CHANGES IN THE AUTHOR'S VIEWS.
My studies led me to make considerable changes both in my views and way
of speaking.
1. With regard to my views. I found that some of the doctrines which I
had been taught as Christian doctrines, were not so much as hinted at by
Christ and His Apostles,--that some doctrines which Christ and His
Apostles taught with great plainness, I never had been taught at all;
and that some of the doctrines of Christ and His Apostles which I had
been taught, I had been taught in very different forms from those in
which they were presented in the New Testament.
I found that some doctrines which I had been taught as doctrines of the
greatest importance, were never so much as alluded to in the whole
Bible, while in numbers of places quite contrary doctrines were taught.
While unscriptural doctrines were inculcated as fundamental doctrines of
the Gospel, some of the fundamental doctrines themselves were not only
neglected, but denounced as grievous heresies.
Many passages of Scripture which were perfectly plain when left to speak
out their own meaning, had been used so badly by theologians, that they
had become unintelligible to ordinary Christians. While professing to
give the passages needful explanations, they had heaped upon them
impenetrable obscurations. Words that, as they came from Jesus, were
spirit and life, had been so grievously perverted, that they had become
meaningless or mischievous.
I met with passages which had been used as proofs of doctrines to which
they had not the slightest reference. There were the words of Jeremiah
for instance: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his
spots?" The prophet is speaking of the impossibility of men, after long
continuance in wilful sin, breaking off their bad habits; as the closing
words of the passage show; "Then may ye who are _accustomed_ to do evil,
do well." But the theologians took the words and used them in support of
the doctrine that no man in his unconverted state can do anything
towards his salvation,--a doctrine which is neither Scriptural nor
rational. Again; Isaiah, referring to the calamitous condition of the
Jewish nation, in consequence of God's judgments, says: "The whole head
is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot to the
head, there is no soundness; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying
sores," &c. This, which the prophet said with regard to the _state_ of
the _Jews_, the theologians applied to the _character_, not of the Jews
only, but of _all mankind_. What Paul said about the law of Moses, and
the works or deeds required by that law, the theologians applied to the
law of Christ. And so with regard to multitudes of passages. I was
constantly coming across passages that the theologians systematically
perverted, taking them from their proper use and meaning, and forcing
them into the support of notions to which they had not the slightest
reference. The liberties taken with the words of Paul went far towards
turning the writings of that great advocate and example of holiness into
lessons of licentiousness.
It was plain that, on many points, theology was one thing, and
Christianity another; and that many and important changes would have to
be made in the creeds and confessions of Christendom, before they could
be brought into harmony with the truth as taught by Jesus.
Some theological doctrines I found rested on the authority of Milton's
Paradise Lost, or of the Church of England Prayer Book, or on the
authority of earlier works from which Milton or the authors of the
Prayer Book had borrowed.
One day, about forty-two years ago, I was travelling homewards from
Shields to Blyth on foot, when a man with a cart overtook me, and asked
me to get in and ride. I did so. The man and I were soon busy discussing
theology. We talked on saving faith, imputed righteousness,
predestination, divine foreknowledge, election, reprobation and
redemption. We differed on every point, and the man got very warm. He
then spake of a covenant made between God the Father and His Son before
the creation of the world, giving me all the particulars of the
engagement. I told him I had read something about a covenant of that
kind in Milton's Paradise Lost, but that I had never met with anything
on the subject in the sacred writings, and added that I doubted whether
any such transaction ever took place. He got more excited than ever, and
expressed some uneasiness at having such a blasphemous heretic in his
cart. Just then one of the cart wheels came off and down went the
vehicle on one side, spilling me and the driver on the road. I was
quickly on my feet, but he lay on his back sprawling in the sand.
"That's a judgment," said he, "on your blasphemies." "You seem to have
got the worst part of the judgment," said I. I asked him if I could help
him. He seemed to hint that I ought to pay for the damage done to the
cart; but as that was not in the covenant, I did not take the hint; and
as he was in a somewhat unamiable temper, I left him to himself, and
trudged on homeward. The carter and I had no more discussions on
covenants. But many a bit of theology has been built on Milton since
then.
Other doctrines I found to be new versions of old pagan imaginations.
Some seemed to have originated in the selfish and sensual principles of
human nature, which make men wishful to avoid self-denial and a life of
beneficence, and to find some easy way to heaven.
In some cases Protestants had run into extremes through a hatred and
horror of Popery, while in others orthodox teachers had run into
extremes through hatred and dread of Socinianism.
In other cases doctrines seemed to have been rested on no authority but
the facts, or supposed facts, of individual experiences.
Some great doctrines were rendered incomprehensible, repulsive, or
incredible, in consequence of not being accompanied with other
doctrines, which were necessary to explain their use, and make manifest
their reasonableness and worth. There was no lack of attention among
theologians to the doctrine that Christ was an incarnation of the Deity;
but little or no regard was paid to the kindred doctrine, its necessary
accompaniment, that Jesus was the 'image,' the 'likeness,' of God, the
revelation or manifestation of His character. Yet this is essential to a
right understanding and a due appreciation of the other. The revelation
or manifestation of God, and especially of His eternal and infinite
love, was the great design and end of the incarnation. Taken apart from
this doctrine the incarnation becomes a dry hard fact, without use or
meaning. It is when viewed as a means of revealing God,--of making
manifest His infinite goodness, and by that means melting and purifying
man's heart, and transforming his character, that it is seen to be full
of interest and power and glory.
The doctrine that Jesus is God's image, God manifest in the flesh, is
the one great doctrine of Christianity,--the sum, the substance of the
whole Gospel,--the Gospel itself,--the power of God to the salvation of
every one that truly believes and contemplates it. It is a world of
truth in one,--a whole encyclopaedia of divine philosophy; the perfection
of all wisdom and of all power; the one great revelation needful to the
salvation of the world.
Yet I never met with this doctrine for the first thirty years of my
life, in any theological work. I have no recollection that I ever heard
it mentioned in a sermon. I certainly never heard it explained and
applied to the great purposes for which it was designed. I never was
told that to know the character of God, I had only to look at the
character of Christ,--that what Christ was during His life on earth in
the circle in which He moved, that God was throughout all worlds, and
towards all the creatures of His hands,--that the love which led Jesus
to suffer and die for the salvation of the world, lived and moved in the
heart of the infinite, invisible God, prompting Him to plan and labor
throughout immensity to promote the happiness of the whole creation. In
short, the Gospel was never preached to me in its simplicity and beauty,
in its glory and power, nor was it ever properly explained to me in
catechism, creed, confession, or body of divinity.
And generally, no sufficient stress was ever laid by theologians on the
value and necessity of personal virtue,--of religious and moral
goodness. It was believed that Christians would _have_ goodness of some
kind, in some degree,--that they would be, on the whole, in some
respects, better than the ungodly world; and there was a feeling that
they _ought_ to be so: but it was rare to meet with a preacher or a
book that put the subject in any thing like a Scriptural Christian
light. No one contended that goodness was everything, that it was the
one great all-glorious object for which the world was made, for which
the universe was upheld, for which prophets spake, for which the
Scriptures were written, for which God became incarnate, for which Jesus
lived and labored, for which He suffered and died, for which He founded
His Church and appointed and endowed its ministers, for which Providence
planned, and for which all things continued to exist. No one taught that
goodness was the only thing for which God cared, the only thing which He
esteemed and loved, and the only thing He would reward and bless. Books
and preachers did not use to tell us, that faith, and knowledge, and
feeling,--that repentance, conversion, and sanctification,--that reading
the Scriptures, and hearing sermons, and singing hymns, and offering
prayers,--that church fellowship, and religious ordinances, were all
nothing except so far as they tended to make people good, and then to
make them better, and at last to perfect them in all divine and human
excellence. No one taught us that goodness was beauty, that goodness was
greatness, that goodness was glory, that goodness was happiness, that
goodness was heaven. The truth was never pressed on us that the want of
goodness was deformity, dishonor and shame,--that it was pain, and
wretchedness, and torment, and death,--that goodness in full measure
would make earth heaven--that its decline and disappearance would make
earth hell. Yet a careful and long-continued perusal of the Scriptures
left the impression on my mind, that this was really the case. When I
compared the eternal talk about all our goodness being of no account in
the sight of God,--of all our righteousness being but as filthy
rags,--with the teachings of Scripture, I felt as if theologians were
anti-christ, and their theology the gospel of the wicked one. I have no
wish to do injustice to theology, or to theologians either; but the more
I knew of them, the less I thought of them. And even when the Christian
and theologian got blended, as they did, to some extent, in such men as
Baxter and Wesley, I pitied the theologian while I esteemed and loved
the Christian. Theological works are poor contemptible things. It would
have been no great loss to the world if nineteen-twentieths of them had
been burnt in the Chicago fire.
I was often grievously harassed with prevailing theories of Scripture
inspiration. All those theories seemed inconsistent with
facts,--inconsistent with what every man of any information, knew to be
true in reference to the Scriptures. They all lay open to infidel
objections,--unanswerable objections. They made it impossible for a man
to argue with the abler and better informed class of infidel assailants
with the success and satisfaction desirable. The theories did not
_admit_ of a successful defence. And when the theories were refuted, the
Bible and Christianity suffered. On searching the Scriptures I found
they gave no countenance to those theories. They taught the _doctrine_
of Scripture inspiration, but not the prevailing _theories_ of the
doctrine. The doctrine I could defend with ease: the defence of the
theories was impossible. I accordingly laid aside the theories.
Again; I heard and read continually about the influence and work of the
Holy Spirit; but I seldom heard and read of the influence of the truth.
Yet in Scripture we read as much and as often of the latter as of the
former.
I had been led, in some way, to believe that Adam was the federal head
of all mankind,--that God made a covenant with him that was binding on
all his posterity,--that the destinies of the whole human race were
placed in his hands,--that it was so arranged that if Adam did right,
his posterity were to be born in a state of perfection and blessedness,
incapable of sin and misery,--that if he did wrong they were to be born
depraved and miserable, under the curse of God, and liable to death and
damnation--that as Adam did do wrong, we all came into the world so
depraved that we were incapable of thinking a good thought, of feeling a
good desire, of speaking a right word, or of doing a right thing,--that
Jesus came into the world to redeem us from the guilt of Adam's sin, and
from the punishment due to us for that sin, and to put us on such a
footing with regard to God as to render possible our salvation. I had
been led to believe a hundred other things connected with these about
the plan of redemption, the way of salvation, imputed righteousness,
saving faith, &c. When I came to look for those doctrines in the Bible,
I could not find one of them from the beginning of the Book to the end.
I was in consequence led to regard them as the imaginations of
unthinking, trifling, or dreamy theologians.
There are few doctrines more generally received than the doctrine of
types,--the doctrine that persons and things under the older
dispensations were intended to direct the minds of those who saw them to
things corresponding to them under the Christian dispensation. In
McEwen's work on Types, which appears to have had an immense
circulation, is this sentence,--'That the grand doctrines of
Christianity concerning the mediation of Christ, &c., were typically
_manifested_ to the church by a variety of ceremonies, persons and
events, under the Old Testament dispensation, is past doubt.' And it is
very plainly intimated, that those who affect to call this notion in
question, and yet pretend to be friends of a divine revelation, are
hypocrites. It is added: 'The sacrifices were ordained to pre-figure
Christ,--and were professions of faith in His propitiation.'
There are but few preachers or religious books which do not go on the
supposition that this doctrine is taught in Scripture. And you may hear
sermon after sermon from some preachers, the chief object of which is to
point out correspondences between the paschal lamb, the scape-goat, and
other sacrifices under the Law, and Jesus and the sacrifice which He
offered. Some preachers and religious writers take almost all things
under the law to be types of Christ, or types of things pertaining to
Him. They make Noah, and Isaac, and Melchisedec, and Joseph, and Moses,
and Joshua, and David, and Samson, and Solomon, and the brazen serpent,
and the rod of Aaron, and the manna, types of Christ, and almost all the
sacrifices they make types of His great sacrifice of Himself.
I could see no warrant for this doctrine. I could find no proof that any
of the sacrifices under the law were intended to direct the minds of
those who offered them to the sacrifice of Jesus. There is nothing in
the law, and there is nothing in the prophets to that effect. There is
no passage of Scripture which says that any one ever _did_ look through
the old Levitical sacrifices to Christ. There is no passage which says
it was men's duty to do so; none which commends any one for doing so,
or which blames any one for not doing so. The prophets often rebuke the
Israelites for their injustice, intemperance, deceit and cruelty, but
they never rebuke them for not looking through their sacrifices to the
sacrifice of Jesus. They often exhort people to 'cease to do evil and
learn to do well;' but they never urge them to regard their sacrifices
as types or manifestations of the sacrifice of Christ. Christ nowhere
teaches the ordinary doctrine of types. He never refers to anything as a
type of His sacrifice, or of anything else connected with His work. Nor
do the Apostles say anything to countenance the prevailing notion. For
anything the Scriptures say to the contrary, the whole doctrine of
types, as set forth in such books as that of McEwen, is a human fiction.
Indeed, I see no hint in Scripture that any one had the least idea that
the Messiah would offer Himself a sacrifice for sin till after the
sacrifice had taken place. Isaiah and Daniel spake on the subject, and
'They inquired and searched diligently,' says Peter, 'what, or what
manner of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when
it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that
should follow; unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but
unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by
them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent
down from Heaven.' And we know that Christ's own disciples did not
believe that Christ would die at all. So far were they from having any
thought of such a thing, that when Jesus told them, in the plainest
words imaginable, they did not understand Him. The fact had to reveal
itself. And even now the nature and end of Christ's sacrifice are but
very imperfectly understood.
And if the doctrine of types falls to the ground, some other doctrines,
which rest upon it, must go down. Certain notions about the faith of the
ancient saints must give way, and the views of saving faith presented in
the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews must take their
place.
Great numbers of religious teachers and writers attribute to Adam and
Eve, in their first state, an amount of knowledge, and a perfection of
righteousness, which the Scriptures nowhere ascribe to them, and which,
if they had possessed them, would have rendered it impossible, one
would think, that they should have yielded so readily to temptation.
They represent the first sin as having effects which are never
attributed to it in the Bible.
They give an unwarrantable meaning to the word death contained in the
first threatening.
They attribute to man's first sin inconveniences of the seasons, and of
the different climates of the globe, as well as a thousand things on the
earth's surface, and in the dispositions and habits of the lower
animals, which are not attributed _to_ that cause by the sacred writers.
They spend a vast amount of time and words in trying to prove that the
reason why Abel's sacrifice was more excellent than that of Cain, and
was accepted by God, was that Abel offered animals, and had an eye to
the sacrifice of Christ, while Cain offered only the fruits of the
ground, that did not typify or symbolize that sacrifice; a notion for
which there is no authority in Scripture. The story in Genesis seems to
intimate that the sacrifice of Cain was rejected because he was a
bad-living man, and that the sacrifice of Abel was accepted because he
was a good-living man. Hence the words of God in His address to Cain,
'Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest
well shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth
at the door.' And hence too the statement of John, that Cain slew his
brother because his own works were evil and his brother's righteous. And
the faith attributed to Abel, as well as to Enoch, Moses and others, in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, is not faith in the sacrifice of Christ, but
simply a belief in God; a belief that 'He _is_, and that He is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek Him, or lovingly serve Him.'
There were many definitions and descriptions of saving faith common in
religious books for which I could find no authority in Scripture.
I also met with a multitude of cold hard things about the Trinity and
the Atonement in works on Theology which I never was unhappy enough to
find in the Bible. All seemed pleasant and natural and of heavenly
tendency there. I read books which seemed to require me to believe in
three Gods; but I met with nothing of the kind in Scripture. I heard
prayers and forms of benediction worded in a way altogether different
from the prayers and benedictions found in the Bible. The Scriptures
allowed me to think of God, in the first place, as one, as I myself was
one. They did not tell me He was three in the same way as I was three;
but they left the doctrine of the Trinity in such a state or shape that
I found no more difficulty in receiving it, than I found in receiving
the fact of a Trinity in myself. I left accordingly the hard repulsive
representations of the theologians to their fate, and accepted and
contented myself with the living, rational and practical representations
of Scripture in their stead.
The work of Christ was generally represented by theologians as exerting
its influence directly on God. His death was generally spoken of as a
satisfaction to divine justice, or as an expedient for harmonizing the
divine attributes, or maintaining the principles of the divine
government. God was represented as being placed in a difficulty,--as
being unable to gratify His love in forgiving men on their repenting and
turning to Him, without violating His justice and His truth, and putting
in peril the principles of His government. There were several other
theological theories of the design or object of the death of Christ. All
these theories may be true in a certain sense. They may, perhaps, be so
explained as to make them harmonize with the teachings of Scripture. But
I found none of them in the Bible. I found multitudes of passages which
represented the death and sufferings of Christ as intended to influence
men, but not one that taught any of the theological theories,--hardly
one that even seemed to do so. Here again I took the Scripture
representations, and allowed the theological ones to slide.
There was a hymn which said of Christ, 'Our debt He has paid, and our
work He has done.' I could find nothing in Scripture about the Saviour
paying our debt, or doing our work. I could find passages which taught
that our debts or sins might be _forgiven_, on our return to God. So far
were the Scriptures from teaching that Christ had done our work, that
they represented Him as coming into the world to fit us to do it
ourselves,--as redeeming us and creating us anew that we might be
zealous of good works.
I could find nothing in Scripture to countenance the common notion about
the efficacy of the death-bed repentances of old, wilful, hardened
sinners. The Bible left on my mind the impression that 'whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap.'
Some preachers and writers spoke as if God the Father was sterner, less
tender and loving, than the Son. But as we have seen, the Bible taught
that Jesus was God's image, His likeness, the incarnation and revelation
of God,--God manifest in the flesh.
I read in books, and heard it said in sermons, that God did not answer
men's prayers, or grant them any blessing, or receive them at last to
heaven, on account of anything good in themselves, or of anything good
they did. Yet on looking through the Scriptures I found such passages as
these: 'Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, _then_ have we confidence
toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of Him, because we keep
His commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.'
In the parable of the talents I found God represented as saying, 'Well
done, thou good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful in
a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.' And in the Prophet
I read, 'Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness
that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he
shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth and turneth away from
all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he
shall not die.' I found the whole Bible going on the same principle. God
loves what is good for its own sake. It would be strange if He did not.
And how any one can think He is honoring God by teaching the contrary we
cannot understand.