the

astronomersseemedveryfirmlyconvincedindeedthattheeclipsewouldtakeplace.

It is true that in some cases the labor was all wasted. In the places towhichsomeoftheexpeditionswentitrainedorwascloudy;badweatherspoiledthoseelaboratescientificexpeditionsjustaseffectuallyasiftheyhadbeenanyordinarySundaySchoolpicnics.Itmaybe,ofcourse,thatscientificmenwilllearntoeliminateeventhissourceoferror;itmaybethattheywilllearntopredictwithcertainty,orevencontrol,theweather.Wecertainlyhopethatitwillnotcomeinourday.Forifitcomesinourday, no doubt the farmers' blocwill want one kind ofweather and theindustrialworkersanother,sothatwhatisnowalmosttheonlyreallysafetopicofcasualconversationwillbecomeacauseofcivilwar.Butalthoughtheweather couldnotbepredicted longenoughahead, andalthough itobscuredtheeclipse,yetnodoubttheeclipsedidtakeplaceonscheduletime.Onthelastoccasion,Ibelieve,theeclipsewasfoursecondslate:butthose four secondsdidnot troublemenearly somuchas they troubledtheastronomers;frommylayman'spointofviewIamboundtosaythatIthinktheastronomershadsucceededfairlywellintheirwayofpredictingthefuture.

Butalthoughastronomy isonewayofpredicting the future,andaverygoodwaytoo,itisnottheonlyway.Anotherwayisfaith.Andwhatoughtto be observed with special care is that faith is just as scientific asastronomy.Thefutureispredictedbymeansoffaithwhenonedependsforone'sknowledgeofthefutureonthewordofapersonalbeing.Andinordinary life thatmethodofprediction is constantly employed.Upon itdepends, for example, the entire orderly conduct of economic, politicaland social life. Business is carried on by means of credit, and it isperfectly scientific tocarry itonso; it isperfectly scientific tohold thatreputable men of business, especially when they eliminate personalidiosyncrasiesbyactingcollectively,willmeettheirobligations.Politicallifeispossibleonlybyfaithreposedinthegovernment,andwheresuchfaith is destroyed one has hopeless anarchy. Social life is possible onlybecauseoffaith—sociallifeinitslargeraspectsandalsointhehumblestandmostindividualdetails.Itisreallyjustasscientifictopredictthatamotherwillgivethemedicineatthepropertimetohersickbabyasitis

to predict an eclipse of the sun. No doubt there are more disturbingfactors in the former case than in the latter, and no doubt thosedisturbing factors must be duly taken into account; but that does notaffect theessentiallysoundscientificcharacterof theprediction. Inanyideallycompletescientificmappingoutofthefuturecourseoftheworldthe probability that the mother would give the medicine to the babywouldhavetobetakenintoaccountjustastrulyastheprobabilityoftheeclipseofthesun.

Sometimes a prediction as to the future conduct of a person can beestablished with a certain degree of mathematical precision: it isdiscovered that a certain person hasmet his obligations in ninety-nineout of ahundredpast cases; theprobabilities, therefore, itwill be said,arestronglyinfavorofhismeetinghisobligationsinasimilarcaseinthefuture.Certainformsofliabilityinsurance,Iimagine(thoughIknowverylittleaboutit),arebaseduponsomesuchcalculation.Butveryoftenone'spredictionsastothefutureconductofaperson,thoughattainingaveryhigh degree of probability indeed, are not based upon any suchmerelymathematical reasoning:apersonsometimes inspiresconfidencebyhisentirebearing;soulspeakstosoul;andevenapartfromlongexperienceofthatperson'strustworthinessoneknowsthatheistobetrusted.Thatkind of trust has a larger place, by the way, in producing Christianconviction than is sometimes supposed. Even that kind of trust isthoroughlyreasonable;itaddstothesum-totalofknowledge,andisinatrue sense of the word "scientific." Common experience bears out thewordsofthetextthatfaithis"thesubstanceofthingshopedfor."

The text also says that faith is the "evidence of things not seen." Thatassertion includes the other. Future things—the things hoped for—arealwaysalso"thingsnotseen."TheChristian,forexample, inthinkingofhis communion in heaven with Christ, walks by faith not by sight;becausehedoesnotnowseeheaven.Hehasnottheevidenceofhiseyes,but needs confidence in Christ to make heaven real to him. But thissecond affirmation of the text, though it includes the first, goes alsobeyond it; faith is sometimesneedednot only to predict the future butalsotogiveinformationabouthiddenthingsthatalreadyexist.Whethertheinformationconcernsthefutureorthepresent,itisbaseduponfaith

ifitdependsuponthewordofapersonalbeing.

Faith,then,thoughithasotheraspects,isalways,ifitbetruefaith,awayof obtaining knowledge; it should never be contrasted with science.Indeed,inanytrueuniversalscience—asciencethatwouldobliteratetheartificialdepartmentalboundarieswhichwehaveerectedforpurposesofconvenience and as a concession to human limitations—in any trueuniversalscience,confidenceinpersonalbeingswouldhavearecognizedplace as a means of obtaining knowledge just as truly as chemicalbalancesortelescopes.

It isthereforeonlywithgreatcautionthatwecanacceptthedistinctionsetupbyTennysonatthebeginningofInMemoriam:

StrongSonofGod,immortalLove,

Whomwe,thathavenotseenthyface,

Byfaith,andfaithalone,embrace,

Believingwherewecannotprove.

"Believingwherewecannotprove"—italldependsuponwhatyoumeanby "prove." If you mean by "prove" "obtain knowledge by your ownobservation without depending upon information received from otherpersons," then of course the distinction between belief (or faith) andproof is valid, and it may readily be admitted that in that sense theChristianreligiondependsupon faithrather thanuponproof.Butwhatoughttobeinsisteduponaboveallthingsisthat"belief"orfaith,intheTennysoniansense,mayaffordjustashighadegreeofscientificcertitudeas"proof"—inthenarrowersenseoftheword.Indeedincountlesscasesit affords a much higher degree of certitude. Perhaps the reader maypardonanillustrationfromordinarylife.IhaveanaccountatoneofthePrincetonbanks. It isnot so large an account as I should like, but it isthere.Everymonththebanksendsmeareportastomybalance.IalsoobtaininformationastothesamethingbythecalculationwhichImakeon the stubs ofmy check book. The informationwhich I obtain bymyowncalculationisobtainedby"proof" intheTennysoniansense(orthe

sense which rightly or wrongly we have attributed to Tennyson). TheinformationwhichIobtainfromthebank,ontheotherhand,isobtainedbyfaith—itdependsuponmyconfidenceintheaccuracyandintegrityoftheemployeesofthebank.Ihavenottheslightestnotionhowthebanksattainsuchamarvellousdegreeofaccuracy.Oneof thefirst teachersofmathematicsthatIeverhadtoldme,Ithink,somethingtotheeffectthatthe officials of a bank sometimes spend the entire night searching thebooksforonecentthatisunaccountedfor.RecentlyIthinkIreadintheSaturdayEveningPostorsomesuchjournal,tomygreatdisappointment,that if they are only one cent off they go to bed. Itwas a youthful idolshattered! At any rate I do not know how they do it; I have not at allfollowedthestepsoftheircalculationofmybalance:yetItaketheresultwithperfectconfidence.Itisapurematteroffaith.Nownotinfrequentlyat theendofamonthdifferencesofopinionemerge, Iamsorry tosay,betweenthebankandmyselfastotheamountofmybalance;"faith"inthe bank's report is pitted against "proof" as based on my owncalculations.Andthecurious thing is that faith ismuchstronger,muchmorescientific,thanproof.Iusedtothinkthatmycalculationmightberightandthebank'sreportwrong,butnowItrustthebankeverytime.Itistrue,Ihavethedesiretomakethetwomeansofobtainingknowledgeconverge;Ihavethe intellectualdesireof financiallyunifyingmyworld.ButIdosonotbycorrectingthebank'sreportbutbycorrectingmyowncalculation.Icorrect"proof"becauseIhaveobtainedbetterinformationby"faith."

Thatcase,simpleasitis,illustrates,Ithink,agreatprinciplewhichgoestothevitalsofreligion.Itisnottruethatconvictionsbasedonthewordofothersmustnecessarilybelessfirmandlessscientificthanconvictionsbased on one's own calculation and observation.One's own calculationandobservationmayturnouttobewrongaswellasone'sconfidenceinthewordofanotherperson.

SoitisinthecaseoftheChristianreligion.ThecentralconvictionsoftheChristianreligion,at leastsofarasthegospelofsalvationisconcerned,arebasednotuponour ownobservation, butupon testimony; they arebased, inthefirstplace,uponthetestimonyoftheBiblicalwritersastothings said and done in the first century of our era in Palestine. That

testimonymayconceivablybetrueanditmayconceivablybefalse;buttosay beforehand that it cannot be true is to fall into a very seriousintellectualfault.Ifthetestimonyistrue,thentherejectionofitisjustasunscientificandtheacceptanceof it justasscientificas therejectionoracceptanceofassuredresultsinthefieldofthelaboratorysciences.

Asamatteroffact,weChristiansthinkthatthetestimonyistrue.Whydowethinkso?Nodoubttherearevariousreasons;wetesttheassertionsoftheBiblicalwritersinmanydifferentwaysbeforeweacceptthemfinallyastrue.Butonereasonhassometimesnotbeengivenquitethedegreeofprominencethatitdeserves.Oneveryimportantreasonforacceptingthetestimony of the New Testament about Christ is that we becomepersonallyacquaintedwiththewriterswhogiveusthetestimonyandonthebasisofthatacquaintancecometohaveanoverpoweringimpressionthat theyare tellingus the truth. If youare troubledwithdoubtsaboutthe truthof theNewTestament, if thesemarvellous thingsseemtoyoutoostrangeeverreallytohavehappeneduponthisearth,Ishouldliketocommendtoyouanexercisethathasbeenhelpfultome;Ishouldliketosuggest to you the plan of reading rapidly great sections of the Gospelnarrativeas thoughfor the first time.TheGospelofMark, forexample,lends itself readily to thispurpose;perhaps that is the reasonwhyGodhas given us one Gospel that is so short. Read the Gospel ofMark allthrough,then,inonesitting;donotstudyitthistime(importantthoughdetailed study at other times will be found to be), but simply read it;simplyletthetotal impressionof itbemadeuponyourmind.Ifyoudothatyouwillfeelthatyouhavebecomewellacquaintedwiththeauthor;andyouwillhaveanoverpoweringimpressionthatheistellingthetruth.It is inconceivable, you will say, that this stupendous picture of Jesuscould ever have been the product of invention or of the myth-makingfancy of the Church; the author of the Gospel of Mark, if he could beplaced upon the witness-stand, would make an overpoweringly goodwitness, and would bring conviction to the mind of any jury that wasopentothefacts.

Thesamethingmaybedonealso in thecaseofabook that is somuchattackedas is theFourthGospel. In the courseofmy life, if apersonalallusionmaybepardoned,Ihavereadagreatdealthathasbeenwritten

againstthehistoricaltrustworthinessofthatbook.Someofitattimeshasseemed tome tobeplausible; Ihavebeen troubledat timesby seriousdoubts.ButatsuchtimesIhaveturnedawayfromwhathasbeenwrittenaboutthebooktothebookitself;Ihavetriedtoreaditasthoughforthefirst time. And when I have done that, the impression has sometimesbeen quite overpowering. Clearly the author is claiming to be aneyewitness,andclearlyhelaysspecialstressupontheplaintestimonyofthe senses. If hewasnot really an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, he isengaging inarefinedpieceofdeception,vastlymoreheinousthan ifhehad merely put a false name at the beginning of his book. That he isengaging in such a piece of deception may seem plausible when onemerely reads what has beenwritten about the author by others; but itseems to be a truly monstrous hypothesis when one gets personallyacquaintedwiththeauthorbyreadinghisbookforone'sself.Whenonedoes that, the conviction becomes overpowering that this author wasactually,asheclaimstobe,aneyewitnessofthewondrousthingsthathenarrates,thatheactuallybeheldthegloryoftheincarnateWord,andthatthe stupendous Person of whom he writes actually walked upon thisearth.

Toneglectthiskindofevidence—thekindofevidencethatisbaseduponpersonal testimony—is, we maintain, a thoroughly unscientific thing.There is a breadth and open-mindedness about true science of whichmany persons seem not to have the slightest conception. They becomeimmersed in one kind of evidence; within one limited sphere, theirobservationsaregood;butwithregardtootherkindsofevidencetheyaretotallyblind.Suchblindnessneedstobeovercomeifwearetohaverealscientific advance; the true scientist has his mind open not merely tosome,buttoall,ofthefacts.Andifhehashiseyeopentoallofthefacts,hewillnotneglectwhatistoldhimbycrediblewitnesseswithregardtoJesusChrist.

Still lesscanweneglect, ifwebetrulyscientificmen,whatistoldusbyJesus Himself. The New Testament writers tell us about Jesus; on thebasis of their testimony we are convinced that the Jesus of the NewTestamentreallylivedinthisworld,thatHereallydiedforoursins,thatHe really rose from the dead, and is now living so thatHe can be our

Saviour. Ifwe have accepted that testimony about Jesus, thenwe haveJesusHimself;andifwehaveJesusHimself,itisreasonabletotrustHimnotonlyforthisworldbutalsofortheworldtocome.

It is highly misleading, therefore, to say that religion and science areseparate, and that theBible is not intended to teach science.NodoubtthatassertionthattheBibleisnotintendedtoteachsciencedoescontainanelementoftruth:itiscertainlytruethattherearemanydepartmentsof science into which the Bible does not enter; and very possibly it isadvantageous to isolate certain departments provisionally and pursueinvestigationsinthosedepartmentswithoutforthemomentthinkingofothers.Butsuchisolationisatthebestprovisionalmerely;andultimatelythere ought to be a real synthesis of truth. On principle, it cannot bedeniedthattheBibledoesteachcertainthingsaboutwhichsciencehasarighttospeak.Thematterisparticularlyclearinthesphereofhistory.Atthe very centre of the Bible are assertions about events in the externalworldinPalestineinthefirstcenturyofourera—eventsthenarratingofwhich constitutes the "gospel," the piece of goodnews uponwhich ourChristianfaithisbased.ButeventsinPalestineinthefirstcenturyofoureraarejustasmuchapropersubjectforscientifichistoryasareeventsinGreece or Rome. And in an ideally complete scientific account of thephysicaluniversetheemergenceornon-emergenceofthebodyofJesusfromthetomb—aquestionuponwhichtheveryexistenceofChristianitydepends—wouldhavetoberecordedjustastrulyastheobservationsthataremadeinthelaboratory.

We shall have to reject, therefore, the easy apologetic for Christianitywhich simply declares that religion and science belong in independentspheres and that science can never conceivably contradict religion. Ofcourserealsciencecanneveractuallycontradictanyreligionthatistrue;buttosay,beforethequestionisdeterminedwhetherthereligionistrueorfalse,thatsciencecannotpossiblycontradictit,istododespitebothtoreligionandtoscience.It isapoorreligionthatcanabandontosciencethewholerealmofobjectivetruth,inordertoreserveforitselfmerelyarealm of ideals. Such a religion, at any rate,whatever estimatemay begiven of it, is certainly not Christianity; for Christianity is foundedsquarely, notmerely upon ideals, but upon facts. But if Christianity is

foundeduponfacts,thenitisnotentirelyindependentofscience;forallfacts must be brought into some sort of relation. When any new factenters thehumanmind itmustproceedtomake itselfathome; itmustproceed to introduce itself to the previous denizens of the house. Thatprocessof introductionofnew facts is called thinking.And, contrary towhat seems tobequitegenerally supposed, thinking cannotbeavoidedby the Christian man. The Christian religion is not an innocent butuseless epiphenomenon, without interrelation with other spheres ofknowledge,butmust seek to justify itsplace,despiteall the intellectuallaborthatthatcosts,intherealmoffacts.

Letus,however,havenofear.Ourreligionisreallyfoundeduponwordsofsobernessandtruth;itsuffersjustnownotfromanexcessofthinking,but fromawoeful deficiency of it, and a truebroadening of knowledgewould lead again into faith. It is, of course, a mistake to apply to onesciencethemethodsofanother;perhapsthatisthereasonwhymenwhoare experts in the sphere of the laboratory sciences are often so veryunscientificwhentheycometodeal,forexample,withhistory.MoreovertheevidenceforthetruthofChristianityisveryvaried,anditisnotallofakindthatcaneasilybereducedtomeasurement.TheGospelwitnesstoJesus, for example, iswonderfully convincingwhenoneattends to it intheway that such evidence requires; it iswonderfully convincingwhenonebeings it intoconnectionwiththe factsof thesoul.Theevidence infavorofthatGospelwitness,moreover,iscumulative;itwillnotlightlyberejectedbyanyonewhoreallyhasanopenmind.Andwhen,byacceptingthatwitnessaboutJesus,wehaveJesusHimself,stillmoreclearlycanwetrustHim for time and for eternity.Thewitness is confirmedhere andnowby present expecrience; theChristian knows theOne inwhomHehasbelieved.Faithneednotbe toohumbleor tooapologeticbefore thebarofreason;Christianfaithisathoroughlyreasonablething;itis,astheEpistle to theHebrews puts it, "the substance of things hoped for, theevidenceofthingsnotseen."

Ourtreatmentoffaithisnearlyatanend.Butoneverypracticalquestionremains. Faith, we have seen, is the appointed means of salvation;withoutitthereis—atleastforthosewhohavecometoyearsofdiscretion—no saving contact with Christ. But faith is sometimes strong and

sometimesweak:howstrong,then,doesithavetobeinorderthatasoulmaybesaved?

ln answer to this question, itmust certainly be admitted that theNewTestamentdoesrecognizevaryingdegreesoffaith;anditdoesseekwithgreatearnestnesstomakefaithstronginsteadofweak.AccordingtotheNewTestamentastrong,firmfaithunmixedbydoubtsissomethingthatisusedbyGodtoaccomplishgreatthings.Thematterisparticularlyplainin the case of prayer; the efficacy of prayer, according to the NewTestament,doesdepend tosomeextentupon thedegreeof faith that isgiventothemanwhoprays;aweak,tremblingfaithisnotordinarilytheinstrument that removes mountains and casts them into the sea. ButthereisanotheraspectoftheNewTestamentteaching;anditshouldnotbeneglectedifwearetohavecomfortintheChristianlife.ThoughGodcanuseafirm,strongfaithexercisedinprayer,healsooftenusesafaiththatisveryweak.Itisagreatmistaketothinkthatprayerworksinanymechanicalway;sothatwhileagoodprayerbringsagoodresultapoorprayer necessarily brings a poor result.On the contrary, the efficacy ofprayerdependsafterallnotupontheexcellenceof theprayerbutuponthegraceofGod,andoftenGodispleasedtohonorprayersthatareveryfaulty indeed.ThankGod that it is so; thankGod that thoughweknownotwhatweshouldprayforasweoughtHisSpirit"makethintercessionforuswithgroaningswhichcannotbeuttered";thankGodthatHedoesforusnot inproportionasweask,but"exceedingabundantlyaboveallthatweaskorthink."

Thus it is, then,withprayer: theremustbesomefaith ifprayer is tobeprayeratallandnotameaninglessformofwords;butevenweakfaithissometimes,inGod'sinfinitemercy,usedtoaccomplishgreatthings.Butifit isthuswiththedetailsoftheChristianlife,if it isthuswithprayer,how is itwith salvation?Faith is necessary to salvation, buthowmuchfaithisnecessary?HowdoesGodtreatthemanoflittlefaith?

Inanswer to thisquestionwehave in theGospelsawonderful incidentwithwhichthepresentlittleattemptatexpositionoftheNewTestamentteachingaboutfaithmayfitlyclose.

The incident is thehealingof thedemoniacboy in theninthchapterof

theGospelaccordingtoMark.ItisalsocontainedinMatthewandLukeaswellas inMark,but inverymuchbrieferform.It isMarkalonewhopaints thepicture indetail; it isMark farmore than theother twowhoenablesustoseewiththeeyesofthosewhowerepresentatthescene.IfearlyChristiantraditionberight,asnodoubt it isright, inholdingthattheSecondGospelembodiesthemissionarypreachingofPeter,thenthevividcharacterofthenarrativeisexplained.TheevangelistenablesustoseewithPeter's eyes.Peterwith twootherdiscipleshadbeenupon theMountofTransfiguration;hehadseentheLordinglorywithMosesandElias;andnowonthedescentfromthemountainhetellsus,throughthewords of the second Gospel, exactly what he saw below. Mark haspreservedthedetails;hehasmadenoattemptatstylisticsmoothness;hisnarrative is rough and vigorous and natural. Nowhere is Mark morecharacteristicallyMarcanthanhere.

Asthusdepictedthesceneisasceneofhumanmiseryandneed.Amanwasindistress;hissonwasinthegripofanevilspirit,hefoamedatthemouthandgnashedhis teethandnow laywallowingon theground. Inthe presence of this distress, men were powerless to help; even thedisciplesofJesus,despiteallthepoweroftheirMaster,coulddonothing.It is a picture of human need and the powerlessness of man. And thescene has not beenmade antiquated today. The cause of the ill then, Ibelieve,wasdifferentfromthatwhichisobservedatthepresenttime;buttheresultingmiserywasinimportantrespectsthesame.Medicalsciencehasnotyetgottenridofhumanmisery;anditisquiteinconceivablethatit ever will succeed in doing so. No doubt the form of misery may bechanged; it is perfectly conceivable, thoughperhaps highly improbable,thatdiseasemaybeconquered.Butdeath,atleast,inthepresentorder,willremain;andwithdeathandbereavementtherewillbethedistressedcryofthehumansoul.

Theman in theMarcan scenewas at the very extremity of distress.Allresourceshadfailed,andmiserywasatitsheight.AndthenJesuscamedownfromthemountain.InHimwasanewandtheverylastresource.ButJesusdidnothelpatonce.Themeansofhishelpingwasfaith,anddidthemanbelieve?"Ifthoucanstdoanything,"saidtheman;anditwasadespairingratherthanabelieving"if."ButJesusdidnotdespair.Faith

was not apparent, but Jesus knewhow to bring it forth; he brought tolight the faithwhich theman possessed. "How long is it ago," he said,"since this came into him?" And then he said, to call faith forth: "Allthingsarepossibletohimthatbelieveth."

The answer of the man is one of the unforgettable utterances of thehumanspirit; itwillremainclassicsolongastheraceendures.It isnotmerely the voice of oneman, but it voices the cry of the race. Thus, Isuppose,outofwilddistress,domanygreatutterancescome.Ordinaryspeech covers the thought in conventional trappings; but in times ofoverpowering emotion the form of expression is forgotten and a crycomesunbiddenandunshapedfromthedepthsofthesoul.

Soitwaswiththemanofthisincident.Concealmentwasforgotten;therewasnopretenceofaconfidencewhichwasnotpossessed;therewasnoattempt at logical harmony between the faith and the unbelief thatstruggledunreconciledinthesoul."LordIbelieve,"saidtheman;"helpthoumine unbelief." That was the faith, weak faith it is true, that wasbornofneed.

Somustall faith, Isuppose,beborn. Idonotmeanthat faith inChristcannot come without previous anguish of soul. Some children ofChristian homes believe in their Saviour almost as soon as fullconsciousness begins; and that simple faith of childhood remainssometimesgrandlyunshakenthroughall thestormsof life.ButhostsofmentodaydonotbelieveinChristatall.HowshalltheybeledtofaithinHim?We have already seen what the answer is; they can be led onlythroughthesenseofneed.

The need of the man in the Gospel of Mark was plain. His son wasgnashingwiththeteethandwallowingontheground.Buttheneedofallmen,iftheycouldonlydiscernthefacts,isequallyclear.ThegreatneedofthehumansoulwhichleadstofaithinChristisfound,aswehaveseen,inthefactofsin.AmanneveracceptsChristasSaviourunlessheknowshimself tobe in thegripof thedemonof sinanddesires tobe set free.One may argue with a man on the subject of religion as long as lifeendures; one may bring forward arguments for the existence of apersonalGod;onemayattempttoproveonthebasisofthedocumentary

evidencethatonlytheChristianviewofChristandonlyHisresurrectionfromthetombcanexplaintheoriginof theChristianreligion.Menwilllisten,iftheybebroad-minded(as,however,theyseldomaretoday);butrepelled by the stupendous nature of the thing that we ask them tobelieve, they will reject all our arguments and conviction will not beformed.Butthen,aswedespairofbringingthemevertofaith,wereceivesometimesanunexpectedally. In someunexpectedway thehollownessandhopelessnessof their livescomeshometo them; theyrecognize theawful guilt or sin. Andwhen that recognition comes, the proofs of theChristianreligionsuddenlyobtainforthemanewcogency;everythingintheChristiansystemfallsforthemintoitsproperplace;andtheybelieve.Belief in Christ, today as always, can be attained only when there is asenseofneed.

ThatdoesnotmeanthatwedespisetheexternalproofsoftheChristianreligion.Theyareabsolutelynecessary;without themthesenseofneedwouldleadonlytodespair.Itisoneoftherooterrorsofthepresentdayto suppose that because thephilosophical andhistorical foundations ofour religion are insufficient to produce faith, they are thereforeunnecessary.Thetruthisthattheir insufficiencyisduenotatall toanyweaknessoftheirownbutonlytoaweaknessinourminds.Pragmatismshould be avoided by the Christian with all the energy of his soul, asindeed it should be avoided by everyonewhowill not acquiesce in thepresent lamentable intellectual decline which pragmatism has broughtabout.ThefactsoftheChristianreligionremainfactsnomatterwhetherwe cherish them or not: they are facts forGod; they are facts both forangels and for demons; they are facts now, and they will remain factsbeyondtheendoftime.

But,aswehaveobservedinanearlierpartofourdiscussion,thefactsareone thing, and the recognition of the facts is another. And it is therecognitionofthefactsthatdependsforusuponthesenseofneed.Themanwhohascometodiscernthesinofhisownsoul,whohasstrippedasidethemiserableconventionalexcusesforsinandseenhimselfasGodseeshim,isamanwholikeadrowningpersonwillsnatchataplankthatmay save him from the abyss. Without the sense of dire need thestupendous,miraculouseventsofJesus'comingandJesus' resurrection

areunbelievablebecausetheyareoutoftheusualorder;buttothemanwhoknowstheterribleneedcausedbysinthesethingsarevaluablejustbecause they are out of the usual order. The man who is under theconvictionofsincanacceptthesupernatural;forHeknowsthatthereisanadequateoccasionforitsentranceintothecourseofthisworld.

Bring even modern men to a real sense of sin, and despite all theprejudiceagainstthegospelstory,theywillbeledtocryatleast:"Lord,Ibelieve;helpthoumineunbelief."ThatcryofthedistressedmaninMarkwasnotthecryofperfectfaith.Butthroughitthemanwassaved.Soitwill be today. Even very imperfect and veryweak faith is sufficient forsalvation;salvationdoesnotdependuponthestrengthofourfaith,butitdependsuponChrist.When youwant assurance of salvation, thinknotabout your faith, but about the Personwho is the object of your faith.Faith is not a force that does something, but it is a channel by whichsomething is received. Once let that channel be opened, and salvationcomesinnevertodepart.ItisagreatmistaketosupposethatChristianswinthroughtosalvationbecausetheymaintainthemselvesbytheirowneffortsinanattitudeoffaith.Onthecontrary,savingfaithmeansputtingone's trust once for all in Christ. He will never desert those who arecommittedtoHim,butwillkeepthemsafebothinthisworldandinthatwhichistocome.

In the second part of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress there is one of thoseunforgettable portraits which have caused the book of the tinker ofBedford—thattenderestandmosttheologicalofEnglishbooks—tobeoneofthetruemasterpiecesoftheworld'sliterature.Itistheportraitof"Mr.Fearing."Mr.Fearinghad"therootofthematter"inhim;hewasatrueChristian.Buthegot littlecomfortoutofhisreligion.WhenhecametotheInterpreter'shouse,hewasafraid togo in;he lay tremblingoutsidetillhewasalmoststarved.But then,whenat lasthewasbrought in,hereceivedawarmwelcome."IwillsaythatformyLord,"saidGreat-heart,"he carried it wonderful lovingly to him." And so Mr. Fearing wentmoaningly on his way; and when he was come to the entrance of theValleyoftheShadowofDeath."Ithought,"saidtheguide,"Ishouldhavelostmyman."AtlasthecametotheRiverwhichallmustcross,andtherehewas in a heavy case. "Now, now, he said, he should be drowned for

ever,andsoneverseethatfacewithcomfortthathehadcomesomanymilestobehold."Butnever,wearetold,hadthewaterofthatRiverbeenseensolowasitwasonthedaythatMr.Fearingwentacross."Sohewentoveratlast,notmuchabovewet-shod.WhenhewasgoinguptotheGate,Mr.Great-heartbeganto takehis leaveofhim,andtowishhimagoodreceptionabove.Sohesaid,Ishall,Ishall."

Suchistheblessedendofthemanevenoflittlefaith.Weakfaithwillnotremovemountains,but there is one thingat least that itwilldo; itwillbringasinnerintopeacewithGod.Oursalvationdoesnotdependuponthestrengthofourfaith;savingfaithisachannelnotaforce.Ifyouareonce really committed to Christ, then despite your subsequent doubtsandfearsyouareHisforever.

THEEND.

MONERGISMBOOKS

WhatisFaith?byJ.GreshamMachen,Copyright©2019

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.

ePub, .mobi&.pdfEditionsMay2015.Requests for informationshouldbeaddressedto:MonergismBooks,POBox491,WestLinn,OR97068