1

damental provisions which characterize the slave codes of the Southern States," except Dr. Stuart Robinson, and as late as 1865 ?* What church court under heaven ever unanimously, or by any vote, declared of the system, that "God sanctions it in the first table of the decalogue," previous to "the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America," in Dec. 1861? And, finally, who ever became so infatuated with negro slavery, as to say of the system, "It might have existed in Paradise, and may continue through the millennium," until Dr. Stuart Robinson published this in his True Presbyterian, and until Dr. Joseph R. Wilson preached the millennial phase of it from his pulpit in Georgia, in January,

1861?

We may see, from these intimations, what the sentiments are on this subject, which characterize the leaders and courts of the Southern Church, and which they still hold and propose to carry on "to the judgment;" and we may see, also, how well founded the claim is, that these salient points, or, indeed, any of them, exhibit "the old doctrine of the church."

In this review of the disruption of 1861, and its consequences, it appears very evident that, although slavery is dead, and although its menacing power may never again threaten the integrity of the State, or dismember the church, yet the same principles which gave it such potent sway during the palmy days of its existence, are still cherished in the Southern Church, as a sacred deposit of truth of perpetual obligation. However inconsistent the leaders in that church have been, and still are, in applying these principles to the government of their own conduct, in the pulpit, and in the church courts, they think they should be faithfully observed by the church. of the North. Even as late as the meeting of the Baltimore Conference Committees, the Southern Committee, in a passage already quoted, deem a departure from these principles in what they term "political action," as a "serious hindrance to establishing fraternal relations." If the question were union, "this serious hindrance" would become an insurmountable obstacle. This Southern Committee, in illustration of their point, and for condemnation, cite the action of the New School Assembly of 1865, where the Assembly declares "the right of suffrage" to be "but a simple dictate of justice" to

"the colored man in this country." This, at most, is but expressing an opinion upon an incident in the condition of a freeman. Perhaps the opinion should have been withheld. But the Address of 1861, which, upon all these themes, is the Confession of Faith of the Southern Church, goes to the very root of its "philosophy of human rights," when it contradicts the doctrine" that slavery is inconsistent with human rights," and places the slave in his natural "lot, at the bottom of the line" in the scale of humanity, and makes slavery his "normal condition," with no hope of release.

The same peculiarity of view, which so frequently appears in the instances already cited, possesses the Southern Church, whenever its eye turns upon what the Northern Church has said of its opinions and conduct touching slavery and the war. It not only seems utterly oblivious to the fact, that many of its own deliverances, during the war, were intensely "political," in its sense of the term, but equally unaware that it ever cast any disparaging imputations upon the Northern Church. The fact, however, is quite otherwise. Two instances, for illustration, shall close this paper. One is taken from its earliest, and the other from its latest, action; and, singular to observe, these two instances constitute the Southern Church both the earliest and the latest offender in the special matter of "aspersions upon character," the theme which has been the burden of Southern complaint for the last fifteen years. When speaking of the ground held by the Northern Church upon slavery, the Address of 1861 says: "It occupies the position of a prevaricating witness, whom neither party will trust." When the full meaning of such a declaration is weighed, it will be difficult to find in anything uttered by either Northern Assembly during the war, a more deep and sweeping aspersion upon the character or conduct of the Northern Church. This was declared when nothing more had been done by the Northern Assembly than to pass "the Spring resolutions" upon the state of the country. These resolutions declared the duty of loyalty, but cast no personal imputations upon any But a "prevaricating witness" is a type of the most unworthy of men. It thus appears that the first General Assembly of the Southern Church which ever met, cast this unpro

one.

voked imputation upon the whole body of Northern Presbyterians. So, also, in the very latest action of the Southern Church-the sentiments of the Baltimore Committee, passed upon by the General Assembly of 1875-do we find imputations of a similar character. The Committee declare: "We do not hesitate to say, that a church (especially in this country, where separation from the State is, at least, theoretically complete, and still more, a Presbyterian Church, which, holding its noble standards, ought to know better), might so cover itself with disgrace by defiling its garments with things it is forbidden to touch; or, might, also, in matters purely ecclesiastical, so deplorably subvert its own fundamental principles, as to forbid any intercourse whatever. It is the right of every church to judge of each case by itself; and it is especially our right to do this now, and no cause of offense, when invited to a conference, which must, of necessity, bring such considerations under review." If it be said that the case here put is hypothetical, the reply is, that it would be utterly without pertinence, unless it were intended to make the impression, in the absence of any disclaimer, that it presents a close parallel with the position of the Northern Church as viewed by the Southern. It is what the lawyers call "a legal innuendo."

We here leave the subject. It gives us no pleasure to make these exhibitions. Truth and justice alone have constrained them. They speak for themselves, and the times demand that they should be gravely pondered; for it is the boast of the leaders of the Southern Church, that they stand to-day where they have stood for the last twenty years, and will stand, there until the grand assize of the world shall sit.

Art. VI.-CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT CHRIST.

By CHARLES HODGE, D.D.

IN one sense of the word, Christianity is the system of truth taught by Christ and his apostles. In this sense the question, what is Christianity? is simply a historical one. It may be answered intelligently and correctly by a man who does not profess to be a Christian, just as he may answer the question, what is Brahmism? or, what is Buddhism?

In another sense, Christianity is that state of one's mind produced by faith in the truths revealed concerning Christ. In this sense, Christianity without Christ is an impossibility. It would be an effect without its proximate cause. Nevertheless, there is a form of religion, widespread and influential, which is called Christianity, in which Christ fails to occupy the position assigned to him in the Bible.

The Bible teaches us, that the same divine person by whom and for whom the universe was created, is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New. And as natural religion (in the subjective sense of the word) is that state of mind which is, or should be, produced by the revelation of God in the works of nature, and by our relation to him as his rational creatures; and as the religion of the devout Hebrew consisted in the state of mind produced by the revelation of the same God, made in the law and the prophets, and by their relation to him as their covenant God and Father; so Christianity is that state of mind produced by the knowledge of the same God, as manifest in the flesh, who loved us and gave himself for us, and by our relation to him as the subjects of his redemption.

Three things follow from this: First, as the same divine person is the Creator of heaven and earth, the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New, there can be no inconsistency between the religion of nature, the religion of the Hebrews, and the religion of Christians. The one does not assume that to be true, which either of the others assumes to be false. The only difference is that which arises from increased knowledge of the object of worship, and the new relations which we sustain to him. The Hebrews, in worshiping Je

hovah, did not cease to worship the God of nature; and the Christian, in worshiping Christ, does not cease to worship the God of the Hebrews.

Second, it is impossible that the higher form of religion should be merged into a lower. It is impossble that the religion of a Hebrew should sink into natural religion. That would imply that he ceased to be a Hebrew, that he rejected the revelations of Moses and the prophets, and that he renounced his allegiance to Jehovah as the God of his fathers. In like manner, it is impossible that the religion of a Christian can sink into that of the Old Testament, or into that of nature. That would imply that he ceased to be a Christian; that he rejected or ignored all that the New Testament reveals concerning God and Christ. There could be no true religion in the mind of a Hebrew that was not determined by his relation to Jehovah as his covenant God; and there can be no true religion in the mind of a Christian that is not determined by his relation to Christ as God manifested in the flesh.

Third, the Christian, in worshiping Christ, does not cease to worship the Father and the Spirit. He does not fail to recognize and appreciate his relation to the Father, who loved the world and gave his Son for its redemption; nor does he fail to recognize his relation to the Holy Spirit, on whom he is absolutely dependent, and whose gracious office it is to apply to men the redemption purchased by Christ. In worshiping Christ, we worship the Father and the Spirit; for these three are one-one only living and true God, the same in substance and equal in power and glory. Christ says, I am in the Father and the Father in me. I and the Father are one. He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; and therefore, he that worships the Son, worships the Father. Hence, it is written, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father," but,

"Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." "He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life." It is to be remembered, however, that in the mysterious constitution of the Godhead, the second person of the Trinity is the Logos, the Word, the Revealer. It is through him that God is known. He is the brightness of his glory, revealing what God is. We should not know that there is a sun in the firmament,