Page images
PDF
EPUB

the grave, in which the body is buried; but the corruption, dishonor and weakness belong to the world. It is through weakness of intellect, that many errors exist. It is through weakness of conscience, that sins are multiplied. It is through weakness of heart, that many noble schemes prove abortive. All this is excluded from that condition into which the seed is raised.

The natural body and the spiritual body present great dif ficulties to many expounders. We propose to remove these, by a different rendering. There is no pronoun it, in the rendering, "It is sown;" but it became necessary from the fact, that the verb is sown has no other subject; every one of the nouns that follow this verb, being in an oblique case, and governed by the propsition in. (ev) But when we come to the passage, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body," the pronoun it ceases to be a necessity, and becomes absurd. Let us see. The pronoun becomes unnecessary, for the reason, that the verb has another subject. This is body. The rendering should be, The natural body is sown; the spiritual body is raised. if we use the other form, It is sown a natural body, we use a contradiction. We say it, (the seed, the whole seed) is sown a natural body; while this natural body is only a part of the seed. The next sentence is equally contradictory. It asserts that the seed is raised; and then that only a part is raised; for the spiritual body is only a part.

-

The passage, uow before us, was designed to make plain all that went before, concerning sowing and raising the seed. It says, The natural body is sown; the spiritual body is raised. Not so the soul of the seed that is sown and the same is raised. That is first in the natural body; and then in the spiritual body. The man who reads this illustration of the apostle, and especially with our improved rendering, and does not see that the soul passes out of the natural body into the spiritual, in the process of the resurrection, must be very stupid, or suffering "judicial blindness."

The last sentence of our last quotation begins with an ifIf there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. We

do not know what authorities for this word if the revisers may have discovered. Doubtless they became satisfied, that the word was genuine. In Tittmann the word is given as a various reading; but he does not put it in the text. Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort, sustain the if. It adds something to the emphasis of the assertion, that there is a spiritual body.

VIII. It will be seen that in the passage now before us, every verb is in the present tense. So is the resurrection; it is sown; it is raised, four times repeated. There is a natural body; there is a spiritual body. We have had the same form repeatedly; and we shall find it often in the rest of the chapter. This is exceedingly proper, if the resurrection is a continuous and progressive work. But if it is all future and simultaneous, we should not expect to find this usage.

It is the same with the questions, which the apostle is answering, How are the dead raised? With what body do they come? If one would like to know how we account for those instances in which the future term is employed, our reply is, first, that such instances are comparatively few; and, next, when they do occur, they relate to the living, whose resurrection is future, because their death is so; or they relate to all mankind including the living. In some instances the translator gives a future tense, when the original is not future. Luke xx. 35 is a notable example. See king James' version. The late revisers have changed the tense.

W. E. Manley, D.D.

We will give one in the form of an
When we had our residence in

*One sound argument is as good as a thousand anecdote, the truth of which we can vouch for. Gainesville, N. Y., more than forty years ago, we knew a physician, whose name was Amsden. He had a son that followed the same calling; but our anecdote concerns the father, who was an unbeliever, and not the son, who was an exemplary Universalist. The old doctor had great respect for Universalism; but Orthodoxy he despised and abhored with all his soul. Of course the rigid religionists showed their zeal for God, by not calling him. He was a very skilful physician and surgeon. And these pious people were not so anxious to leave "this wicked world" and go to heaven, but that, as a last resort, they would send for "old Amsden." On one occasion, one of these men had a son, who had suffered long with a diseased leg. At last the doctors said, it must be amputated. The distressed father, who hated Amsden; and whom A. did not love above measure, finally consented that A. might be called. Several of the

ARTICLE XI.

The Creed Question.

MUCH has been said, preached and printed on the Creeds of Christendom. The question is still often and warmly mooted, whether they should be, or can be, altered, amended, and improved, or must remain intact, to be made the test of faith and fellowship for all future generations. We have no desire to enter the list of contestants. Able advocates are enlisted on all sides, amply qualified and willing to exhaust what arguments and present what authorities, can be found to sustain their differering opinions.

Back of these arguments and above all human authorities lies the more important question, whether it were not wiser, better, more Christian to abolish all Creeds, designed and constructed by ambitious men and voted into authority by majorities in councils and conventicles assembled for the purpose. Civil governments have no rights in such matters. Although Creeds are become little more than playthings for some, dead letters for more, and subjects of controversy wherever regarded of saving importance; they are still the basis of sectarian distinctions and harmful in many ways. They are harmless only when let alone. They have outlived their usefulness, (if they ever were useful,) and are generally kept out of sight to be exhibited only on special occasions. They have too long led to bitter and hateful contentions and rivalrics, creating discords and diversions in churches and neighborhoods, alienating friends and families, awakening doubts and creating difficulties in serious minds which often end in medical fraternity were in attendance. All gave their opinion, that the limb could not be saved, except Amsden. He said he had two reasons for not taking off the leg. One was, that it could be cured. He was silent for a while, when one of the attending surgeons reminded him that he had given but one of the two reasons, for not taking off the leg. That it would get well was very gratifying; but if he had another reason, they would like to hear it. The doctor said his second reason was a very important one. The lad was young and his limbs were small. If they should cut off the limb and bury it; and the boy should grow to be a man, he would present a sad appearance in the resurrection with a man's body and a boy's leg!

unbelief, and lead to a distrust of the sincerity of those who profess them. They certainly have been used, whether intended or not, to control religious thought, circumscribe reason, prevent free investigation, and misguide conduct, denying "the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and entangling in a yoke of bondage."

A Creed is a statement of what is believed by him who makes it, it may be, in whole or in part, of what is believed by him who accepted it. It may contain truth; it may contain error; or, more likely, a moiety of truth and a modicum of error. Did it contain all truth, nothing but truth, absolute truth, it could need no change; it could not be improved, but might, with propriety, be proclaimed perpetual and universal. It would prevail as far and as fast as it became known. It would unite and make free all who embraced it. The Council at Ephesus did so proclaim, and solemnly enjoin that, "No person shall be allowed to bring forward or to write, or to compose any other Creed besides that which was settled by the Holy Fathers who were assembled in the city of Nicæa." Many Creeds had been adopted by previous councils and synods, one of which was afterwards ratified at the council at Chalcedon; and the Nicæan Creed has been changed and enlarged several times since. So it appears the "authority assembled at Nicæa, backed by imperial authority did not protect the Creed of "The Church Universal," nor secure the "union, peace and harmony," for which that famous council was called. On the contrary, new differences arose, feelings were embittered, fiercer controversies and wider divisions were augmented, and heresies and irreligion increased more rapidly than ever.

[ocr errors]

A Christian Creed professes to be a summary or compendium of Christian doctrine. Its makers and abettors claim to know exactly what is truth in the abstract and in the concrete, and precisely how to state, define and defend it, to make it the ultimate standard of a saving faith; the only condition of fellowship and right to the Christian name. Outward assent to such Creed is all that ecclesiastical or inspired author

ity can demand, enforce, or expect. It is accepted, though the heart be far from it. At the stake, on the rack, in the dungeon, it is sufficient, while, in fact, the love of life and self-right veil the conscience from the sight of ungodly persecutors, and appeal to the law of God, higher than church or state ever did or ever can enact. Before Creed Inquisitors honesty is not allowed to speak the truth or plead the right in safety. Doubt or hesitation is construed to mean "damnable heresy," to be punished with anathema here, and endless misery hereafter. This is the milder form, to which little importance is now attached by the thinking people, in or out of the church. Formerly it had a much deeper and more fearful significance, and the expected tortures of the future were faintly imitated by the ..ost exquisite sufferings the devices of cruel and wicked men could inflict. Honesty, sincerity, the deepest convictions of truth, right, duty, purity of life, holiness of heart, loyalty to God, conscience, humanity and the king, availed nothing in ecclesiastical courts.. Coufession of the Creed, however insincere and hypocritical, offered in the last extremity, with becoming grace, obtained deliverance and secured protection.

That such a Creed was formulated by Jesus, or authority given his disciples to form one, cannot be pretended. His was a different ruling in the chancery of the kingdom he came to establish in the earth. What is called the Apostles' Creed was not known till near the middle of the eighth century. It was never adopted by any general council of the Church.

It was very natural; yea, it was necessary that the missionaries of the gospel should make a plain, distinct, emphatic statement of the Principles they had learned of Jesus, which they believed to be true and important, and which they taught in his name, in distinction from the theories and practices of the people for whose conviction, conversion, and salvation they labored. So much was indispensable to the success of their mission. But that they were given a dogmatic Creed to offer for the Confession, or to enforce for a guide and limit of their faith, beyond the simple conviction that Jesus was the

« PreviousContinue »