THEOLOGY
[p. 446] THEOLOGY
I suppose that theology concerns itself not simply with the question of what God is in an abstract way, but of what He is in relation to men. It involves, therefore, the revelation of God. Indeed, it would be difficult to see how there could be any such thing as theology if there were not a revelation. In christendom there are few who deny revelation; the great question that exists is as to the mode of the application of that revelation to men. As to this there are great and essential differences of mind.
We may divide christendom into various great parts, not all owning one another, but all existing as a matter of fact. There is the Roman Catholic Church, though this is rather a contradiction in terms, because by the designation ‘Roman’ it is no longer catholic. Then there is what may be called the Episcopal Church, outside of Rome. Then there is Protestantism. These three would include pretty much all christendom.
Now in the first of these, that is, Roman Catholicism, the idea is of the authority and infallibility of the church, so that it is a ground of faith to men. And there is not salvation out of the church. The idea in that system is that it stands, so far as the priesthood is concerned, outside of the world, but as exercising power over the world. It is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth. This is the position that it has arrogated to itself. Celibacy is held in the priesthood, and in those devoted, in order that they may be separated from the common interests of society, but the object is to give power to the church so that it may dominate the forces of the world; that it may command the temporal power. It would control everything, education and training of the young especially, and extend its wings over all. Its idea would be that none could live without it.
[p. 447] As regards the application of revelation, Rome would not encourage the study of Scripture, but would cast people on the support of the church system, which provides all that is necessary for them. To be attached to the system, and to make use of that which it provides is all that is required. There are no moral exercises essential. A man might be a good churchman enough without them. What is essential is the maintenance of the exclusive authority of the church in all things. In fact, it is confidence in a system that speaks with the authority of God. I think that such is the character of Rome, and it has never abated its pretensions.
As regards the Episcopal Church there is no such central authority as Rome, nor would such submission be claimed to a system. The main feature is the authority of the clergy, which is derived from the idea of apostolical succession. With this there is the importance of sacraments, which would, I suppose, be accounted as essential to salvation. The application of the revelation is through the sacraments. A mental apprehension of the truth would be accounted a secondary matter. It is evident that there is a material idea pervading such a system, because there is a positive value in the sacraments apart from the spiritual state of those that partake of them. Whatever might be the moral condition of a man’s mind, he might derive benefit from the sacraments. And as the administration of these depends on the clergy, priesthood is the pillar of the system. The apprehension in the soul of what is in the mind of God for man, as set forth in Christ, is a matter of small importance. Hence it is difficult to see how there is in it anything really vital in character. It seems to me that sacraments are of all moment in it.
Now Protestantism is difficult in character, though many things in the Episcopal Church may be retained. The point in Protestantism has been the [p. 448] maintenance of the authority of the Scriptures as above all authority of church or clergy, and at the same time the responsibility of every one in respect of faith of the Scriptures. I have spoken here of the character of Protestantism as at the outset. It has now sadly degenerated. It has not been free from the taint of materialism, and the spirit of rationalism, as giving importance to the human mind, has crept in largely.
As regards the former, this materialism is not in so gross a form as in the Episcopal system, where a substantive value is placed on sacraments, but it is more subtle. It consists in the thought that it is possible by faith to possess things of which the value is not known in the soul. It is plain that this is a material idea, in that it places a substantive and not simply a moral value on the things. To take an example, it is a common idea that a person may by faith possess eternal life without knowing its value. Such a thought of life is material. It may exist in natural life, as evidently in animals, but not in spiritual things. This seems to me a common error among Protestants. The source of this is that faith in doctrine is called for, rather than faith in divine Persons. There is a large leaven of dogma in Protestantism. On the other hand, Protestantism has become pervaded by rationalism, which is clearly not moral, but mental. A man but little touched by the knowledge of God may be a rationalist.
Now the important point is, what is the truth in contrast with all the above? I judge it to lie in the apprehension by faith of what is in the mind of God toward man, as perfectly expressed in Christ. Every thought of God toward man is bound up with the character of God, hence all these thoughts are expressed in Christ, the Son of God.
What follows is that as each such thought is seen there is corresponding increase in the knowledge of [p. 449] God Himself. As this knowledge of God is added to in the soul, a greater insight is gained into the thoughts of divine love toward man. We are built up morally in the knowledge of God, and are increasingly capable of entering into His thoughts man-ward. It is by this growth that the Spirit enables us to appropriate to ourselves these thoughts of God, and thus it is that we can be said to possess the things that are spoken of. They are entered into morally, and thus become our own. Thus, though I may see that there are great thoughts in the mind of God manward, I do not claim to possess what is contained in any of these thoughts, save as I enter into it according to my spiritual growth.
It may be questioned how a man can ever claim to be a christian if he is thus slow to take the ground of possessing anything. My answer would be that he is entitled to take the ground of being a christian when he believes in Christ, and thus sees what is in God’s mind toward man. We are not called on to believe anything about ourselves, but that which is set forth in Christ. It is when these things are appropriated, in the understanding of them, by the work of the Spirit in the believer, that they can be said to be possessed. There are thus two great steps, the first is faith, which means the apprehension of God’s mind toward man in Christ, and then spiritual growth by the knowledge of God, which gives the capability of entering into God’s thoughts, so that they become the possession of the soul.
I think it will be evident how different this is from the Romish idea of faith in a church and its authority, or from the Episcopal idea of the value to be attached to sacraments, and consequently to those who alone can administer them, or from Protestantism, with its insistence on faith in doctrine, and the claim to the possession of things of the value of which the soul has no sense, but which are said to be [p. 450] possessed on the ground of faith of dogma. Nothing can be more important than to maintain the moral character of christianity, in which every blessing for man is bound up with the apprehension of the character of God, and cannot be entered into save as God is known.