1849.] Scriptural Truth in the form of Testimony. 179 course and reception of this doctrine in the early church, where it at once came into the midst of two great, conflicting tendencies, those of the Jewish and the Grecian culture. In considering the history of a doctrine there are two points that need to be carefully impressed. The first is, that the impulse to the development is given by the doctrine, as taught in the Scriptures. This is the seed. This is the origin of the whole. Unless we assume this, the entire history has no vital principle. The second point is that it is unhistorical to suppose the whole early church to be as fully in possession of the whole doctrine in all its parts and relations, as was the church at a later era, or as it is found in the writings of the apostles, which are the standard for all times. The truth will rather be found to be this; that if there are two or more types of the same doctrine, the lower form will be the one first unfolded in the history of the church; and the higher form will be realized in its full import by the church as a whole only after a long process of discussion and controversy. And this is a natural order. Thus in respect to one doctrine, the lower type, while it still contains the essential elements of the truth, contains them in closer alliance with the views which prevailed, before the new idea was introduced into the world. This type would then probably be the one first discussed, and which would be most congenial to the general associations, especially of the Jewish Christians. It is further worthy of notice, that the truth is not revealed in the Scriptures in the dogmatic form, but rather in the form of testimony, testimony in word and deed-the form best adapted to the purpose for which the Scripture was given, to awaken faith in the heart. But this does not prevent, nor detract from the necessity of also having the truth in a proper doctrinal form. It is in the nature of Christianity to penetrate the whole man. And he that would except the intellect, and remain content with implicit faith, deprives faith itself of its rights, since in all faith there is an element of knowledge. Testimony, the mere proclamation of the word, is indeed enough to lead the sinner to faith in Christ; and it has done this in all centuries. But the world historical energy and influence of Christianity are not adequately recognized, where this is made to be all; it is also the office and duty of the church to increase in knowledge, to present its faith in a scientific form; and this, when done, reäcts healthfully upon the faith itself. A scientific and philosophical view of Christianity is an absolute good, and essentially contributes to make man more perfectly conformed to the image of God. But in order to reach this philosophical form, a long and severe process is necessary. It is a hard work. The revealed truth, imbibed by faith, comes into hearts already prepossessed by other notions. It comes among nations who have the widest diversity of opinion, derived from their schools of philosophy, or from their previous religious views. All these the new truth is to remould. It is to conquer their errors; but before it can conquer, it must contend. Thus was it eminently with the doctrine of the person of Christ, when it was introduced into a world where Jewish or Hellenistic ⚫ speculations respecting the nature of God and of man had full possession of all minds and hearts. What the radical conception of the two were, we have already seen; we are now to point out, in general terms, how the new truth would be received and affected by the old. We think it will appear that these influences, though they at first had a disturbing effect, contributed in the end to the consolidation of the doctrine; and the fact that they thus contributed, will be an additional proof of the power of this new idea; while the way in which the discussions were carried on and finally adjusted, will further show the difference of the new truth from the more ancient speculations, as also its adaptation to confront and overcome them. Suppose now, that a man educated in the Jewish system had come, by faith, to know Christ as his Redeemer. He believes in Christ with all his heart. In the Son he has found the Father. There is, then, a close relation between the Son and the Father. What is the nature of this relation, would be his first inquiry, when he came to reflect upon his faith. In interpreting this relation, or the expressions by which the inspired apostles denoted this relation, he would naturally call to aid his previous views and opinions respecting the nature of God and of man. His Christian thinking would naturally be clothed in his traditional forms of thought; at least he would, by way of trial, endeavor to bring the new truth into connection with his former habits of reflection. Thus it would also be with the Greek. And the difference between these two circles of thought would be so great, that different parties would arise, there would be conflict between the two. though there is a conflict, there is also a common element in them both, the new Christian faith. This faith, as we have seen, proclaimed in the doctrine of the person of Christ a truth, after which both Jew and Greek were seeking, yet which they were not able to find. On the one hand, in its description of Christ as the Messiah, as prophet, priest, and king it harmonized with and carried out to its fullest expression, the elements contained in the Jewish system; on the other hand, in But 1849.] Bond of Unity between God and the World. 181 the idea of the Logos, it came into close affinity with the Hellenist. The Jew would be attracted by those elements which allied it to his previous creed, but he would be repelled by the statements which gave it currency with the Greek; and the Greek would, in like manner, be both attracted and repulsed; attracted by that which the Jew would not be so willing to receive, and repelled by that to which the Jew would most naturally cling. The doctrine of the person of Christ would thus stand, as it were, in the centre between two conflicting tendencies; and it would prove its divine origin by gradually drawing the two together, as to a common centre. Thus it would show itself to contain a truth higher than either, yet adapted to both; and so persuasive and prevalent was it, that it at length drew together these two opposing tendencies, and made them one in the confession of the truth as it is in Jesus. And in this confession are contained the elements which animated the two contending parties, expressed in a higher form, and brought into a state of perfect union, and realized in the person of the God-man. Had there been only the Greek tendency, this doctrine could never have been brought out; for the Hellenist had no definite sense of the personality of God, or of his highest moral attributes. On the other hand, had there been only the Jewish tendencies, these were too severely monotheistic, to allow them to come naturally to such a truth. Had the Greek and the Jew met in conflict, there would have been perpetual warfare, but no common or reconciling central truth. That reconciling truth was given only in the manifestation of God in the flesh. Christianity thus solved the great problem which these two parties were discussing from opposite points of view. It contains the substantial truth of these two religions; since in the doctrine of the person of Christ it gives us the difference as well as the unity of the divine and the human, and thus leads to more correct views both of the nature of God and of man. Is heathenism seeking the apotheosis of human nature? In Christ it is given, for here is a man who is God. Is the true Jewish tendency that which seeks the completion of the revelation left incomplete in the law? This is given it in Christ, for in him is the revelation of the depths of the divine condescension and love; God has become man. Here is the point where the bond of unity between God and the world, which heathenism was always looking af 1 Hence, on the one hand the sect of the Ebionites, and on the other the influence of the Alexandrian philosophy, in the early church. ter, is fully exhibited; but it is so exhibited, that the material notions of heathenism are entirely obliterated, and that the personality as well as the holiness of God, which are the great ideas of the Old Testament, come to their perfect expression. The highest view of man which heathenism could form was, that he is of divine off-spring, in a purely natural sense; but in Christ we have a man, who is not merely divine in nature, but all whose words and acts are divine; both in an ethical and natural sense, he is the Son of God. And thus he was fitted for his great work of reconciling man with God. And as far as man himself is concerned we have also, in the Christian view of his new life, a higher truth than ever Jew or pagan knew —and a truth which corrects and reconciles the highest conceptions of both. The pagan speaks of man as divine, without reference to his moral state; the Jew insists upon his obedience to the external law, without first and directly insisting upon a total change in his spiritual condition, upon his being made a partaker of the divine nature. Christianity would make men both in nature and in act to be the children of God and the brothers of Christ; but in opposition to heathenism, it enforces a moral likeness, and in contrast with the legal principle it demands a spiritual regeneration. And in demanding this spiritual and moral renovation, it annuls the heathen assumption that we are already by nature so closely connected with God that we need no moral change; while it also exposes the futility of that righteousness which comes from external conformity to the law. Thus the old man dies and gives place to the new, who by the grace of the Holy Spirit is made a partaker of the divine nature, and through the Son received into the fellowship of the Father. Man becomes the Son of God in a sense which neither Jew nor pagan ever conceived; and thus does the Christian faith rebut the errors which each held, and bring out the truth which reconciles the two, and which also leads man to a state of reconciliation with God. But before the fall truth could be received, it must contend against prevalent errors and partial principles. When introduced into the world it encountered masses of Jewish and heathen prejudices. It dissipated them, not by a sudden magical stroke, but by severe toil. The principle which gave life to the error lost its exclusive influence wherever Christianity was really embraced; and the innate and victorious power of the new principle is seen as it diffuses itself through a world filled with error, and forms a new world of its own. To trace this triumphant progress of the doctrine of the Person of Christ is the appropriate office of a history of this doctrine. The animatiug principle of this history, as we have seen, is the new rev 1849.] Three distinct Periods of the Doctrine. 183 elation which was given to Christ, and which is laid down in the canonical Scriptures as a norm for all ages. Starting from this point, the history has to do, not with the simple faith of the church, which has been more nearly the same in all its centuries; nor yet alone with the successively framed confessions of faith, for these are but the condensed summary of ages of discussion; but the appropriate work of such a history is to exhibit the process and progress of human thought, as employed about the new revelation. It will show how men speculated upon a novel and grand truth; how they were often bewildered and led astray by their previous views; how the truth at length obtained full mastery; how its various elements were successively developed and combined; in a word, how that which was originally given in the form of faith, came to assume also the form of system and of science; how it came to be dominant in human reason, as it was from the first dominant in the human heart. And that historical view of this doctrine would be the true one which should be able to depict how it was introduced into the full current of human thought and feeling, and, with a quiet confidence in its ultimate victory, subjected to misrepresentations and perversions without number; and how it there worked still and constant, sinking deeper and deeper into the human heart, until when the hour had struck, it emerged in its grand and victorious progress, and, suddenly, as by enchantment, the bands fall from the eyes of Christendom, the mists are dispersed, and the radiant image of Christ stands forth in fuller form and glory than ever before. Such an exhibition would be a true one, for it would be animated by the same pulsation which beats in the history itself. Such a history will give the development of the doctrine in both its parts; it will show how the human or lower element was unfolded. To neglect this would be the Docetism of historical narration. It will also exhibit the evolution of the higher and divine element, for to neglect this would be the Ebionitism of an historical narration. Between these two tendencies the doctrine pursued its course; so to describe it is the duty of the historian. The whole course of the doctrine is to be divided into three distinct periods, each of which has its special characteristics. The first period comprises the first four centuries of the Christian church. It begins with the general consciousness that in the Person of Christ the divine and the human are united. Starting from this general assumption, the church proceeds to establish the concrete ele |
