that is disciplinary. If it accomplishes its purpose, the soul goes into
Elysium,--a doctrine like that of purgatory in the Papal scheme. But in
case the person proves incorrigible, his suffering is _endless_. He
represents an individual as having been restored to life, and giving an
account of what he had seen. Among other things, he "informed his friend,
how that Adrastia, the daughter of Jupiter and Necessity, was seated in
the highest place of all, to punish all manner of crimes and enormities,
and that in the whole number of the wicked and ungodly there never was
any one, whether great or little, high or low, rich or poor, that could
ever by force or cunning escape the severe lashes of her rigor. But
as there are three sorts of punishment, so there are three several
Furies, or female ministers of justice, and to every one of these
belongs a peculiar office and degree of punishment. The first of
these was called [Greek: Poinae] or _Pain_; whose executions are swift
and speedy upon those that are presently to receive bodily punishment
in this life, and which she manages after a more gentle manner, omitting
the correction of slight offences, which need but little expiation. But
if the cure of impiety require a greater labor, the Deity delivers those,
after death, to [Greek: Dikae] or _Vengeance_. But when Vengeance has
given them over as altogether _incurable_, then the third and most severe
of all Adrastia's ministers, [Greek: 'Erinys] or _Fury_, takes them in
hand, and after she has chased and coursed them from one place to
another, flying yet not knowing where to fly for shelter and relief,
plagued and tormented with a thousand miseries, she plunges them headlong
into an invisible abyss, the hideousness of which no tongue can express."
PLUTARCH: Morals, Vol. IV. p. 210. Ed. 1694. PLATO (Gorgias 525. c.d. Ed.
Bip. IV. 169) represents Socrates as teaching that those who "have
committed the most extreme wickedness, and have become incurable through
such crimes, are made an example to others, and suffer _forever_ ([Greek:
paschontas ton aei chronon]) the greatest, most agonizing, and most
dreadful punishment." And Socrates adds that "Homer (Odyssey xi. 575)
also bears witness to this; for he represents kings and potentates,
Tantalus, Sysiphus, and Tityus, as being tormented _forever_ in Hades"
([Greek: en adon ton aei chronon timoronmenos]).-In the Aztec or Mexican
theology, "the wicked, comprehending the greater part of mankind, were to
expiate their sin in a place of everlasting darkness." PRESCOTT: Conquest
of Mexico, Vol. I. p. 62.]
[Footnote 4: It may be objected, at this point, that mercy also is a
necessary attribute in God, like justice itself,--that it necessarily
belongs to the nature of a perfect Being, and therefore might be inferred
_a priori_ by the pagan, like other attributes. This is true; but the
objection overlooks the distinction between the _existence_ of an
attribute and its _exercise_. Omnipotence necessarily belongs to the idea
of the Supreme Being, but it does not follow that it must necessarily be
_exerted_ in act. Because God is able to create the universe of matter
and mind, it does not follow that he _must_ create it. The doctrine of
the necessity of creation, though held in a few instances by theists who
seem not to have discerned its logical consequences, is virtually
pantheistic. Had God been pleased to dwell forever in the
self-sufficiency of His Trinity, and never called the Finite into
existence from nothing, He might have done so, and He would still have
been omnipotent and "blessed forever." In like manner, the attribute of
mercy might exist in God, and yet not be exerted. Had He been pleased to
treat the human race as He did the fallen angels, He was perfectly at
liberty to do so, and the number and quality of his immanent attributes
would have been the same that they are now. But justice is an attribute
which not only exists of necessity, but must be _exercised_ of necessity;
because not to exercise it would be injustice.-For a fuller exposition of
the nature of justice, see SHEDD: Discourses and Essays, pp. 291-300.]
CHRISTIANITY REQUIRES THE TEMPER OF CHILDHOOD.
MARK x. 15.--"Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."
These words of our Lord are very positive and emphatic, and will,
therefore, receive a serious attention from every one who is anxious
concerning his future destiny beyond the grave. For, they mention an
indispensable requisite in order to an entrance into eternal life.
"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he
_shall not_ enter therein."
The occasion of their utterance is interesting, and brings to view a
beautiful feature in the perfect character of Jesus Christ. The Redeemer
was deeply interested in every age and condition of man. All classes
shared in His benevolent affection, and all may equally partake of the
rich blessings that flow from it. But childhood and youth seem to have
had a special attraction for Him. The Evangelist is careful to inform us,
that He took little children in His arms, and that beholding an amiable
young man He loved him,--a gush of feeling went out towards him. It was
because Christ was a perfect man, as well as the infinite God, that such
a feeling dwelt in His breast. For, there has never been an uncommonly
fair and excellent human character, in which tenderness and affinity for
childhood has not been a quality, and a quality, too, that was no small
part of the fairness and excellence. The best definition that has yet
been given of genius itself is, that it is the carrying of the feelings
of childhood onward into the thoughts and aspirations of manhood. He who
is not attracted by the ingenuousness, and trustfulness, and simplicity,
of the first period of human life, is certainly wanting in the finest and
most delicate elements of nature, and character. Those who have been
coarse and brutish, those who have been selfish and ambitious, those who
have been the pests and scourges of the world, have had no sympathy with
youth. Though once young themselves, they have been those in whom the
gentle and generous emotions of the morning of life have died out. That
man may become hardhearted, skeptical and sensual, a hater of his kind,
a hater of all that is holy and good, he must divest himself entirely of
the fresh and ingenuous feeling of early boyhood, and receive in its
place that malign and soured feeling which is the growth, and sign, of a
selfish and disingenuous life. It is related of Voltaire,--a man in whom
evil dwelt in its purest and most defecated essence,--that he had no
sympathy with the child, and that the children uniformly shrank from that
sinister eye in which the eagle and the reptile were so strangely
blended.
Our Saviour, as a perfect man, then, possessed this trait, and it often
showed itself in His intercourse with men. As an omniscient Being, He
indeed looked with profound interest, upon the dawning life of the human
spirit as it manifests itself in childhood. For He knew as no finite
being can, the marvellous powers that sleep in the soul of the young
child; the great affections which are to be the foundation of eternal
bliss, or eternal pain, that exist in embryo within; the mysterious
ideas that lie in germ far down in its lowest depths,--He knew, as no
finite creature is able, what is in the child, as well as in the man, and
therefore was interested in its being and its well-being. But besides
this, by virtue of His perfect humanity, He was attracted by those
peculiar traits which are seen in the earlier years of human life. He
loved the artlessness and gentleness, the sense of dependence, the
implicit trust, the absence of ostentation and ambition, the unconscious
modesty, in one word, the _child-likeness_ of the child.
Knowing this characteristic of the Redeemer, certain parents brought
their young children to Him, as the Evangelist informs us, "that He
should touch them;" either believing that there was a healthful virtue,
connected with the touch of Him who healed the sick and gave life to the
dead, that would be of benefit to them; or, it may be, with more elevated
conceptions of Christ's person, and more spiritual desires respecting the
welfare of their offspring, believing that the blessing (which was
symbolized by the touch and laying on of hands) of so exalted a Being
would be of greater worth than mere health of body. The disciples,
thinking that mere children were not worthy of the regards of their
Master, rebuked the anxious and affectionate parents. "But,"--continues
the narrative,--"when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto
them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not,
for of such is the kingdom of God;" and then immediately explained what
He meant by this last assertion, which is so often misunderstood and
misapplied, by adding, in the words of the text, "Verily I say unto you,
whosoever shall not _receive the kingdom of God as a little child"_ that
is with a child-like spirit, "he shall not enter therein." For our Lord
does not here lay down a doctrinal position, and affirm the moral
innocence of childhood. He does not mark off and discriminate the
children as sinless, from their parents as sinful, as if the two classes
did not belong to the same race of beings, and were not involved in the
same apostasy and condemnation. He merely sets childhood and manhood
over-against each other as two distinct stages of human life, each
possessing peculiar traits and tempers, and affirms that it is the meek
spirit of childhood, and not the proud spirit of manhood, that welcomes
and appropriates the Christian salvation. He is only contrasting the
general attitude of a child, with the general attitude of a man. He
merely affirms that the _trustful_ and _believing_ temper of childhood,
as compared with the _self-reliant_ and _skeptical_ temper of manhood, is
the temper by which both the child and the man are to receive the
blessings of the gospel which both of them equally need.
The kingdom of God is represented in the New Testament, sometimes as
subjective, and sometimes as objective; sometimes as within the soul of
man, and sometimes as up in the skies. Our text combines both
representations; for, it speaks of a man's "receiving" the kingdom of
God, and of a man's "entering" the kingdom of God; of the coming of
heaven into a soul, and of the going of a soul into heaven. In other
passages, one or the other representation appears alone. "The kingdom of
God,"--says our Lord to the Pharisees,--"cometh not with observation.
Neither shall they say, Lo here, or lo there: for behold the kingdom of
God is within you." The apostle Paul, upon arriving at Rome, invited the
resident Jews to discuss the subject of Christianity with him. "And when
they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging, to
whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God,"--to whom he
explained the nature of the Christian religion,--"persuading them
concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets,
from, morning till evening." The same apostle teaches the Romans, that
"the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace,
and joy in the Holy Ghost;" and tells the Corinthians, that "the kingdom
of God is not in word, but in power." In all these instances, the
subjective signification prevails, and the kingdom of God is simply a
system of truth, or a state of the heart. And all are familiar with the
sentiment, that heaven is a state, as well as a place. All understand
that one half of heaven is in the human heart itself; and, that if this
half be wanting, the other half is useless,--as the half of a thing
generally is. Isaac Walton remarks of the devout Sibbs:
"Of this blest man, let this just praise be given, Heaven was in him,
before he was in heaven."
It is only because that in the eternal world the imperfect righteousness
of the renewed man is perfected, and the peace of the anxious soul
becomes total, and the joy that is so rare and faint in the Christian
experience here upon earth becomes the very element of life and
action,--it is only because eternity _completes_ the excellence of the
Christian (but does not begin it), that heaven, as a place of perfect
holiness and happiness, is said to be in the future life, and we are
commanded to seek a better country even a heavenly. But, because this is
so, let no one lose sight of the other side of the great truth, and
forget that man must "receive" the kingdom as well as "enter" it. Without
the right state of heart, without the mental correspondent to heaven,
that beautiful and happy region on high will, like any and every other
place, be a hell, instead of a paradise.[1] A distinguished writer
represents one of his characters as leaving the Old World, and seeking
happiness in the New, supposing that change of place and outward
circumstances could cure a restless mind. He found no rest by the change;
and in view of his disappointment says: "I will return, and in my
ancestral home, amid my paternal fields, among my own people, I will say,
_Here, or nowhere_, is America."[2] In like manner, must the Christian
seek happiness in present peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, and must here
in this life strive after the righteousness that brings tranquillity.
Though he may look forward with aspiration to the new heavens and the new
earth wherein dwelleth a _perfected_ righteousness, yet he must remember
that his holiness and happiness there is merely an expansion of his
holiness and happiness here. He must seek to "receive" the kingdom of
God, as well as to "enter" it; and when tempted to relax his efforts, and
to let down his watch, because the future life will not oppose so many
obstacles to spirituality as this, and will bring a more perfect
enjoyment with it, he should say to himself: "Be holy now, be happy here.
_Here, or nowhere_, is heaven."
Such being the nature of the kingdom of God, we are now brought up to the
discussion of the subject of the text, and are prepared to consider: _In
what respects, the kingdom of God requires the temper of a child as
distinguished from the temper of a man, in order to receive it, and in
order to enter it_.
The kingdom of God, considered as a kingdom that is within the soul, is
tantamount to religion. To receive this kingdom, then, is equivalent to
receiving religion into the heart, so that the character shall be formed
by it, and the future destiny be decided by it. What, then, is the
religion that is to be received? We answer that it is the religion that
is needed. But, the religion that is needed by a sinful man is very
different from the religion that is adapted to a holy angel. He who has
never sinned is already in direct and blessed relations with God, and
needs only to drink in the overflowing and everflowing stream of purity
and pleasure. Such a spirit requires a religion of only two doctrines:
First, that there is a God; and, secondly, that He ought to be loved
supremely and obeyed perfectly. This is the entire theology of the
angels, and it is enough for them. They know nothing of sin in their
personal experience, and consequently they require in their religion,
none of those doctrines, and none of those provisions, which are adapted
to the needs of sinners.
But, man is in an altogether different condition from this. He too knows
that there is a God, and that He ought to be loved supremely, and obeyed
perfectly. Thus far, he goes along with the angel, and with every other
rational being made under the law and government of God. But, at this
point, his path diverges from that of the pure and obedient inhabitant of
heaven, and leads in an opposite direction. For he does not, like the
angels, act up to his knowledge. He is not conformed to these two
doctrines. He does not love God supremely, and he does not obey Him
perfectly. This fact puts him into a very different position, in
reference to these two doctrines, from that occupied by the obedient and
unfallen spirit. These two doctrines, in relation to him as one who has
contravened them, have become a power of condemnation; and whenever he
thinks of them he feels guilty. It is no longer sufficient to tell him.
that religion consists in loving God, and enjoying His presence,--consists
in holiness and happiness. "This is very true,"--he says,--"but
I am neither holy nor happy." It is no longer enough to remind him that
all is well with any creature who loves God with all his heart, and keeps
His commandments without a single slip or failure. "This is very
true,"--he says again,--"but I do not love in this style, neither have I
obeyed in this manner." It is too late to preach mere natural religion,
the religion of the angels, to one who has failed to stand fully and
firmly upon the principles of natural religion. It is too late to tell a
creature who has lost his virtue, that if he is only virtuous he is safe
enough.
The religion, then, that a sinner needs, cannot be limited to the two
doctrines of the holiness of God, and the creature's obligation to love
and serve Him,--cannot be pared down to the precept: Fear God and
practise virtue. It must be greatly enlarged, and augmented, by the
introduction of that other class of truths which relate to the Divine
mercy towards those who have not feared God, and the Divine method of
salvation for those who are sinful. In other words, the religion for a
transgressor is _revealed_ religion, or the religion of Atonement and
Redemption.
What, now, is there in _this_ species of religion that necessitates the
meek and docile temper of a child, as distinguished from the proud and
self-reliant spirit of a man, in order to its reception into the heart?
I. In the first place, _the New Testament religion offers the forgiveness
of sins, and provides for it_. No one can ponder this fact an instant,
without perceiving that the pride and self-reliance of manhood are
excluded, and that the meekness and implicit trust of childhood are
demanded. Pardon and justification before God must, from the nature of
the case, be a gift, and a gift cannot be obtained unless it is accepted
_as such_. To demand or claim mercy, is self-contradictory. For, a claim
implies a personal ground for it; and this implies self-reliance, and
this is "manhood" in distinction from "childhood." In coming, therefore,
as the religion of the Cross does, before man with a gratuity, with an
offer to pardon his sins, it supposes that he take a correspondent
attitude. Were he sinless, the religion suited to him would be the mere
utterance of law, and he might stand up before it with the serene brow of
an obedient subject of the Divine government; though even then, not with
a proud and boastful temper. It would be out of place for him, to plead
guilty when he was innocent; or to cast himself upon mercy, when he could
appeal to justice. If the creature's acceptance be of works, then it is
no more of grace, otherwise work is no more work. But if it be by grace,
then it is no more of works (Rom. xi. 6). If the very first feature of
the Christian religion is the exhibition of clemency, then the proper and
necessary attitude of one who receives it is that of humility.
But, leaving this argument drawn from the characteristics, of
Christianity as a religion of Redemption, let us pass into the soul of
man, and see what we are taught there, respecting the temper which he
must possess in order to receive this new, revealed kingdom of God. The
soul of man is guilty. Now, there is something in the very nature of
guilt that excludes the proud, self-conscious, self-reliant spirit of
manhood, and necessitates the lowly, and dependent spirit of childhood.
When conscience is full of remorse, and the holy eye of law is searching
us, and fears of eternal banishment and punishment are rakeing the
spirit, there is no remedy but simple confession, and childlike reliance
upon absolute mercy. The sinner must be a softened child and not a hard
man, he must beg a boon and not put in a claim, if he would receive this
kingdom of God, this New Testament religion, into his soul. The slightest
inclination to self-righteousness, the least degree of resistance to the
just pressure of law, is a vitiating element in repentance. The muscles
of the stout man must give way, the knees must bend, the hands must be
uplifted deprecatingly, the eyes must gaze with a straining gaze upon the
expiating Cross,--in other words, the least and last remains of a stout
and self-asserting spirit must vanish, and the whole being must be
pliant, bruised, broken, helpless in its state and condition, in order
to a pure sense of guilt, a godly sorrow for sin, and a cordial
appropriation of the atonement. The attempt to mix the two tempers, to
mingle the child with the man, to confess sin and assert
self-righteousness, must be an entire failure, and totally prevent
the reception of the religion of Redemption. In relation to the Redeemer,
the sinful soul should be a vacuum, a hollow void, destitute of
everything holy and good, conscious that it is, and aching to be filled
with the fulness of His peace and purity.
And with reference to God, the Being whose function it is to pardon, we
see the same necessity for this child-like spirit in the transgressor.
How can God administer forgiveness, unless there is a correlated temper
to receive it? His particular declarative act in blotting out sin depends
upon the existence of penitence for sin. Where there is absolute hardness
of heart, there can be no pardon, from the very nature of the case, and
the very terms of the statement. Can God say to the hardened Judas:
Son be of good cheer, thy sin is forgiven thee? Can He speak to the
traitor as He speaks to the Magdalen? The difficulty is not upon the side
of God. The Divine pity never lags behind any genuine human sorrow. No
man was ever more eager to be forgiven than his Redeemer is to forgive
him. No contrition for sin, upon the part of man, ever yet outran the
readiness and delight of God to recognize it, and meet it with a free
pardon. For, that very contrition itself is always the product of Divine
grace, and proves that God is in advance of the soul. The father in the
parable saw the son while he was a great way off, _before_ the son saw
him, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. But while this is so,
and is an encouragement to the penitent, it must ever be remembered that
unless there is some genuine sorrow in the human soul, there can be no
manifestation of the Divine forgiveness within it. Man cannot beat the
air, and God cannot forgive impenitency.
II. In the second place, the New Testament religion proposes _to create
within man a clean heart, and to renew within him a right spirit_.
Christianity not only pardons but sanctifies the human soul. And in
accomplishing this latter work, it requires the same humble and docile
temper that was demanded in the former instance.
Holiness, even in an unfallen angel, is not an absolutely self-originated
thing. If it were, the angel would be worthy of adoration and worship. He
who is inwardly and totally excellent, and can also say: I am what I am
by my own ultimate authorship, can claim for himself the _glory_ that is
due to righteousness. Any self-originated and self-subsistent virtue is
entitled to the hallelujahs. But, no created spirit, though he be the
highest of the archangels, can make such an assertion, or put in such a
claim. The merit of the unfallen angel, therefore, is a relative one;
because his holiness is of a created and derived species. It is not
increate and self-subsistent. This being so, it is plain that the proper
attitude of all creatures in respect to moral excellence is a recipient
and dependent one. But this is a meek and lowly attitude; and this is, in
one sense, a child-like attitude. Our Lord knew no sin; and yet He
himself tells us that He was meek and lowly of heart, and we well know
that He was. He does not say that He was penitent. He does not propose
himself as our exemplar in that respect. But, in respect to the primal,
normal attitude which a finite being must ever take in reference to the
infinite and adorable God, and the absolute underived Holiness; in
reference to the true temper which a holy man or a holy angel must
possess; our Lord Jesus Christ, in His human capacity, sets an example to
be followed by the spirits of just men made perfect, and by all the holy
inhabitants of heaven. In other words, He teaches the whole universe that
holiness in a creature, even though it be complete, does not permit its
possessor to be self-reliant, does not allow the proud spirit of manhood,
does not remove the obligation to be child-like, meek, and lowly of
heart.
But if this is true of holiness among those who have never fallen, how
much more true is it of those who have, and who need to be lifted up out
of the abyss. If an angel, in reference to God, must be meek and lowly of
heart; if the holy Redeemer must in His human capacity be meek and lowly
of heart; if the child-like temper, in reference to the infinite and
everlasting Father and the absolutely Good, is the proper one in such
exalted instances as these; how much more is it in the instance of the
vile and apostate children of Adam! Besides the original and primitive
reason growing out of creaturely relationships, there is the superadded
one growing out of the fact, that now the whole head is sick and the
whole heart is faint, and from the sole of the foot even unto the head
there is no soundness in human nature.