« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
judged on the principles that “men in the flesh” are judged for the same privilege; but the object was, that they might be brought to “live according to God in the spirit.” Again : St. Paul seems to recognize our future responsibility for a bad life, as well as for a good life. See the sequel to the passage which we have already quoted from 2 Corinthians: * Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord ; (for we walk by faith, not by sight;) we are confident, and willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore, we labor that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things DONE in the body, (rather, done by means of the body,) according to what he hath done, whether good or bad. Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men,” &c. It has been proposed to omit the supplied word, which we have marked in capitals, and to make the clause read thus," the things in the body." But if we look into the original, it will be seen at once that the construction requires the supply of some word equivalent, and that the force of the Greek sentence is fairly given in the common English translation. Here, then, we find, 1. That St. Paul believed there was a two-fold object for which we should labor, namely, to be accepted of Christ while we are yet“ present” in the body, or alive ; and to be accepted likewise, when “absent” from the body, or after death. 2. That a reason why we are to strive for both of these ends, is the consideration that we must all be judged by Christ, and be recompensed according to the good or bad life we have led in the body. 3. That, as it was a fearful thing to be thus exposed, or “manifest,” before the righteous Judge, the apostle made use of the consideration to persuade men; though he adds, in the following words, that he himself, or his own integrity, was already "manifest" to the Lord, as he trusted it was “ manifest" also in the consciences of his brethren. We are not indeed to suppose that "the judgement-seat of Christ " is a formal tribunal; as has been sufficiently shown, by another hand, in the preceding pages of this number of our work. But we may observe that St. Paul evidently contemplated the judgement as extending into the next world, so as to be a motive for our laboring, here, to be accepted of Christ after the death of the body, as well as before.
Indeed, if we understand St. Paul's meaning in 1 Cor. xv., and in other passages, he does not expect the extinction of all moral evil from the Universe, till after the Resurrection. It is then that all things will have been subdued to Christ; and, when this is accomplished, he will “ deliver up the kingdom to the Father,” and “God be all in all.”
Other texts might be quoted in point, did it seem to us a subject of primary importance. But whatsoever we may think concerning the question of responsibility hereafter, the paramount concern is to see that we do not isolate the future life from the present, so as to cut it off from sympathetic connexion with our existing selves and interests. "No matter whether purposely or unawares, if we do so even by ignoring, by implication, or by remoter logical consequence, we shall find that the deadly elements, which we have involved, do not long remain inactive; we shall find, in the event, that we have destroyed the vitality of the glorious truth wbich distinguishes us, and that, as soon as we have got people thoroughly indoctrinated, we have begun to make the worldlings among them indifferent, and to send the religiously disposed on a search for something more satisfactory to their profoundest wants.
H. B, 2d.
Christ and the Scriptures.
THERE is, perhaps, no subject on which the views of Christian professors are more vague, than on the inspiration of the Scriptures. This, doubtless, arises in part from the fact that this subject is seldom discussed, and is therefore but little understood; and in part from the nature of the subject itself, as one on which it is difficult to form definite and exact opinions. With most Christians the Bible is regarded rather as one book than as a collection of books; and all parts are considered equally binding, little or no distinction being made between such portions as had a local reference, and have ceased to be of force from a change of circumstances, and such portions as are of general reference and of perpetual obligation. On the other hand, some men, regarding this view as incorrect, have gone into the opposite extreme, and have narrowed down the authority and inspiration of the Bible to an almost imperceptible point; and how long before the whole will be cancelled remains to be seen.
The latter class of theologians seem to regard the whole of the Old Testament as an old legend or antiquated romance; having indeed some very good passages, considering the age in which it was written;
but in no proper sense divine or inspired. Of the New Testament, too, it is maintained that all parts are, by no means, to be regarded as alike. The Epistles are not so good authority as the Gospels; nor is any part of the Gospels so perfect as to be implicitly received. Christ is the only truly inspired personage mentioned in the Bible ; and even his teachings are involved in great uncertainty, since they come to us through the representations of others, who do not entirely agree, and who consequently may, and probably to some extent do, misrepresent the actual teachings of their Master.
It is not our intention, in this article, to enter into an elaborate discussion of the question of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. We propose to discuss only one point, viz., the teachings of Christ on this subject. Those who entertain the most "liberal” views concerning inspiration; that is, those who circumscribe it the most, still adhere to the authority of Christ, so far at least as that authority can be ascertained through the “ imperfect” and “conflicting” representations we have of him in the Gospels. They maintain that all which was required, in ancient times, to entitle one to the Christian name, and to a place among the brotherhood of believers, was the acknowledgement that " Jesus Christ was the Son of God ;'' and believing this, they may believe whatever else they please, not inconsistent with this fundamental truth. This being the ground taken, and, with proper qualifications, undoubtedly the true ground, it may be well to know what is implied in this declaration; and this is the object of our present inquiry, as touching the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.
“Jesus Christ is Son of God." He is, then, a divine personage, an inspired teacher; and all that he taught is to be implicitly received by those who claim to be his followers. To this, no Christian will be likely to object, We may, then, with the utmost propriety, consult him, and abide by his authority on the inspiration of the Bible. What he taught concerning this subject, is to be received with the same confidence with which we receive his teachings in regard to any other matter. The way he viewed the subject, is the way we must view it. The law and the prophets, we must regard as he regarded them. His own inspiration, and the inspiration of his apostles, we must receive precisely as he represents the subject to us. In regard to this, as in regard to all else, what he taught, we, as Christians, are bound to believewhat he did not teach, we must regard as we do any uninspired speculation, whether it relate to this or any other matter. Presuming that the ground here taken will not be disputed, we may advance with safety in the discussion before us. We cannot go far astray, so long as we adhere to this fundamental position.
I. The inspiration of the Saviour himself. A few plain passages will set this matter clearly before us :"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." " He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him." As my Father has taught me, I speak these things." “ Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God; If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.”
66 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I speak, therefore ; even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” “ The words that I speak
unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doth the works." • The word which ye heard, is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
These passages indicate clearly the nature of the inspiration by which the Saviour taught his doctrines. They show that he was under the immediate influence of the divine Spirit, and taught only what was approved of God. That his teachings have been properly and truly represented to us, is another subject, which we shall be better prepared to understand, after we have given another list of quotations.
II. The Saviour addresses his apostles in the following manner, from which we are to decide, whether they, as well as he, were divinely inspired :-“ Peace be unto you. As my Father hath sent me, even so now send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesover sins ye retain, they are retained.” The inspiration of the the apostles we understand to be clearly taught in this passage. As the Father sent Christ into the world, even so Christ sent his disciples on the same errand.
" Breathing on" his disciples, has an important significancy, bearing on the same subject. Among the Greeks and Romans it was deemed important to receive the last breath of a departing friend. By a sort of imitation of this custom, the Saviour, as he is about to leave the world, breathes on his disciples, and instructs them to receive his departing breath, as indicating the fact that they should be guided by his spirit, and be clothed with his authority. Hence the power to remit sins, or to retain (not remit) them, is the result of the same authority. Surely, such power could not be intrusted with uninspired men. Another passage of similar import may be quoted in this connexion : .“ Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven;" the most rational interpretation of which is, that whatever doctrines the apostles should teach, or whatever institutions they should establish-also, whatever doctrines or institutions they should reject-their decision should be ratified in heaven. Such power could have been confer