David Thom – Soul and Spirit (1867, orig. 1836)
SOUL AND SPIRIT.
BY
DAVID THOM, D.D., PH.D.
AUTHOR OF “DIVINE INVERSION,” “DIALOGUES ON UNIVERSAL SALVATION,”
“THREE GRAND EXHIBITIONS OF MAN’S ENMITY TO GOD,” &c. &c.
——-
LONDON:
H. K. LEWIS, 136 GOWER STREET, W.C.
1867.
[ii]
PRINTED BY H. K. LEWIS, GOWER STREET. W.C.
[iii]
PREFACE.
The circumstances which have led to the publication of the present work are the following:
A few private friends of the late Rev. Dr. Thom were privileged with a sight of several MSS. left by him, and which had been carefully prepared with a view to their publication.
Their perusal excited a strong desire that the MS. on “SOUL AND SPIRIT” should be given to the world.
It is well known to those who are familiar with the writings of our late revered and lamented friend, that to his acquaintance with the scriptural distinction referred to, he ascribed many of his most glorious views of divine truth.
The members of his late congregation especially, and his numerous friends in this country and in distant parts of the world, will therefore we are sure hail with gladness their possession of a work which will give completeness to his own writings.
The present volume bears date 1836. It was written with great care by its beloved author, and was well-nigh ready for the press. The duties of the Editor have therefore been very light indeed. His chief work has been to choose, between two or three different forms of expression, that which, in his judg-[iv]ment, appeared best adapted to express the meaning of the writer.
He would adopt as his own, the language of his friend in his preface to “Barclay’s without Faith without God,” re-published in Liverpool in 1836: “Not deeming myself justified in tampering with the writings of another, what follows has been copied almost verbatim from the Edition last mentioned.”
Indeed, those acquainted with the Author’s style, and with the construction of his sentences, will see at once who is the writer of this work.
It is scarcely necessary to say that it has been a melancholy pleasure to prepare this publication for the press.
To be able to render any service, however small, towards such an object, has indeed been a labour of love.
Indebted to the author for relief, under God, from many most painful religious perplexities which none of the popular systems of theology could help to solve, and permitted for many years to be privileged with his instructive and edifying correspondence as well as to share in his affectionate Christian confidence, how can he feel otherwise than grateful in being permitted to help forward such an undertaking?
The production of such a work as this, too, at a time when so many professing the religion of Christ, are turning again to the “beggarly elements” from which they professed to have been delivered, and are found substituting human reason-[v]ings on the one hand, or ritualistic practices on the other, for the “simplicity that is in Christ,” cannot be otherwise than seasonable: while the profound and glorious truths contained in these pages, will furnish a delightful contrast to the superficial and merely human notions which pass current for the religion of the Son of God.
Strongly tempted is the Editor to make a reference to the character and attainments — the natural and spiritual endowments — the human and divine excellencies possessed by the author of this work. But he forbears.
So high is his estimate of, so profound his veneration for, and so ardent his attachment to the memory of his beloved friend, that he feels anything he might say, would in this age of cold propriety savour of exaggeration.
As his removal from the present scene of change and suffering was to the writer one of the greatest of his trials, so the hope of everlasting reunion with him in the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is among the fondest of his anticipations.
It is important to observe, that the third chapter of the second part of this work, entitled “the object or purpose of Spirit,” does not appear to have been written.
This is to be regretted and of course interferes with its completeness. — Those of us, however, who know and love the views contained in this volume, can easily imagine how gloriously the writer would have filled up the portion he was never spared to [vi] write — how luminously he would have exhibited the ultimate purpose of God in the temporary existence of Soul, and its subserviency to the everlasting existence of Spirit — how delightfully he would have dwelt on the triumphant consummation of the controversy long pending between the former and the latter — the one condemned, in the death of Adam, in the sacrifice of Christ, and in the ultimate termination of an earthly and inferior state of things altogether — the other vindicated, primarily in the resurrection of the Son of God from the dead, subsequently in the salvation of his specially redeemed ones, and finally in the new creation of all things in Jesus Christ as second Adam, and their being rendered thereby partakers of the divine nature — the “living soul” superseded by “the quickening spirit” — the shadows of time absorbed in the realities of eternity — and God being revealed in the fulness of manifestation to every creature as the “all and in all.”
[vii]
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
SECTION I.
Opening Observations, — 1
SECTION II.
The distinction between Soul and Spirit, a Scriptural one, — 5
SECTION III.
Soul and Spirit not a mere verbal distinction, — 9
PART I.
SOUL, OR THE MIND OF THE CREATURE.
CHAPTER I.
THE NATURE AND CONSTITUTION OF SOUL OR CREATURE MIND.
SECTION I.
Soul, the same as fleshly mind, — 13
SECTION II.
A notion of the orthodox concerning fleshly mind, stated, — 14
SECTION III.
Popular notions respecting the origin of the fleshly character of the human mind, not authorized by scripture: besides, they lead to consequences perfectly untenable, — 15
SECTION IV.
Soul, or human mind, fleshly, why? — 18
SECTION V.
The same subject continued, — 21
[viii] SECTION VI.
An argument from analogy, stated, — 21
SECTION VII.
Why Soul is spoken of as fleshly, not material mind, — 23
SECTION VIII.
Modern science of Phrenology, — 25
SECTION IX.
On the immateriality and immortality of Soul, — 29
SECTION X.
Abridged view of the subject, — 36
CHAPTER II.
THE PHENOMENA OF SOUL OR CREATURE MIND.
DIVISION I.
PHENOMENA OF SOUL. THOSE ARISING FROM ITS EARTHLY NATURE.
SECTION I.
What we are entitled to anticipate, — 39
SECTION II.
The phenomena of Soul in their grosser forms earthly. The earthliness of Soul’s motives and tendencies, — 40
SECTION III.
No less earthly are they in their most refined forms, — 42
SECTION IV.
This still farther proved, — 44
SECTION V.
Soulical Religion, essentially earthly, — 46
SECTION VI.
Additional remarks confirmatory of the complete earthliness of Soul even in its religious manifestations, — 57
SECTION VII.
Phenomena of Insanity, — 64
SECTION VIII.
Scripture uniformly represents the human mind as earthly, — 69
DIVISION II.
PHENOMENA OF SOUL, EXPLAINED BY ITS SHADOWY NATURE.
SECTION I.
Shadow, what? — 72
[ix] SECTION II.
The Law of Moses, — 74
SECTION III.
The faculties and properties of soul, shadowy, — 75
SECTION IV.
Instinct, — 81
SECTION V.
The principle of conscience, — 86
SECTION VI.
Sin and Death, — 88
DIVISION III.
THE PHENOMENA OF SOUL EXPLAINED BY ITS SELFISH NATURE.
SECTION I.
The definition of selfishness, — 90
SECTION II.
Selfishness the immediate cause of sin, — 90
SECTION III.
Itself an effect of man’s situation and circumstances. — 93
SECTION IV.
The insanity of selfishness, — 95
SECTION V.
Impossibility of satisfying the selfish principle by indulging it, — 99
SECTION VI.
Ordinary notions of religion cannot satisfy it, — 101
SECTION VII.
Selfishness can only be satisfied by being exhausted, — 107
CHAPTER III.
THE USE OR PURPOSE OF SOUL.
Introductory Section, — 113
DIVISION I.
ONE OBJECT OF THE CREATION OF SOUL TO RENDER MANIFEST WHAT SOUL IS.
SECTION I.
Popular notions respecting the object of soul’s creation, — 114
[x] SECTION II.
Reasons of those, — 115
SECTION III.
Why was soul or creature mind subjected to law? — 122
SECTION IV.
Original sin, — 126
DIVISION II.
ANOTHER OBJECT OF THE CREATION OF SOUL, TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO SPIRIT.
SECTION I.
Earthly mind shewn to be what it is, in subserviency to the manifestation of heavenly mind, — 131
SECTION II.
The previous manifestation of earthly mind demanded by the circumstances of the case, — 133
SECTION III.
Mind considered subjectively and objectively, — 137
SECTION IV.
Adam’s soulical nature in all respects subservient and subsidiary, — 143
PART II.
SPIRIT, OR THE MIND OF THE CREATOR.
CHAPTER I.
THE NATURE OF SPIRIT.
SECTION I.
Spirit exists, — 151
SECTION II.
What is Spirit? — 152
1. Possession of spiritual principle essential to the conception of spirit — 152
2. Conception merely of some of the phenomena — 153
3. Adam in paradise — 153
4. Heterodoxy and Orthodoxy — 154
5. Spirit still farther defined — 156
[xi] SECTION II (continued).
6. The order of Spirit, the inverse order of Soul — 156
7. Generation and regeneration — 158
8. Assimilating nature of Spirit — 159
9. The same subject — 161
10. Christ’s state after his resurrection, the same as previous to his incarnation — 164
11. Assimilating nature of Spirit, resumed — 168
12. The atonement — 174
13. A necessary digression concerning law — 182
14. Deductions and Illustrations — 187
15. Spirit shortly defined — 189
16. Were Christ’s body and mind, while he was upon earth, the same as what they are now? — 189
17. Spirit in Christ, while on earth, was in the form of Soul — 192
18. Spirit in Christ, since his resurrection, has appeared in its own proper form — 193
19. Christ’s two births — 195
20. One sin of Soul, one righteousness of Spirit — 197
21. The finite, the indefinite, and the infinite — 203
22. Spirit in believers, not subject to law — 205
23. Spirit in believers is not a compound principle — 209
24. Spirit in believers, is not Spirit in the form of Soul but Soul in the form of Spirit — 213
25. Spirit, in believers, the mind of the risen Jesus — 216
26. Spirit in believers, merely knowledge of divine truth — 221
27. Socinianism, Irvingism, and Quakerism — 227
28. Spirit supersedes by swallowing up Soul — 236
29. Emanuel Kant — 240
30. Spirit alone can apprehend spiritual things — 252
CHAPTER II.
THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRIT.
DIVISION I.
THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRIT CONSIDERED DIRECTLY.
SECTION I.
Faith, hope, and love, — 261
[xii] SECTION II.
Faith tends to destruction, love to consummation, — 268
SECTION III.
Difference between faith in Christ, and faith in us, — 271
SECTION IV.
The assurance of faith, — 279
SECTION V.
Peace, joy, and the other direct phenomena of Spirit, — 283
SECTION VI.
Counterfeit spiritual phenomena, — 288
SECTION VII.
Rationale of religious soulical phenomena, — 297
SECTION VIII.
Rationale of spiritual phenomena, — 305
SECTION IX.
Certain facts explained, — 314
SECTION X.
The New Birth, — 320
[1]
SOUL AND SPIRIT.
INTRODUCTION.
SECTION I.
OPENING OBSERVATIONS.
For the correctness of the views presented in the following pages, an appeal is made, not to the writings of fallible men, but to the word of the living and true God.
Philosophers, both ancient and modern, have speculated at great length, and with much ingenuity respecting the origin, constitution, and destiny, of the human mind. But their labours have had no satisfactory result. They either possessed not or rejected, the only way by which knowledge of the subject is accessible. Involved thereby in a labyrinth of doubt and perplexities themselves, it cannot surprise us to find their followers likewise “in wandering mazes lost.” To other sources of information, and to other guides, those must turn, who would escape the delusions by which their predecessors in this path of enquiry have been led astray.
It is high time for all who profess attachment to the volume of inspiration, to show that attachment in something more than mere words. Respect to God’s word consists not in saying we respect it. Nay, it consists not in examining the integrity of the text and watching over the canon, with ever wakeful zeal and assiduity, like that which protected the garden of Hesperides of old. All this external respect, all this jealous watchfulness against the slightest corruption or adulteration of the letter of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Jews have uniformly exhibited; [2] and yet they are accused by the Lord Jesus of making use of all this as a cloak, for rendering the word of God of none effect by their tradition. Is not a similar charge applicable to numbers in our own time? Not many years have elapsed since the apocryphal controversy agitated the religious part of the community. Strong was the language used, and yet not stronger than was deserved, by those who reprobated every encroachment on the purity and integrity of the sacred volume. But among those who were the most bitter and unsparing in their rancorous denunciations of the frauds committed by the officials of the Bible Society, can one be pointed out, against whom the charge of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, might not with the utmost truth and justice be brought?
The true way of honouring the Bible, as a revelation from above, is to receive all our theological notions direct from it.
Scripture should be to Christians, what the field of nature is to the philosopher. As since the days of Bacon, no prejudice, however inveterate, no principles however long established, can in scientific pursuits be allowed to stand in opposition to facts observed and authenticated by the slow and cautious, but certain method of induction; so, were professors of religion wise, and true to their principles, the inspired writings would be to them a storehouse and treasury of spiritual facts to which every theory of mere human origin would be made to bend. Painful it is to think, that this beau ideal of Christian practice, has never yet, at least on any extensive scale been realized. In consequence of this, how striking the contrast between the present state of theology, and that of science. By making nature her guide, Science is every where removing the obstructions which prejudice and authority in former times had thrown in her path, and is advancing with rapid and gigantic strides towards that temporal supremacy which is her due. By neglecting the scriptures, or by looking at them only through the medium of human explanations of their meaning, Theology by her side droops and languishes. When will this state of matters come to an end? When shall creeds, confessions of faith, and articles of religion, with other formularies of mere human origin, submit to be tried by the scriptures instead of arrogantly insisting on the God of truth, as He speaks in His word, making His appearance at their bar? One thing is certain, that until human expositions of divine things shall have been abandoned, and the only com-[3]petent authority in such matters shall have been submitted to, theology must continue to occupy the low and stationary condition in which for ages it has appeared.
Considering these things, I have been induced to apply to the scriptures alone for information respecting the subject. Nor in my researches have I been disappointed. Quitting the fairy regions of conjecture, and planting my foot on the terra firma of divine revelation, a new world of truth and reality has opened up to my astonished gaze. Man has appeared to me as he is. The veil which ignorance, prejudice, and sophistry had conspired to draw over his character, has been removed, and he has stood forth confessed in all his native vileness, worthlessness, and deformity. The natural dignity, and the natural immortality of man, have, in the light of revelation, vanished into air. His body corruptible, his mind earthly, have turned out to be but the shadows and representation of something better. In these pages I present to my readers the fruit of my researches. Susceptible of improvement the system may be, nay, unquestionably is; but its foundations are laid too deeply and firmly in the scriptures themselves, ever to be subverted.
In these circumstances, it behoves every man who would add to the already existing stock of divine knowledge, to be particularly careful in the mode of prosecuting his researches. It is not enough that he abstain from adopting, as the basis of his enquiries, the maxims of philosophy, falsely so called. Much more indispensable is it, that he dismiss from his mind, all the groundless and fanciful conjectures, with which a spurious theology may previously have stored and imbued it. Not that either Philosophers or Theologians have been altogether mistaken in the views which in their respective systems they have presented. So far from this, many of their statements and reasonings receive the amplest confirmation from holy writ. But the reason of putting aside the authority of man entirely in divine things is, that God alone can be the witness to their truth. Besides, the principles to be borne in mind, and acted upon, by every Christian enquirer, are these: that all that is really true and valuable in the views of human beings concerning those topics which revelation discloses have, at one time or another, and in one mode or another, been already borrowed from the same source; and that the purity, as well as enlargement, of our religious notions is always in proportion to the degree [4] in which they are drawn direct from the fountain of inspiration itself.
With these sentiments I have been influenced in conducting the enquiry, the result of which is now submitted to my readers. Of human nature, God, in His word, professes to treat, nay, He there declares, that He alone is competent to do so. The heart of man, who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins. To know what man is, we must therefore have recourse to the scriptures alone. If desirous accurately and thoroughly to investigate the subject, our determination must be that of the Psalmist, I will hear what God the Lord will speak. Upon this principle I have acted, nor has the result disappointed my expectations. Man, in the light of scripture, has appeared to me as he is. The sacred volume tells me of his origin — traces up his actions to their principles — connects the latter with his constitution, and the former with his outward circumstances — points to his shadowy and transient nature — and as such shews his entire subserviency to the introduction and establishment of another and more glorious state of things. And is not this the very information of which we stand in need? Neglecting then the speculations of philosophers, and of the mere drudges of theology, concerning what man is and is destined to be, or availing myself of them only when confirmed by superior authority, I now present to my readers a scheme of human nature in a great measure new, and, because based upon the word of God, in its leading features, infallible.
Ignorant of the grand distinction brought out in these pages as mankind hitherto have been, it is not a little interesting to observe the approaches to it, which natural sagacity, or traditional information, has enabled individuals in former ages to make. When we find the ancients distinguishing between ψυχη and the νους, or between the sensitive and the rational soul, we are tempted to enquire, whence the suggestion of any existing difference? We are still more struck at the acuteness which could reject an immortality of the soul a parte post, unless conjoined with an immortality a parte ante. Is it possible, we are ready to exclaim, that some far seeing, and more than ordinarily gifted mind can have anticipated the very doctrine which our blessed Lord predicates concerning his own nature, as distinguished from that of mere men? Glorify me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, before [5] the world was. Among the approximations which have taken place in modern times, to the leading position of the present work, none with which I am acquainted is more remarkable than that of Luther himself. In his commentaries on Ecclesiastes he almost touches it. He there maintains the entire dependency of soul on body, connects the dissolution of the one with the extinction of consciousness in the other, allows of no existence of the soul apart from the corporeal frame, and ascribes to the resurrection alone the joint revival of both. The defect of Luther’s system is, not so much that he had an incorrect notion of Soul, as that he failed of attaining to a correct notion of Spirit, as a principle totally distinct from it. And yet, perhaps, he knew more than in the existing state of the reformed communities he found it convenient to disclose. Calvin had chosen fiercely to contest his theory, and he might deem it advisable to let the matter drop. Since that period, Luther’s basis has been frequently taken up, and with various degrees of success brought under public notice. Almost in our own day, Law in some tracts at the end of his Considerations on the Theory of Religion, has illustrated it; and Priestly in his Disquisitions relating to Matter and Spirit, and his friendly Discussion with Dr. Price, has caricatured it. But I am not aware, that until the publication of the first edition of my Three Questions in 1828 any real advance had been made beyond Luther’s conception.
SECTION II.
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT, A SCRIPTURAL ONE.
That distinction between Soul and Spirit, which it is the object of the present volume to explain and illustrate, comes out both in the Old, and in the New Testament Scriptures.
Although in a statement of truths which have been gradually developed, it is sometimes convenient to adhere to [6] the order of time, there are cases, and the present appears to be one, in which that order may be advantageously dispensed with. By all enlightened Christians, it is well known that the New Testament opens up the meaning of the Old, and that the Epistles afford a key to the understanding of the Gospels. In the Epistles, then, we should look for, because we are most likely to find, the clearest exhibition of divine truth. And receiving our views from them, we shall be enabled to bring their light to bear on the obscurer portions of the inspired volume.
It is to the Epistles that I am indebted for my first knowledge of the distinction in question. By the assistance which they afforded me, I was enabled to trace it throughout the rest of the scriptures. And in the order in which information was conveyed to myself, I now present it to my readers.
The passage which first arrested my attention, and which I have no hesitation in placing at the head of those by which the difference in question is established, is, 1 Corinth. 15:45, The first Adam was made a living soul (εις ψυχην ζω σαν), the last Adam a quickening spirit. (εις πνευμα ζωοποιουν.)1 Observe, the former was a Soul, the latter is a Spirit. It is respectfully intimated to the mere English reader, that the words rendered Soul and Spirit, are not in the Greek language the same; but that there is a difference in the original corresponding to that which obtains in the translation.
1 Connect with this John 4:24, God is Spirit.
In the four following passages the distinction is brought out with almost equal force and luminousness. Heb. 4:12: Soul and Spirit (ψυχης πε και πνευματος). Jude 19: sensual (ψυχικοι, soulical), not having the spirit. — 1 Corinth. 2:14: The natural man ψυχικος δε ανθρωπος, (the soulical man, or man with a soul,) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned. Here is implied the necessity of a principle of which he is destitute. To see the matter in a still clearer light, let the following verse in Greek be compared with Heb. 4:12, already noticed, 1 Corinth. 15:44: there is a natural body (σωμα ψυχικον, a soulical body, or body for the soul), and there is a spiritual body (σωμα πνευατικον.) Concerning which last text it deserves to be remarked, that not only does the distinction contended for appear [7] on the face of it, but it is made the foundation of that express assertion of a difference between soul and spirit which appears in the following verse. As if the Apostle had said, there is a soulical body, and there is a spiritual body, because there exist two distinct principles, soul and spirit, by which respectively they are to be occupied. (See, 1 Thessal. 5:23.)
Neither in the Gospels, nor in the Old Testament scriptures, are we to expect the same clearness of statement as in the Epistles. And yet even in the former, traces of the doctrine in question are distinctly visible.
Among the Evangelists, John, in many respects, stands pre-eminent. Passing by what he says of the Λογος or Word, of the qualities by which it is distinguished, and of the effects resulting from its manifestation in flesh, I would call attention to such passages as the following: John 3:3, as introductory to v. 6. That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. The force of this will be best seen, by reading it in connection with Romans 8:5, afterwards to be enlarged on. In neither passage is spirit contrasted with soul in so many words, but with something, which may afterwards but found to be soul’s equivalent. Again: throughout the greater part of the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel there is a contrast instituted between flesh and spirit, or between views which Christ ascribes to the Jews, and views which he represents himself as the appointed medium of disclosing. 6:63. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life. In Matt. 16:17, we are informed, in regard to Peter’s confession, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, that flesh and blood, or principles dependent on and connected with human nature, had not revealed it unto him, but our Lord’s Father which was in Heaven. If these, and corresponding passages do not, in so many words, declare the existence of a distinction between Soul and Spirit, they at all events bring under our notice certain effects as flowing from flesh, and different and superior effects as proceeding from Spirit, which upon examination may be found to imply the same thing.
The Old Testament Scriptures, without saying expressly that soul differs from spirit, bring out the ground of that distinction in a variety of ways. I will not dwell on such facts, as, that spirit is represented as having been the grand [8] agent in the work of Creation; Gen. 1:2; that it was spirit which strove with man previous to the flood; Gen. 6:3; and so on. Nay, I omit the fact, that in Old Testament times, Spirit, which Peter in his 1st Epistle, 1st chapter 11th verse, informs us was the spirit of Christ, is represented as having supernaturally revealed to holy men of old future events, and enabled them to perform miraculous works. But after directing my readers’ attention to Psalm 49:12, and Ecclesiastes 3:18-20, in which man’s nature merely animal, is placed with regard to its leading features, on a level with that of the beasts which perish, I would remind them of such remarkable passages as the following, in which qualities are ascribed to Spirit, totally different from, and superior to, those which characterise mere human principles. Isaiah 44:3. Here to Spirit, or a principle superior to any possessed by man, as poured out copiously at a period of time then future, are ascribed refreshing and revivifying effects, or effects which imply the putting forth of divine power. In Ezekiel 37:1-14, the nature of spirit, as not merely a principle of life, but as destined in a future age to impart life to what had previously been dead, is strikingly set forth. Dry bones are shewn to the prophet; to these by the divine command he speaks, and into them the vital principle is thereby conveyed. In reference to the symbolical action, God thus addresses the House of Israel: I will put my spirit in you, and ye shall live. Whatever may be alleged as to the obscurity of the Old Testament Scriptures in other respects it cannot be denied, that they thus ascribe to Spirit, powers and qualities totally different from those which can be predicated concerning the mind of man. If not the verbal distinction contended for, does not its thorough consistency with that distinction strike the most superficial observer?
Notwithstanding what I have stated, I am far from having overlooked the different senses in which Soul and Spirit, or rather the corresponding Hebrew and Greek words, occur in the sacred writings. I am aware that ψυχη in the sense of self or as denoting personality of existence, is applied even to the Supreme Being; that it is frequently equivalent to the English word person; and so on. Also, that πνευμα signifies merely wind or breath in a great number of instances. All that I contend for is, that, besides [9] the literal meaning of the words, and the various senses springing out of these in which they are employed both by sacred and profane writers, they have what may be called a distinctive or relative sense, with which the scriptures make us acquainted, and which we are bound to receive upon their authority. Soul has been contradistinguished from Spirit, by the author of revelation Himself; and, therefore, while we use the words in their popular acceptation where the meaning of the passage evidently requires it, let us take care that we acquiesce in the inspired distinction, where that distinction has obviously been made.
Assuming, then, that the New Testament is the only authorized interpreter of the Old, and that the Epistles explain what from the necessity of the case was but partially revealed during our Lord’s personal abode upon Earth, and is therefore obscurely intimated in the Gospels, the two following facts are, I think, established: —
First. That there is a distinction laid down in scripture between Soul and Spirit.
Secondly. That Soul, when used distinctively, denotes the mind, as connected with the vital principle, of Adam; Spirit, the mind, or superior and supernatural vital principle, of Christ Jesus.
SECTION III.
SOUL AND SPIRIT NOT A MERE VERBAL DISTINCTION.
But the distinction between Soul and Spirit has a somewhat deeper foundation than in mere words. So much so, indeed, that, of any particular terms, the views presented throughout the main portion of this work are completely independent. Let any of my readers, then, deny that Soul and Spirit are ever used in the sacred writings in a distinctive sense, if believers in the truth of scripture at all, they shall be forced to acknowledge the existence of an essential distinction between the mind of Adam and the mind of Christ. And this conviction having been carried home to their minds, they shall be at perfect liberty to apply to the two distinct minds, any two words, or any two sets of phrases, which they may please. If, in the after part of this work, I employ [10] soul and spirit as expressive of the distinction, it is merely because I conceive that scripture sanctions the usage, and in order to avoid circumlocution. But wherever the words soul or spirit occur, the substitution of either of the two terms which opposers may deem preferable will be found to answer my purpose equally well.
There are two ways of obtruding conviction on the consciences of my readers in reference to the distinction contended for.
The one is, through the medium of the argumentum ad hominem, or that species of reasoning which makes a man’s own avowed sentiments the means of convicting him.
Nothing is easier than this in regard to the subject in question. Passing by the mere humanitarian, (and yet, if it were worth while, difficulties which it would puzzle even them to solve on their own principles, might be started), I confine myself to those who are commonly denominated Arians and Trinitarians. By the former of these classes, the Lord Jesus is admitted to have had a supernatural origin, and to have been a supernatural being; by the latter, it is maintained that he was God himself manifest in flesh. Now, what possibility is there that the mind of one who, by the confession of both these parties, was Adam’s creator, could have been the same with that of His creature? That for wise, holy, and beneficent purposes, the mind of the former was accommodated to the state and circumstances of the latter, not only may be, but in an after-part of the work will be shewn to have been, true. But that the mind of the Creator, should have been in all respects the same with that of the creature, is, of course, in the nature of things an impossibility. If, then, the Arian and the Trinitarian will deny the applicability, of the term soul to the mind of Adam and of the term spirit to the mind of Christ, let them do so. It is enough for me, that by the nature of their respective creeds, they maintain the two minds to be different; and that with any other two distinct terms which they may employ in preference to mine, the same conclusion will be brought out. How can they, if dealing uprightly and without abandoning their respective principles, evade the conclusion upon which I force them?
There is, however, another and a better way of extorting the suffrages of opponents than the foregoing.
Every one endowed with common sense knows, that, [11] from a difference in the effects produced, we argue and cannot help arguing, to the existence of a difference in the causes to which they owe their origin. Our blessed Lord assuming this principle, enquires: Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Matt. 7:16. And one of his apostles, without the slightest dread of being called in question for having recourse to this mode of reasoning, proposes similar queries. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place, sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? Either a vine, figs? So can no fountain yield both salt water and fresh. James 3:11,12. On the same principle do I proceed to demand from those who may hitherto have demurred to the correctness of my statements, a concession of the existence of such an essential difference between the mind of Adam, and the mind of Christ Jesus, as renders it impossible, without an utter confusion of ideas, to employ one and the same term to denote both. It matters not to my present argument, what a man’s religious sentiments otherwise may be: it being enough that he acknowledge the truth and divine origin of the scriptures.
Does the word of God represent the same effects as having flowed from the mind of Adam, and the mind of Christ? If it does, the remainder of my work is useless. But if the mind of Jesus be there exhibited as the source of views and practices essentially different from, and superior to, those to which the mind of Adam has given birth, what can hinder the conclusion, that there exists an essential difference between the two minds themselves? Do not the different phenomena observable in brutes and men, entitle us to conclude that there is a difference between the natures of both? And, from the still greater difference subsisting between the phenomena observable in Adam and Jesus, can we help arguing to the still greater difference between their respective natures?
To this point, then, do I bring the matter. I pledge myself to shew, from a series of facts recorded in scripture, that the nature of Adam stands there expressly distinguished from the nature of the Lord Jesus. The two men will be shewn, certainly, to have had much in common; nay in so far as the type must correspond to the anti-type, every thing in common. But in connection with, and contrast to, every resemblance, a difference will be pointed out; [12] the differences observable being so great, as to render it impossible for us to regard, or speak of, the two natures essentially the same. The whole subject shall then be left with the consciences of my readers. I shall have established my grand proposition that the distinction between soul and spirit is not a mere verbal one.
In what follows, with a view to perspicuity, I treat first, of Soul, or the mind of the creature; and, secondly, of Spirit, or the mind of the Creator.
[13]
PART I.
SOUL,
OR THE
MIND OF THE CREATURE.
This subject will be best disposed and treated of under these following heads: —
1. The nature and constitution of Soul or creature mind.
2. Its most remarkable phenomena, or the most remarkable appearances which it presents.
3. The ends or purposes for which it has been called into existence.
CHAPTER I.
THE NATURE AND CONSTITUTION OF SOUL OR CREATURE MIND.
SECTION I.
SOUL, THE SAME AS FLESHLY MIND.
The identity of soul and fleshly mind is apparent in the light of the fact, that if the former be contrasted with spiritual mind, or the mind of Christ Jesus, so also is the latter. If Adam was a living soul, Christ a quickening spirit; so also are Adam and his descendants distinguished by fleshly mind. This latter distinction is strikingly set before us in the Epistle to the Romans. The mind or minding, of the flesh, (see margin), is death, the mind, or minding, of the spirit, is life and peace. Rom. 8:6.
Again, the same qualities which are ascribed to soul when used distinctively, are also ascribed to flesh or fleshly mind. Such are: 1. Inability to comprehend divine things. Compare John 3:3-13, and 6:63; with 1 Corinth. 2, through-[14]out, especially verses 14 and 15, in the original. 2. Gross sensuality. Compare Jude, verses 18 and 19 with Galatians 5:19-21. 3. Limitation or confinement to this present world. Compare 1 Corinth. 15:44,45, and Matt. 10:28, with 1 Corinth. 15:50, Rom. 8:10,11, John 3:3,5, and 6:63, all taken together. Many other resemblances between what is predicated of soul and fleshly mind will occur to the enlightened student of the holy scriptures.
Taking these facts into consideration, I have been obliged to conclude, that soul, and fleshly mind, are merely different terms employed by the Holy Spirit for denoting the natural or Adamic mind; and that, consequently, whatever may be predicated of the one may likewise be predicated of the other.
It may be alleged, that there is this distinction between soul and fleshly mind, that the former when used distinctively signifies not only the Adamic mind but also the principle of life as connected with that mind, whereas the latter is confined to the mind itself. That is, the former is a generic, the latter a specific term. This distinction, if insisted on, I have neither wish nor occasion to dispute. Its admission on my part would not in any respect whatever interfere with the fact, that soul and fleshly mind are to all practical purposes identical, and may be spoken and treated of as such. In considering fleshly mind as abstracted from the principle of life, we certainly never for a single moment suppose that, independently of that principle it either does or can exist.
SECTION II.
A NOTION OF THE ORTHODOX CONCERNING FLESHLY MIND STATED.
So far as the identity of fleshly mind and the present state of the minds of Adam’s posterity is concerned, between the orthodox and myself there is no difference. Ordinary theologians maintain, as one of the articles of their creed, that the mind of every human being is by nature fleshly. A person, not accustomed to religious controversy, would be apt to think, that this was equivalent to an admission of the [15] Adamic mind having been originally and essentially fleshly, and of this fleshliness of nature constituting the very basis of the distinction between the mind of Adam, and the mind of Christ. Nothing, I can assure my readers, is further from the intention of those who arrogate to themselves the title of Orthodox, than to make such an admission as this.
In the vocabulary of Orthodoxy, fleshly mind signifies, not mind originally fleshly, but mind which has become so by transgression. That is, the present fleshly nature or character of human mind, which by ordinary religionists is admitted, is represented by them not as essential to it, but as a mere accident superadded to it by the entrance of sin. Can this be true? is a question which will occur to every lover of the Bible; and which he will desire to have solved by a reference to its sacred pages. To how many erroneous doctrines, and erroneous consequences necessarily deducible from them, have serious individuals been induced to give their assent, from neglecting to bring the bold presumptions of fallible men like themselves to the infallible standard of the law and the testimony.
SECTION III.
POPULAR NOTIONS RESPECTING THE ORIGIN OF THE FLESHLY CHARACTER OF THE HUMAN MIND, NOT AUTHORIZED BY SCRIPTURE; BESIDES, THEY LEAD TO CONSEQUENCES PERFECTLY UNTENABLE.
In every case where men, professing to found their dogmas on the word of God, venture to promulgate any religious opinions, they may fairly be called on to produce the passage or passages of scripture, in which the view contended for by them is asserted. And in the event of their being unable to do so, or of the passages upon which they rest being clearly irrelevant, their theory may at once be set aside as an unauthorized assumption.
This is the very predicament in which the popular notion respecting the cause of the fleshliness of the Adamic mind is placed. It may plead the support of human authority in its behalf, but its grand defect is, the complete want of a standing place in the word of God. In not a single passage of scripture is it declared, that the human mind, originally [16] something else, has been rendered fleshly by means of the first transgression. So far from this, in the next section it will be shewn that the inspired volume traces up its fleshliness to a very different, and much more satisfactory, cause. What other treatment can a view, thus not only destitute of scriptural evidence, but even in direct opposition to what God himself hath declared, expect to meet with at the hands of the enlightened followers of Christ, but instant and unhesitating rejection?
As for the ordinary proofs which are afforded of the correctness of the popular dogma, they have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the subject. “Man,” say its supporters, “was, as he came from God’s hands, pronounced to be very good; Gen. 1:31; and, in another passage, is declared to have been created upright; Eccles. 7:29; ergo, his mind was not originally fleshly.” I grant the truth of the premises; but must demur to the conclusion. Are the soi-disant orthodox to be permitted to assume that a fleshly mind could not have been originally good and upright, and then from the circumstance of its having been good and upright to infer that it could not have been fleshly, thus viciously reasoning in a circle? Why, a mere child may detect the fallacy of such reasoning. On the other hand, supposing the mind of Adam to have been originally very good as a fleshly mind, just as the minds of brutes are very good, as brutish minds; and supposing his mind to have been also originally upright, also as a fleshly mind; both of which assumptions will afterwards be proved; what then, becomes of the conclusion which popular religionists attempt to fasten upon the words good and upright? The fact is, and when we are brought by divine teaching to reflect on the subject is clearly seen to be so, that, to infer from the circumstance of Adam’s mind having been good and upright, that it could not at first have been originally fleshly, is one of these glaring instances of absurd and unconsequential reasoning which although swallowed greedily by the gudgeons of religion, would not, if applied to secular matters, pass current for a single moment with shrewd and practised men of the world. Verily, in more respects than one, the children of this world shew themselves to be wiser in their generation than the children of light.
But over and above the fact that the popular dogma respecting the origin of the fleshliness of man’s mind is [17] destitute of all scriptural foundation, even if admitted, argumenti causa, it leads to consequences which of themselves demonstrate its fallacy.
First. If man’s mind was not originally fleshly, it must originally have been spiritual, — fleshly mind, and spiritual mind, being the only two intelligent minds of which scripture makes any mention. Indeed, it is unnecessary to have recourse to a conclusion, it being distinctly held and declared by the orthodox, that the mind of man was at first spiritual. Now the consequences of holding this sentiment are subversive of all that God’s word teaches us. For, first, as Adam was not the same with him who was to come, but merely his type, figure, or likeness, Rom. 5:15, we cannot ascribe to Adam the same qualities with those which the Lord Jesus possesses, without confounding the type with the anti-type, the nature of the creature with the nature of the Creator. As respectively type and anti-type, similar or rather analogous properties the two must have possessed: but, under such circumstances for them to have had the same properties, is an utter impossibility. And yet, as Christ is Spirit, 1 Corinth. 15:45, and His nature is Spiritual, John. 3:56; 6:63; 1 Corinth. 2:14,15; 15:46; 2 Corinth. 3, throughout, etc.: upon this very impossibility those who represent Adam, merely the type of Christ, as having been originally spiritual, necessarily run themselves. Secondly. If Adam was originally spiritual, and if Christ be no more than spiritual, then, instead of the Lord Jesus conferring upon us something more glorious than Adam originally had, he merely restores to us the forfeited earthly inheritance. That is, the Creator was made manifest in flesh, lived, and died, and rose again, for no other and no higher purpose, than merely to bring us back to the condition in which Adam, previous to his creation, was placed. But how can this be reconciled with his own words, or with what scripture declares concerning him? — With his own words: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. John 10:10. — Or with what scripture declares: the inheritance to which through Christ we are raised, is not, like that of Adam, capable of being lost, but is incorruptible, undefiled, and fadeth not away. 1 Peter 1:4.
Secondly. If man’s mind was not originally fleshly, it is impossible to give any rational, consistent or satisfactory, [18] account of the entrance of sin. It is obvious from the result, that spiritual mind, or the mind of Christ, was not obnoxious to sin; therefore, spiritual, in the since of being the same as Christ’s mind, Adam’s mind could not naturally have been. What, then, was the Adamic mind naturally? Liable to sin, unquestionably, as is proved by the fact of its actually having sinned. But what is a mind that is liable to sin, and yet is not fleshly mind? — If, with a view to obviate this conclusion, the desperate expedient be had recourse to, of denying that man’s mind was originally liable to sin, and was rendered so only by the first transgression, what is gained thereby? This mode of attempting to get rid of the difficulty is merely saying man became liable to sin by sin! Whence, however, the first sin? is still the question. If man’s mind was by its very nature and constitution fleshly, the difficulty vanishes in a moment. If not so, how came sin to obtain a footing there? To say that sin, which is merely an effect, could have resulted from a mind which had no predisposition or tendency to it, or at all events, no capability of it, is one of those absurdities, which only those who can conceive of an effect as existing without a cause, may be expected to swallow. On the other hand, to admit, that the mind of Adam, even before it actually transgressed, must have been capable of transgression, (no great stretch of concession, after all), is to admit, that there must have existed a cause of that capability. That this cause was its essential and inherent fleshliness, it will now be my business to shew.
SECTION IV.
SOUL, OR HUMAN MIND, FLESHLY, WHY?
When, abandoning the regions of theory and conjecture, we consult the sacred record itself, nothing can be conceived simpler or more satisfactory than the reason, which it assigns for the mind of man being denominated fleshly mind.
[19] These reasons are twofold; first, its origin; and secondly, its nature.
First. Its origin. — The account of the creation of man is given in the following few and impressive words: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, Gen. 2:7.2
2 Or living creature, or creature that lives by breathing. See Gen. 1:20, &c., in the original.
That man’s origin was earthly, or that his bodily frame was compounded of materials taken from the ground on which he treads, is not only declared in the words just quoted, but, as if to obviate all cavilling or possibility of mistake, is re-asserted in more than one other passage of holy writ. Such are, first, the language of God in pronouncing the sentence to which by sin man had rendered himself obnoxious: Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Gen. 3:19. Secondly. — The Apostle Paul lays down Adam’s earthly origin, as that which mainly distinguishes him from the Lord Jesus, his glorious anti-type: The first man is of the earth, earthy, 1 Corinth. 15:47.
It was not until the bodily frame of man had been constructed and organized, that a vital principle and mind adapted to it, were, by the Divine Creator, conferred upon it; that is, the earthly materials were first fashioned into human flesh, and then a mind fitted for dwelling in such flesh became its occupant. The mind did not exist first, and then produce a body adapted for its dwelling place; but the body existed first, and drew to it, as it were, a mind suited and accommodated to it. Does not this derivation of human mind from human flesh, easily and satisfactorily explain why the former is called fleshly mind?
And as in the case of Adam, so also in that of his posterity. The almighty word, “increase and multiply,” having gone forth, the effect has necessarily followed. Innumerable myriads of intelligent beings, constituted like Adam, have sprung from him. And have sprung from him, too, in a way exactly corresponding to that in which his own nature was originally brought into existence. As is the earthy, such also are the earthy. As [20] in his case, first of all, flesh was constructed and then a vital principle and mind accommodated to it, were bestowed; so, in the case of his posterity, flesh, proceeding from flesh, first of all is conceived, and then in due time, a vital principle, and, as necessarily implied in that, a mind, accommodated to flesh, make their appearance. Thus, the previous existence of organized flesh in the case of Adam, and the previous existence of organized flesh, derived from his, in the case of other human beings, is implied, in order to the existence of human life and mind. That is, speaking familiarly, human life and mind have been in the cases both of the ancestor and his posterity, derived from flesh. Is not mind thus derived, by its very origin, fleshly mind?
SECTION V.
THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.
Secondly. Soul is fleshly likewise by its nature.
This the doctrine of scripture clearly demonstrates. Our blessed Lord, conversing with Nicodemus, lays it down as an axiom, that whatever is born of the flesh, is flesh. John 3:6. By attending to the context of the passage in which the words occur, it becomes obvious that it is not merely of our bodies as born of flesh, but of our minds as also partaking of the fleshly nature of the bodies from which they proceed and with which they are connected, that our Saviour is speaking. For, it is the incorrectness of the views of Nicodemus which he is exposing; and the grand argument which he makes use of for the purpose of doing so is, that they owed their origin to flesh, no less than his body did. Hence the meaning of his words is: “our natural notions respecting divine things being derived from flesh, are necessarily fleshly as well as our bodies; and, relating to a subject concerning which flesh is incompetent to judge, are consequently not to be relied on.” But it has appeared, in the preceding section, that Adam’s mind was as decidedly derived from or born of flesh, as are the minds of his descendants. His mind, [21] therefore, must, upon our Lord’s principle, have been by its very nature fleshly as well as theirs.
Indeed, looking at the facts recorded in scripture, fleshly in every point of view does the mind of man appear from its very origin to have been. It was fleshly, for it had no existence until flesh had been previously formed and organized. It was fleshly, for comforts and enjoyments adapted only to a fleshly nature were provided for it. It was fleshly, for the only prohibition to which it was subjected, respected fleshly appetite. It was fleshly, for it was betrayed into the commission of evil. And it was fleshly, for, with the existence of flesh, it likewise ceased to exist.
And fleshly by its very nature is the mind of all Adam’s descendants. Laying theory aside, that mind evidently begins with flesh, and ends with flesh. From the cradle to the grave, in every shape of human life, it is dependent on flesh. Let the brain be affected, and the mind of course is affected; let the head be crushed or separated from the body, and where, then, is the mind? Can it, for a single moment, survive the destruction of its earthly tenement? Besides, as will be shewn afterwards, while the human mind exists, all its ideas, propensities and desires — all the affections which it cherishes, and all the objects at which it aims, — are necessarily fleshly. Is it possible for any man respecting the authority of scripture, — nay, is it possible even for one who is guided in his judgment by mere matter of fact, to seek for any other or stronger reason of the mind of man being denominated fleshly, than the fact of its having been essentially and necessarily dependent on flesh from the first moment of its existence until now?
SECTION VI.
AN ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY STATED.
Having endeavoured to shew from the scriptures themselves that the soul or natural mind of man is denominated fleshly, not in consequence of any thing that has occurred to it since its creation, but on account of its origin and nature, [22] it may tend to illustrate what I have said, if I point to the very remarkable analogy which in this respect subsists between man and the inferior animals.
It has frequently been shewn by physiologists, that from the lowest order of animated beings up to man, there is a regular gradation of the parts of which they consist, and the organs by which they are distinguished. The lowest classes of all are destitute of brain, and yet even among them there are the relations of the inferior and the superior. And beginning with the animals among which the rudiments of a brain appear, and advancing through the whole series with which natural history makes us acquainted, we perceive the size, structure, and symmetry of that portion of the frame gradually to increase, until at last we arrive at man himself, in whom the most perfect specimen of brain makes its appearance.
Some interesting and instructive details on this subject will be found in Lawrence’s Lectures on Physiology. It matters not to me, nor to others, with what object that work may have been composed. It is with his facts only that I or my readers are concerned.
The facts respecting the brain brought to light by modern physiologists may be thus stated.
First. Such of the inferior animals as have vitality without brain, seem to be governed in their actions not by understanding but by mere instinct.
Secondly. The first rudiments of mind seem to begin with the first rudiments of brain; and the degree of mind possessed by the inferior animals seems to depend on, and be in proportion to, the size, structure, and symmetry, of their respective brains.
Thirdly. As in man we find a brain superior as a whole to those which the inferior animals possess, and in connection with this a mind also superior to theirs, and yet as we find his mind to be as dependent for its existence on brain as theirs are, is it not the fair conclusion from all this, that, in whatever respects man may differ from the inferior animals, fleshliness of mind is a principle which, by the very constitution of his nature, he shares in common with them?
This is not only a legitimate inference, but possesses the advantage of being accordant to the dictates of revelation. A man hath no pre-eminence above a beast, says the inspired author of the book of Ecclesiastes. Chap. 3:19. And this [23] position, matter of fact amply illustrates. All, as well men as beasts, are of the dust. ib. 5:20. Hence that which befalleth the one, also befalleth the other. 5:19. Men, like beasts, have organized bodies, constituted of earthly materials; the minds of the former no less than those of the latter, come into existence with these bodies, are accommodated to them, and throughout life depend on them, — and when the corporeal frames of both return to the dust the minds of both equally come to an end and disappear. In that very day the thoughts of man, no less than the thoughts of these animals necessarily perish. Psalm 146:4. Indeed, in another passage, the resemblance of man’s fate, to that of the inferior animals, is expressly declared: Man being in honour, abideth not, but is like the beasts that perish. Psalm 99:12.
Thus man hath no pre-eminence above the beast, in regard to the origin, constitution, structure, and fate of his mind. In both it is necessarily and essentially fleshly: and reviewed in the light of this fact, how humbling and instructive is the language of Solomon found to be, when he declares, that the object of God in his dealings with the sons of men is, that He might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. Eccles. 3:18.
SECTION VII.
WHY SOUL IS SPOKEN OF AS FLESHLY, NOT MATERIAL MIND.
Here it might be sufficient to observe that fleshly mind is a scriptural term, material mind is not. And upon the principle, that language employed by God himself is always to be preferred to a phraseology invented by man, the preference given by me to the former mode of expression might be abundantly justified.
But other, and, if not equally satisfactory at all events very valid reasons may be assigned for my preference of the phrase which I have chosen to make use of.
First. When I call the mind of man fleshly, I point at once and unequivocally to that with which it stands connected. Matter moulded into a particular form, subsisting after [24] a particular manner, and invested with particular properties, immediately suggests itself to my readers, as that on which such a mind of necessity depends. Not so, were I to denominate it material mind. The vagueness of the appellation is scarcely compatible, with its presenting any distinct or definite idea. Nay, it is more than possible that such a phrase if employed by me would suggest a view my meaning which was completely erroneous. Every risk of this kind is avoided, when I call the mind of man fleshly mind, that is, mind dependent, not on matter in general, but on matter peculiarly organized, and animated by a peculiar living principle.
Secondly. Were I to speak of the mind of man as essentially material, it is but too probable that I should be set down, by the great majority of my readers, as acquiescing in some one or other of the numerous philosophical theories which have been broached by ingenious men respecting the subject.
It is abundantly plain to me, that the mind of man, or rather of Adam the earthly man and his descendants, is material, that is, is necessarily connected with, and dependent on brain, or matter peculiarly organized. Nay, besides being directly dependent on brain, I am satisfied that it is also indirectly dependent on temperament, and the circumstances in which the human frame may for the time be placed. The work of Mr. Cabanis was the means of first suggesting to me a variety of most interesting facts connected with the influence of the structure of the body, and the changes which it is constantly undergoing, on the constitution and tendencies of the mind. Sir Charles Bell’s “Physiology” has since supplied me with more. Without pledging myself to adopt every fact which such writers may suppose themselves to have observed, or all the conclusions which even from real facts they may have deduced, I am as fully satisfied as they can be of the earthly, fleshly, or, if they will, material nature of the human mind, and this, not as a highly probable theory founded on observed facts, but as an article of divine faith founded on the express declarations of the Most High, which, like everything else that is actually his testimony, are necessarily consistent with matters of fact.
But the more convinced I am of the material character of man’s mind as a doctrine of revelation, the more do I dread being supposed to give in to any mere human theory on the [25] subject. For instance, although agreeing in many respects with Dr. Hartley in the views which he has brought forward and illustrated in his profound work on the Constitution of Man, and in the main with what his disciple Dr. Priestley has stated in his Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit, and in his defence of himself against the objections of his acute and ingenious antagonist, Dr. Price, I should be very sorry indeed to have it imagined, that I acquiesce in all their assumed facts and subtile reasonings. So far as I adopt them, it is certainly right that I should be held amenable for them. But I disclaim any farther liability. I have neither inclination nor necessity to burden myself and my cause with the problematical notions of any man, however learned and distinguished he may be.
To prevent, therefore, any taking upon themselves to identify my sentiments with those of others who have previously advocated the materialism of the human mind, I use the phrase fleshly mind, in preference to that which is commonly employed.3
3 In order to pick up, if I could, some farther information respecting the materiality of the human mind, I took the trouble, some years since, to wade through the celebrated System of Nature commonly ascribed to the Abbe Mirabaud, but in reality the production of Dr. Holbeech, and the infidel crew with whom he was associated. Although in some places powerfully declamatory, and throughout in no small degree insinuating, it is on the whole superficial, and is not a work to which I would send any one for facts. Productions of far less notoriety may for this purpose be consulted with more advantage.
SECTION VIII.
MODERN SCIENCE OF PHRENOLOGY.
It was scarcely to be supposed that, in a work like the present, I should omit taking notice of one of the most surprising and valuable discoveries of modern times. I mean, that of phrenology. So closely connected is it with the sub-[26]ject of which I am treating, that any remarks which confirm and illustrate the one, necessarily tend also to throw light on the other.
Phrenology is avowedly a demonstration a posteriori, or from a copious induction of particulars, that the mind of man is of necessity fleshly. Besides shewing in general that the brain is the seat of thought and feeling, it professes to point out in the different parts of which the cerebral mass consists, the organs of intellect, sentiment and appetite. In so far as the dependence of the mind on flesh or matter peculiarly organized, especially on brain, is concerned, it will be obvious, after considering what has been already written, that phrenology merely echoes the language of scripture and common observation. As to the connection of certain turns of mind, of certain capacities, dispositions, and tendencies, with certain forms of brain, this must be decided by enlarged induction and enlightened experience. At the same time, after admitting that mind is dependent on brain in general, the fair inference even á priori seems to be, that as is the structure of the individual brain, such will be the character of the mind which stands connected with it.
My own mind was long decidedly adverse to the claims of phrenology. Regarding it as resting on fancies, not facts, for its basis, I declined paying any attention to it. But, through the medium of the word of God, it was at last forced on my notice. In the year 1826, the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians suggested to me the distinction between Soul and Spirit; and, in an especial manner, obliged me to reflect on the circumstance of the first man being represented as essentially and by his very nature of the earth, earthy. Somewhat more than three years afterwards, in 1829, I had an opportunity of listening to twelve lectures on the subject of phrenology delivered by the late Dr. Spurzheim. The statements of that highly gifted, amiable, and accomplished man struck me, not only as important in themselves, but as, to a very extraordinary degree, according with views which the scriptures had already taught me. In consequence of this, I was induced to prosecute my researches into the subject still further. Several leading works in which phrenology is treated of, or which are written on its principles, were consulted by me. I may instance, besides the treatises of Dr. Spurzheim, Mr. Combe’s “Elements of Phrenology,” his work on “the Constitution of Man,” [27] Mr. Simpson’s treatise on Education, Mr. Carmichael’s Life of Spurzheim, the Phrenological Journal, &c. The result has been, that, if not an out-and-out believer in all that phrenologists have written on the subject of their favourite science, I may with perfect truth rank myself among the number of converts to their cause.
Indeed, I go much farther, in some respects, than the most zealous phrenologists are likely to follow me. How many of them can say with sincerity, that phrenology must be true, because God, in his word, has declared it to be so? This I have no hesitation in maintaining, that, if the scriptures be the word of God the leading principles of phrenology must be true: seeing that the divine author of the scriptures bears his infallible testimony to the truth of these principles. Observe, my statement is exactly the converse of the sceptical one. I do not, because phrenology appears to me to be founded upon it, whisper or insinuate suspicions as to the truth of the inspired record. Nay, I do not, by a kind of scepticism which is more covert but equally hostile to the divine testimony, pretend that that testimony can receive any confirmation from human science. On the contrary, assuming the scriptures to be the word of God, which they are to my conscience as well as to that of every other follower of the Lamb, I receive as absolutely and infallibly true whatever they declare. They assert that the mind of man is earthy or fleshly. I believe this fact, then, on their authority; and am ready to listen to every system which professes to recognize this fact as its basis. Phrenology does so. Therefore am I inclined to give to its statements the best consideration. But while I am delighted to find sound, inductive philosophy, both as to mind and matter, more and more prevailing at the present day, phrenologists, as well as other scientific men, must excuse me, if I exercise the utmost vigilance in regard to their facts and reasonings. Facts which really are such, I never at any time reject: but I dread having the mere assumptions of man palmed upon me as facts, being entangled in reasonings which have fancy only or in a great measure for their basis, or acquiescing in any insinuation against the divine origin of that book, on the authority of which alone even the leading principles of phrenology are received by me.
I say, the leading principles of phrenology; for to much that phrenologists have maintained as true, I am constrained [28] to put in my demurrer. That the brain as a whole is the organ of mind, — that its anterior lobe is connected with the intellectual powers, the basilar and lateral lobes with the animal propensities and impulsive energy, and the upper portion of the middle lobe with the sentiments and moral qualities — and that the doctrine of mind, taken in the largest acceptation of the term, is essentially the physiology of the brain, I cheerfully admit. But I am not sure that the very limited extent to which hitherto their opportunities of observation have gone, justify the admirers of the science in setting down so many organs as established, or in expressing themselves in some other respects so confidently, as they do. They may after all be right. Subsequent investigation may confirm many, perhaps most, of their ingenious conjectures.
Objections, however, to phrenology, as now taught, occur to me. Although I regard it, when perfected, as destined to be one of the most splendid and valuable expositors of the earthly, Adamic, or mere human mind, and as even already shedding much light on the subjects of education, criminal procedure, and the treatment of the insane, I do not admit it to have any thing whatever to do with Spirit, or the mind of Christ. That is bestowed, not according to favourable natural developments, individual merit, or anticipations founded on our own views of what is right, but according to the good pleasure of Him from whom cometh down every good and every perfect gift. He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy. Although the gift of spiritual mind is in every case the result of consummate wisdom, and might be shewn to be so to all who possess the degree of spiritual illumination requisite to enable them to comprehend it, God neither will, nor indeed can, to the mere Adamic mind give any account of this, or of any other of his matters. 1 Corinth. 2:14,15. Psalm 25. Therefore, although I grant that some natural minds are more capable of religious feeling than others, or, to use phrenological language, have the organ of veneration more largely developed than others, yet I deny, that the religion which such persons are capable of understanding, and that the religious feelings which they cherish, have any concern whatever with the mind, nature, or religion of Christ. The religion which such persons have and feel is slavish, superstitious dread; and stands diametrically opposed to that freedom, that per-[29]fect, glorious, everlasting freedom, with which the Son of God makes his genuine disciples free. John 8:36. 1 John 4:18. Upon similar principles, as will afterwards be shewn more fully, do I object to the ascription of really benevolent or generous feelings to the mere human mind. The shadow of benevolence does exist in man, and in some men more than in others; the reality of benevolence, being connected with the mind or nature of Christ, never had, never can have, a residence in the mere fleshly mind.
SECTION IX.
ON THE IMMATERIALITY AND IMMORTALITY OF SOUL.
There are two assertions commonly made respecting the human mind or Soul: —
First. That it is immaterial; that is, that it not only does not consist of the particles which enter into the composition of body, but has nothing in common with it.
Secondly. That as a necessary consequence of this, soul is immortal, or survives the dissolution of the body and exists for ever.
First. With respect to the immateriality of soul.
Putting aside the numerous unauthorized assumptions of the advocates of immaterialism, the following appear to me the only two facts of any consequence upon which with any show of reason they are entitled to rest their theory.
1. That the human mind or soul is not possessed of visible and tangible qualities, indeed, that it does not fall directly under the cognizance of the bodily senses.
2. That the presence of soul in body is essential to the existence of the latter in an organized form, the withdrawal of the soul from body being the signal for its dissolution.
These two facts, taken together, prove unquestionably, that there is a difference between soul and the qualities commonly ascribed to body, and that, in so far as the existence of body in an organized form is concerned, it is entirely dependent upon soul.
[30] Notwithstanding this, however, before the system of immaterialism as a whole could be established, it would be requisite for its supporters fairly, and without having recourse to quibbling, to get over such objections as the following:
1. In maintaining that soul is not a quality of body peculiarly organized, but is of itself a substance essentially different from body, do not immaterialists assume what it is their business to prove? Let it be granted, that soul differs from the ordinary qualities of body; yet, surely, it does not follow from this, that it is not a quality of body.
2. When immaterialists assert that the human mind has no property in common with matter, besides assuming the very point in dispute, do they not cut away from under them the very ground upon which any connection between mind and matter could take place?
3. Organized matter, it is confessed, is, popularly speaking, a collection or combination of parts. But what is soul? Why a bundle, collection, or, if you will, succession of consciousnesses. Viewed in this light, soul is no more a simple substance than body itself is. If it be contended that soul, in a certain sense, is one; why so, in a certain sense, is body also. The fact is, that the boasted argument for an essential difference between soul and body, grounded on the supposed fact of the former being a simple principle, which the latter is not, will not bear a moment’s examination.
4. To the preceding objections must be added this, that the principles of immaterialism necessarily involve its supporters in a consequence, which the majority of them profess to regard with abhorrence. If the phenomena of mind in man be utterly inexplicable, except on the principle of supposing mind to be a substance essentially different from matter, is not a similar immateriality, with all its attendant consequences, necessarily ascribable to the minds or souls of brutes?
In deliberating on the quæstio vexata of immaterialism, I have been forcibly impressed with a conviction of the partial views of the subject which have been taken by the disputants on both sides, and of the simple and satisfactory solution of all difficulties with which the scriptures abound.
That soul is a quality, affection, or attribute of body, peculiarly constituted and organized, is obviously the meaning of the inspired record, when it describes its [31] origin, and applies to it the term fleshly. See Galatians 5:19, &c. Besides as we shall afterwards have occasion to point out, it is on the principle of its being a quality of body, that its various phenomena, as set before us in scripture, are susceptible of explanation. See Galatians 5, &c.
But that soul is not merely a quality of body, the same scriptures are equally explicit in demonstrating. If it be a quality of body, as being dependent on it; it is also in certain respects body’s superior, as keeping it together in an organized form, as regulating its movements, and subjecting it to its will. In this latter point of view, viz. as body’s superior, soul is at once the shadow and the germ of a superior mental principle. It is its shadow, seeing that soul or human mind, is the type or figure of spirit or divine mind. It is also its germ, for it is only as having previously partaken of the mind of the earthy, that any can partake of the mind of the heavenly. Besides, and this perhaps more decidedly than any thing else evinces the superiority of soul to body, it is upon the earthly mind directly, that the heavenly mind is, if I may so express myself, hooked or fastened. My meaning is, as will be shewn afterwards at greater length, that, although natural body is the type or figure of spiritual body, yet the two bodies are not brought into contact directly, but through the intervention of the two minds with which they are respectively connected. Although natural body goes before, that is, has existence previous to, soul or natural mind, yet, in regard to spiritual mind and body, the state of things is exactly reversed. Spiritual mind is not preceded by, but goes before spiritual body. Hence it is, that natural mind is brought directly into contact with spiritual mind; and that the change from the shadow to the substance, or, rather the swallowing up of the shadow in the substance, as to the body, is effected, not through any direct action of the two bodies upon each other, but through the medium of the soul or natural mind having been previously exchanged for, and swallowed up in, the spiritual mind. Thus, it is through mind, now in many respects dependent on and subjected to matter, that matter is ultimately and completely triumphed over. And thus it is that soul or natural mind, although not immaterial in the sense of being substantial and as thereby contrasted with body viewed as unsubstantial or shadowy, is neverthe-[32]less, even as the shadow of the principle which is ultimately triumphant, different from, and in some respects superior to, the sister shadow with which she is so closely associated.
The fact is, it is this very circumstance of body and soul being both shadows that fits them for their connection with one another. Harmony of parts — the congruity of any one principle to the other principles with which it may be associated — constitutes, we perceive, one of the grand and distinguishing laws of nature. We see not animal or vegetable life possessed by the mere mineral; nor are the inferior bodily frame and cerebral developments of the dog or monkey ever endowed with the superior human mind. Guided by this all-pervading analogy, we are entitled even á priori to conclude, that for the unsubstantial or shadowy body of man a shadowy mind is the only suitable associate. And this, matter of fact, as brought out in scripture, amply confirms. Body and soul instead of having no property in common with each other, as the whole tribe of immaterialists are asserting, are thus in respect of both being equally unsubstantial, thoroughly alike and thoroughly adapted to each other. A substantial body does not disturb the workings of a mere shadowy mind; nor is a substantial mind continually interfering with the functions, and, by its fervid heavenly nature, consuming the energies of its mere shadowy companion; but soul and body possessing the same unsubstantial nature are thereby admirably fitted for that mutual, but temporary, action and reaction which are indispensable to the purposes for which they have been called into existence.
Is it objected: “According to you, soul and body are both alike immaterial.” My answer is, certainly if by the word immaterial be meant unsubstantial. But as, properly speaking, body is material; so, as depending on body, and accommodated to it, but not as composed of earthly ingredients, soul or natural mind may fitly enough in a popular sense, be spoken of as material likewise.
Secondly. We now proceed to offer a few observations respecting the immortality of soul.
This subject which has exercised the wits, and employed the pens, of so many learned and able men, and this, to the exposure of their utter inability upon natural principles to come to any definite and satisfactory conclusion res-[33]pecting it, is settled by the word of God in the clearest, easiest, and simplest manner imaginable.
The life of soul, or human mind, was, as we perceive from Genesis 2:17, to have been conditionally protracted for ever; or, if the phrase be better liked, had a conditional immortality conferred upon it. But the condition was violated. Gen. 3:1-6. Of this violation, the death of soul was the immediate and necessary result: 7th and following verses. Leaving out of view, therefore, for the present, the question as to whether soul was in its original state really immortal or not, it is, if the declarations of the word of God are to be rested in, a fact, that now at least it is mortal, or, more correctly speaking, dead.
To one suitably enlightened, there is no difficulty whatever in perceiving what the original life of the soul consisted in, and what was the death which, by violating the condition, it incurred. Intelligent mind, it appears from scripture, is capable of existing in three different states, and in three different states only. First. A state in which it is unacquainted with either good or evil; a state of happiness, undoubtedly, but one in which the happiness is merely and perfectly negative, being connected with, and implying the continuance of, ignorance and inexperience on the part of the individual. Secondly. A state in which there is the knowledge of good and evil. That is, the knowledge of good forfeited, and evil incurred. This is a state inconsistent with happiness either negative or positive. The knowledge or suspicion of the good that is lost, or, if you will, the sense of remorse, prevents the negative enjoyments connected with ignorance of evil; whilst on the other hand that ignorance of what is truly good, which constitutes one of the leading features of this state, stands in the way of those positive enjoyments which are only and inseparably connected with the knowledge of it. Thirdly. There is a state of the intelligent mind which consists in the knowledge of good; or, if you will, in the knowledge of evil as having been subservient to and terminating in good. This is the only state in which positive happiness can be enjoyed; and this because it is permanent, being the state, to which the other two states were merely means or introductory. Now, the two former of these states constitute soul, or natural mind; the third state, is spirit or supernatural mind. The first state, is soul alive; the second state, is soul dead. The first, or negative [34] state of happiness, is the type or figure of the third, or positive state of happiness; and yet from the very constitution of mind, there is no possibility of arriving at that third state, except through the medium of the second state, or death of soul. Am I now understood? Soul, according to scripture, did not become mortal merely, but actually died, the moment that Adam transgressed; transgression, or, if you will, the necessary effect of transgression, having been its death: and dead, it has ever since continued, and as soul ever will continue.
Beautifully consistent with this scriptural view of things are, as a matter of course, all the discoveries with which accurate observation, and true philosophy, make us acquainted.
First. The soul as we have seen, is not an immaterial, meaning thereby, a substantial principle; but is merely the type, figure or shadow of such a substantial principle. Every conclusion, therefore, drawn from this its assumed substantiality, and, among the rest, the supposed inference that it is naturally and essentially immortal, falls to the ground with the premises upon which it is erected. A shadowy mind, so far from necessarily existing for ever, may, nay must, like a shadowy body, pass away or die.
Secondly. Soul as by its very nature depending on body, must share in its fate. I grant, cheerfully, that there is a sense in which the fate of body was to be determined by that of soul. Upon man’s abstaining, or not abstaining, from transgression, the indefinite prolongation of his life upon earth was made to depend. But why so? To bring out, or make manifest, the real superiority of mind, such as his was, to body, by his everlasting abstinence from evil? Exactly the reverse. It was, as the result testifies, to make manifest, that a mind essentially fleshly, that is, partaking of the nature of body and depending on it, must follow the tendencies of that body. But the body, as composed of parts capable of being resolved at any time into their primitive elements, and held together only by the vital principle, has, like every other compound, a tendency to dissolution. Now, upon a body so constituted, soul, or natural mind, it has been shewn, depends. What is the fair inference from this, but that the mind, which depends upon a body thus naturally liable to mortality and decay, should follow its tendencies and share in its fate? And what is the [35] narrative contained in the second and third chapters of Genesis but merely this conclusion exhibited as a matter of fact?
Thirdly. The absurdity of maintaining that soul is immortal becomes manifest, when we allow ourselves to consider calmly and impartially what soul is. That body is undergoing incessant alterations, the parts which constitute it at any given period, differing totally from those of which it consists years or months or even days, afterwards, is one of the boasted discoveries of modern philosophy. But if constant change be essential to the human body, is it less so a property of the human mind? Scripture, observation, experience answer, no. From his very origin man was a being fitted to live only in the present moment. His life consisted essentially in consciousness; and consciousness is, by its very nature, connected only with time present. As he came from his maker’s hands, consciousness was to him necessary although momentary enjoyment; seeing that the retrospect of the past was unattended with the sense of guilt, and the prospect of the future consequently brought with it no anxiety. In this, it was the type or emblem of the divine nature, and of the future happiness of the glorified saints, which is, by the very necessity of the case, everlastingly present enjoyment. But the entrance of sin altered the face of things. Rather, it exposed the utter and inherent worthlessness of an enjoyment, which existed only in the present fleeting moment, and which implied total ignorance on the part of the individual. The worthlessness of a present enjoyment, which can consist only with total ignorance on the part of the individual, was thereby made strikingly apparent. Man was thenceforward dead in the only way in which, as to his mind, he had formerly lived. Present consciousness ceased to be present enjoyment to man. In the present consciousness of existence alone he originally lived, and in present consciousness alone he is fitted to live, — his only mental life now, — if life, such a state of existence can be called, — which consists in vain regrets of the past, or equally vain anticipations of the future. The present moment, the brief and fleeting but only period in which a being constituted like man could have lived, passes over his head unnoticed and unenjoyed. He is thus dead, even while he lives. But if the mind of man be thus, as our own experience shews it to be, a mere succession of [36] consciousnesses, each one of which perishes in the very moment of its existence, how absurd to speak of a principle like this as being necessarily immortal! It dies incessantly; or, rather, as present consciousness is no longer present enjoyment, it is dead. What, then, is the event commonly denominated death, in so far as the human mind is concerned, but merely the interruption, or rather termination, of a series of perishing consciousnesses? Instead of thus gratuitously ascribing immortality to soul, or the human mind, how much more consistent with fact, as well as satisfactory, to regard it as merely the type or figure of a higher principle, which, although agreeing with what man’s mind originally was, in being present enjoyment, nevertheless differs from it in admitting of no succession, and, consequently, of neither alteration nor end.
SECTION X.
ABRIDGED VIEW OF THE SUBJECT.
The preceding statements respecting the nature and constitution of soul, or creature mind, may be thus abridged: —
First. That mind had no existence until the body intended for its reception and residence had been created and organized. It was not until God had formed man’s body of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, that he became a living soul. Gen. 2:7. It is not until the bodily frame of every one of Adam’s descendants has been formed and organized in the womb, that the quickening principle is imparted. Natural body, therefore, exists necessarily before the existence of soul or natural mind.
Secondly. Soul or natural mind is connected with, dependent on, and conformed to, the bodily frame and organization. It is connected with them, for apart from body, soul is never met with. It is dependent on them, for when the bodily frame is weakened, the mind partakes [37] of its debility; and when brain, the special organ of soul is injured, the degree in which the mind is thereby affected is always found to correspond to the extent of the physical injury sustained. It is conformed to them, for after making due allowances for the effects of education, the temper, talent and tendencies, of each individual may with ease be predicated by those who have studied the subject, from a knowledge of the structure of his brain, and his physical temperament.
Thirdly. Natural mind terminates with natural life, that is, at the period when the dissolution of the body under ordinary circumstances, begins. The body being shadow, the shadowy mind which depends on it shares in its fate.
Soul, or creature mind, thus neither has, nor can have, any existence except in connection with flesh or organized matter: in other words, it is mind, the existence and operation of which, beginning and ending with body, is necessarily limited to time.
[38]
CHAPTER II.
THE PHENOMENA OF SOUL OR CREATURE MIND.
Hitherto we have spoken of the nature of soul; now we are to bring under the notice of the reader some of its most remarkable appearances. By a description of these a far more intelligible view of the subject will be presented.
The phenomena of Soul may be classed and treated of, under the four following Heads. First. Those which are connected with, and result from, its limited nature. Secondly. Such as fall to be explained on the principle of its native and inherent selfishness. Thirdly. Such as can be accounted for only on the ground of its being a shadow. And, fourthly, religious phenomena. The last division, properly speaking, is included under the other three, especially under that of selfishness; but, for the sake of perspicuity, I have preferred treating of it separately.
This division of the phenomena of natural mind was suggested to me by James 3:15. The wisdom which descendeth not from above is there declared to be earthly, sensual and devilish. The first of these expressions suggested to me the bounded character of the human mind; the second, more fitly translated soulical, ψυχικη, its shadowy nature, as contrasted with spirit; and the third, devilish, the true meaning of which, it strikes me, is idolatrous, δαιμονιωδης, (see Acts 17:22, and 1 Corinthians 10:20,21, compared with context,) by leading me to reflect on the religious phenomena of soul brought also before me its necessary and inherent selfishness. And when I came to observe and examine the actual appearances of soul, I found them easily and naturally reducible under these different heads.
[39]
DIVISION FIRST.
PHENOMENA OF SOUL. THOSE ARISING FROM ITS EARTHLY NATURE.
SECTION I.
WHAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO ANTICIPATE.
Soul, it has been proved, is mind which comes into existence in connection with flesh, continues throughout life dependent on its material companion, and terminates with its dissolution. Soul is thus essentially earthy.
It is a fair presumption from these facts, that the phenomena, or external appearances of soul, shall correspond to its nature. That, being earthy, the motives of its actions as well as the ends at which it aims, shall be earthy likewise. Nay, not only that they are so, but that they must be so, and can be nothing else. What can a mind, which is
“In kindred union wedded to the dust,”
have in common with a state of existence different from and superior to the present?
God has adapted the nature and capacities of every other being with which we are acquainted to the state and circumstances in which He has seen meet to place it. Why should it be otherwise with man? From the fact of infinite wisdom, which always adapts its means to its end, having placed man upon earth, and having thereby obviously intended him for an earthly existence, we are entitled to argue, that the faculties assigned to him must have been suitable to such a state. Living upon earth, and living in time, and thus limited by his very nature both as to space and duration, it would be absurd to suppose that his desires, conceptions, and pursuits, could be otherwise than bounded. And is not this the reality?
Nothing in regard to the inferior animals is more remarkable than their possession of the rudiments, and sometimes even more than the rudiments, of every facul-[40]ty and capacity visible in man. I say, every faculty and capacity; for, pace Dr. Gregory4 and others, not only do many of them exhibit very obvious traces of the working of the principle of ambition, but I am not sure that the basis of the religious principle is in them altogether awanting. By religious principle, of course I do not mean, that which is connected with spirit or divine mind; nor do I mean the capability of understanding even naturally the proposition respecting the existence of a being superior to man; but I mean the capacity which certain brutes have to understand the difference between right and wrong, and the veneration with which most, perhaps all, of them, regard the human species. The dog’s master, for instance, is to him his God, and is by him treated accordingly. Who, however, ever regarded the instincts of brutes as exhibitions of more than earthly principle? They spring confessedly from earthly natures — they tend as confessedly to mere earthly ends. And yet have those who make such admissions observed their tendency? I suspect not. If the sensuality of the sow, the hoarding propensities of the bee, the ant, and the beaver, and the earnest desire of superiority evinced occasionally by the elephant, the horse, or the dog, are in them confessedly mere earthly principles, query, why should we assign a higher origin and nature to similar dispositions as possessed and exhibited by the human race?
4 “One animal governs another only by superior force or cunning, nor can it by any address or train of reasoning secure to itself the protection and good offices of another. There is no sense of superiority or subordination among them.” Gregory’s Comparative View of the state and faculties of Man, &c. 1798. Edinburgh.
SECTION II.
THE PHENOMENA OF SOUL IN THEIR GROSSER FORMS EARTHLY. THE EARTHLINESS OF SOUL’S MOTIVES AND TENDENCIES.
Scripture, the dictates of which always and necessarily coincide with those of sound philosophy, informs us, that all that is in the world, is the lust of the flesh, the [41] lust of the eyes, and pride of life, 1 John 2:16. Fleshly appetites, love of pomp and ostentation, and the principle of ambition, are generally, and I think justly, understood as meant by these expressions.
That the principles of appetite, covetousness, and ambition, are connected with man’s earthly nature, and aim at gratifications to be realized only upon earth, it requires no lengthened statement of facts to prove.
Hunger, thirst, and the sexual appetite, the two former of which have for their object the preservation of the individual, and the last the perpetuation of the species, spring directly from body, and connect man most obviously with the inferior animals. Indeed, they are possessed by many of the brutes in even greater strength and perfection than they are by man. Low as is the place to which they degrade man in the scale of intelligent creation, how large a portion of human life is spent either in gratifying them, or in making provision for their gratification!
The love of money, or covetousness, is also confessedly an earthly principle. Its object is to lay up treasures upon earth. To this it is stimulated not only by the desire of fleshly gratification, but by the dread of want, a wish to indulge ostentatious feelings, and a number of other subsidiary and auxiliary principles of a similar kind.
Nor is ambition, whether in its grosser aims or in its more refined forms, less earthly than either of the other two. Antæus-like, it springs from the ground. It is, no doubt, the highest reach of soul, the infirmity of noble minds. But it is towards the acquisition of the kingdoms of this world, and the glory of them, that it is, in its highest flights, directed. More of earthly power than it has ever yet attained to, it is continually desiring. Beyond this, however, its aspirations do not, cannot, reach.
In regard to these grosser manifestations of the fleshly appetites, the love of money, and the ambitious tendencies of human nature, I have been thus brief, as it is impossible to suppose that any will call in question their thoroughly earthly origin and nature.
[42]
SECTION III.
NOT LESS EARTHLY ARE THEY IN THEIR MOST REFINED FORMS.
When I speak of the refined phenomena of soul, I do not allude to the appearances which it presents among the upper classes of society. “Disguise it as they may,” men, in pampering their palates, following after wealth, and aspiring to worldly honours and dignities, are, in the higher, no less than in the lower, walks of life, actuated by earthly motives and aiming at earthly ends.
There are, however, phenomena of soul which, as at first sight they appear to be of a more exalted nature and tendency than those of which I have been treating, require a little more examination.
Who would suppose, for instance, that the feeling of curiosity, the desire of social intercourse, the pleasure taken in scientific pursuits, and the loftiest flights of genius were principles as decidedly earth-born and earth-tending, as vulgar appetite, avarice and ambition? And yet, so it is.
From the nature of soul, as the germ of a principle superior to body, we are naturally led to anticipate its exhibiting some marks or evidences of that superiority; and yet, as depending on body, we also expect to find these tokens of superiority bearing the stamp and impress of their earthly origin. That is, we conceive ourselves justified in expecting to discover these appetites and passions which have directly and unequivocally an earthly origin and tendency, associated with another class of mental phenomena which are superior to the others as belonging properly speaking to mind, and yet after all brought down to the level of the former as springing from mind dependent upon body. The phenomena with which observation supplies us correspond exactly to such an anticipation. If we have appetites and desires which are directly of a bodily origin, we have others also which are indirectly so.
Flesh, we have seen, is directly productive of certain lusts or appetites prompting to fleshly gratification. But flesh has also imparted its nature and image to desires which at first sight appear to be purely mental. For instance, curiosity, when examined into, is found to be neither more nor less than the appetite of hunger and thirst in a [43] more refined form. The soul, no less than the body, craves its appropriate food. But what is that? It is and can only be earthly knowledge. Whatever indirectly may be the case, the principle of curiosity neither seeks for, nor finds gratification in, the communication of heavenly truth. This is to the soul or natural mind, what the manna, its type, was to the Israelites in the desert, light and consequently loathsome food. The lowest gossip, the most trifling information, regarding the life that now is, is what is greedily sought for, and swallowed, by the mind, under the influence of this much vaunted principle. Just so, likewise has the other fleshly appetite an indirect, over and above its direct influence. That desire of social intercourse, that almost ungovernable appetite of communicating to others what they know and feel, which is shared by the highest with the very lowest of mankind, bears a nearer affinity to the love of sex than the majority of metaphysicians have ever yet suspected. The primary appetites corresponding to these, are confessedly fleshly or earthly. But can the secondary appetites just spoken of, which aim at the acquisition and communication of mere earthly knowledge, be regarded as less so?
The principle of covetousness leads commonly to the acquisition and hoarding up of money. This also has its mental counterpart. In the eagerness with which some men engage in literary and scientific pursuits, the delight with which they accumulate their discoveries, and the pleasure which they take in gloating over their intellectual wealth, we have avarice putting on a more refined aspect than it usually does. The analogy between the two forms of the covetous feeling is complete. As there are some whose instinctive love of wealth can never be satisfied, who are adding house to house, and field to field, continually, so there are others whose longing after discoveries in literature and science are equally insatiable. And not more vain of his treasures is the vulgarly covetous man, than is his more refined counterpart, of the acquisitions which learning, industry, and talents, may have enabled him to make. Indeed, so thoroughly identical at bottom is the principle from which both these persons act, that, although at the commencement of their career what they respectively aim at may be followed after chiefly as means to an end, yet in process of time the end almost necessarily merges in the means itself. To gain money, without any reference to an ulterior object, becomes [44] at last the miser’s feeling; in the desire to add one scientific discovery to another, irrespective of anything further, every other object of his more refined and intellectual brother usually terminates. Under such circumstances what right have the sons of science to look down with contempt on the ordinary exhibitions of the covetous principle? It is true, the love of money is a vulgar feeling. It has an earthly, grovelling aspect, which stamps upon it at once its nature and tendency. But can the feelings of the philosopher boast of a much higher origin, or can the ends at which he aims be gratified except in connection with this present world? Mind, I admit, is somewhat more concerned in his pursuits, than in those of the ordinary miser. But it is mind nevertheless, under the influence of flesh; and mind, therefore, by the very necessity of the case, bounded and restrained by earthly feelings, and tending to earthly ends.
SECTION IV.
THIS STILL FARTHER PROVED.
Perhaps, at this point I shall be met by the objection: “You have been giving us a theory of your own respecting the nature and tendencies of the human mind on its more refined state. This, however, is not what we want. Let us have facts. Let us have the productions of men of enlarged and refined understandings placed before us, so that we may be enabled to judge for ourselves. For you have no right to expect our assent to your proposition, that the soul, or human mind, is only subservient and available to earthly purposes, unless you establish it by suitable evidence.”
Well, then, since I am defied to the proof, I at once take up the gauntlet.
For the present, I put out of view the proofs of the earthly character of the human mind, which are derived from its religious productions and phenomena. These will be treated of in the following section.
[45] All the literary productions of man, independently of the class just spoken of, may be arranged under one or other of the three following heads. First. Those which directly minister to luxury or amusement. Secondly. Those which may be styled commercial, taking the word in an enlarged sense. And, thirdly, those which may fitly be styled political. It may, sometimes, be difficult to say to which of these heads a particular work should be assigned. But under one or another, or all of these classes, every human production, with the exception above mentioned, (and even that exception understood partially), may, with the utmost ease be arranged.
The reason is, that all such productions are addressed necessarily to the appetites, the principle of covetousness, or the lust of power, either in their grosser, or in their more refined states, — these being the only principles naturally resident in the mind.
It is clear that, by the very necessity of the case, works of literature must be addressed to some one or other of the earthly principles of human beings and must be intended to promote purposes connected with this present world. Indeed, what is the most enlarged and comprehensive object which an ambitious statesman, or enlightened philanthropist, can propose to himself? To better the circumstances, to improve the morals, to advance the knowledge and happiness of mankind, must, I have no hesitation in saying, be the answer. It was the object avowedly aimed at by Condorcet, and the other enthusiasts to whom the French Revolution owed its origin. It was the professed object of Mr. Owen, their disciple and fellow enthusiast. It is the object, besides, of a much soberer class of persons.
But this, requiring only the exercise of man’s ordinary faculties, and being destined to receive its accomplishment in time, an admission that it is the highest at which the most enlightened can aim, of course tends to establish my position as to the complete earthliness of soul or creature mind.
[46]
SECTION V.
SOULICAL RELIGION, ESSENTIALLY EARTHLY.
There is another set of phenomena, arising out of the earthly nature of soul, of which I now proceed to speak. I mean, those which are connected with the subject of religion.
Religious phenomena of every kind are, not merely by the vulgar, but even by men calling themselves philosophers, ascribed to one and the same origin. Now no classification can be more incorrect. All religion, certainly, is the result of God having made a revelation of himself, and of that revelation having been in one way or another heard of by human beings. But so far from the great majority of religious phenomena implying that this revelation has been understood, they imply the very reverse. While some religious appearances spring from spiritual mind, that is, from the mind which revelation understood creates and implies, by far the larger proportion of the appearances so denominated, are merely the result of natural mind taking occasion from the existence of a divine revelation to produce effects, and display itself under aspects which otherwise it could not have done. Of this latter description of appearances no small number owe their origin to the earthly nature of soul.
Even among the religious phenomena of soul, considered as an earthly principle, a division must be made. Some are grosser, some more refined. These, for the sake of perspicuity, I treat of separately.
First. The grosser phenomena of this kind are connected with the assumption of a religious exterior as a cloak for the indulgence of vicious passions, and the forwarding of secular interests.
That this frequently takes place is matter of notoriety. Some render their profession of religion directly subservient to the gratification of fleshly lusts. Many more, of a somewhat soberer character, are found under the mask of piety, devoting themselves to the acquisition of wealth. While the grand aim of a third class is, by appearing to be religious, to increase their influence among their fellow men. Surely there can be no doubt of the earthliness of the motives and objects of persons who indulge in such practices. But how large a proportion of religious phenomena are referable to [47] one or other of these classes! And how obtuse must that mind be, which allows for a single moment that true religion, a principle essentially heavenly, can sanction, or can have any thing whatever to do with, phenomena like these!
Indeed, nothing is more striking to a spiritually-enlightened mind, than the way in which mankind judge respecting the subject of religion. Propose to them abstractly, the fact of a religious profession being employed as a cloak for the advancement of any secular interest or purpose, and immediately their common sense and outraged feelings are up in arms against it. But break up the subject into details and observe how differently is the judgment pronounced. It will be found that there is not one of the practices by which religion has been secularized, which has not been, and which is not approved by the world. It may condemn the licentious pretender to piety, but it can see nothing remarkably wrong in, nay, perhaps may applaud, the clerical pluralist who is distinguished for nothing so much as his devotedness to the pleasures of the table! It may occasionally condemn an avaricious professor of Christianity who oversteps the bounds which conventional morality has prescribed, but in general, the religious man who endeavours to make and save money is the object of its marked approbation! It may condemn the clergyman, or the lay professor, who aims too undisguisedly at power, that is, the man who by refusing to throw a veil over his motives and feelings does not pay the requisite homage to the world’s hypocrisy, but the acquisition of respectability, and thereby of influence by pious men, so far from being censured, is, what, it is conceived, they should strive for! Strange! that after, not merely concurring, but apparently desiring to be foremost, in the condemnation of the principle of rendering some earthly object the end of a religious profession, it should turn out that it is merely the conceived excessive indulgence of the worldly feeling, which by the world is regarded as blameable!
But if the world in general be thus inconsistent with itself on the judgments which it pronounces upon the conduct of religious characters who render their religious profession subservient to the advancement of secular interests, and if its inability to rise above mere earthly views of the subject be then made strikingly apparent, there is still more important although melancholy instruction to be derived from a [48] consideration of the sentiments entertained by the religious themselves respecting the matter. To a mind enlightened and rendered honest, by the imparted knowledge of God’s most blessed word, nothing can be plainer, than that every exhibition of appetite, avarice and ambition, on the part of the followers of the Lamb are there equally and pointedly condemned. It is not one, or two, but every carnal motive and feeling, which by divine authority is there interdicted. Our Lord Jesus, was not more distinguished by his personal purity of deportment, than by his total abstinence from every attempt to improve his worldly circumstances, and his positive refusal of all secular power and dignity. Although he had the riches of the universe at his command, as was proved by his miraculous feeding of the multitude, the miraculous draught of fishes, and the miraculous mode of procuring and paying the tribute money, he chose to spend his life in poverty, being able to say of himself emphatically, but truly, that he had not where to lay his head; and although the whole human family were his creatures, and as such subservient to his purposes, he declined acting as a judge and divider, or acceding to the wishes of the giddy multitude by becoming their King. And as he was content to be poor and trampled on himself, so has he inculcated the pursuit of a similar line of conduct on his disciples. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, and be not ye called masters, for one is your master, even Christ, are his express and authoritative prohibitions. That is, while his people are enjoined to be diligent and industrious in their secular callings, it is not that they may thereby become rich, for they are forbidden to make the acquisition of money their object; and while they are to be ready to do all that in them lies to promote the interests of their fellow men, it is not that they may thereby become their favourites, or attain to personal influence among them, for they are not permitted to aim at worldly rank and dignity. Riches unsought may come to them, and honours may accidentally be conferred on them, but towards the obtaining of neither the one nor the other can they as Christians, direct their efforts. They are to remember, and, in so far as they are influenced by the Spirit of Christ, they do remember, that their enjoyments, wealth, and honours, are all, properly speaking, like those of their head, heavenly; not possessed in time, but partaken of by them with their Divine Master [49] at the period of the resurrection of the just. — Now is this the estimate of the matter formed by those who are commonly called religious, and profess to be the followers of the Lord Jesus? Were it so, then unquestionably ordinary religion, and the religion of Christ Jesus, would be one and the same. But is not the fact notoriously the reverse? Instead of acquiescing in our Lord’s representations of the nature of his religion, and acting accordingly, are not the great majority of those who are called Christians, either actively engaged in the pursuit of secular objects themselves, or in devising apologies for those who are so engaged? “Christians may,” say our modern casuists, “pursue wealth, provided it be done moderately, with a view to make provision for their families, and so on.” — “They may aim at worldly dignities, provided it be for the purpose of increasing their means of doing good to their fellow men.” That is, the very persons who condemn the Jews for making void the law of Moses by their traditions, are actually treading in the footsteps of those very Jews by making void to the utmost of their power the law of Christ! In the very teeth of the prohibition against doing evil that good may come, they are found indulging in what they know, and even sometimes acknowledge to be wrong, that thence, forsooth they may become possessed of more enlarged means of doing good! Consistent followers of the self-denying Lamb of God! The heavenly-minded professor of Christianity, actively engaged in laying up treasures upon earth! The humble professor of Christianity straining every nerve, and making every effort, to obtain bishoprics, and other secular honours! Remember, my good friends, that worldly desires of no description can, under the influence of a Christian spirit, be indulged in. We can, as Christians, no more aim at the acquisition of wealth and honours, than we can at the gratification of fleshly lusts of the most debasing kind. — “Yes, we may strive for the former, although not for the latter,” say those who by their profane dicta presume to set aside the most express prohibitions of the heavenly Lawgiver. Well, painful in many respects as all this is to one who is possessed of the Spirit of Christ, it is exceedingly instructive. How strikingly does it establish the thorough earthliness of soul or creature mind. Could perfect example have rendered that mind heavenly, example is not awanting. Could precepts have accomplished the same end, such precepts exist in [50] abundance. Spirit, or heavenly mind, has been exhibited in the person of the Son of God; and the nature of it has been set forth in his maxims and precepts, as well as in his practice. Yet, until this very mind shall itself have been imparted, it is absolutely impossible for the creature either to comprehend what its nature is, or to act according to its tendencies. Soul, while it continues such, will merely take occasion from the existence and manifestation of heavenly mind, to exhibit its own earthly and loathesome features, in broad and decided contrast with it. While Christ’s heavenly mind led necessarily to an exhibition of heavenly tempers, desires, and pursuits, and while the possession of the same mind by his people leads necessarily, in proportion to the degree in which it exists in them, to the same results, the earthly mind of man will, even under a religious exterior, always manifest its existence and influence as well by the earthliness of the pursuits personally indulged in, as by the apologies framed for, if not even the positive approbation bestowed on, the indulgence of similar pursuits by others.
Grossly earthly, I admit, are all those phenomena of soul which exhibit religion professed in subserviency to the attainment of objects confessedly secular; and yet, gross as they are, such phenomena constitute a large number, perhaps, the largest number, of the appearances commonly denominated religious.
Secondly. There are, however, religious phenomena of a somewhat more refined description, which, by men ignorant of the subject, are regarded and represented as having a more exalted origin than the foregoing. To these we now direct our attention.
It has been observed,
1. That there are persons who, apparently without any regard to the gratification of fleshly lusts or the attainment of earthly honours and dignities, take delight in views of religion which excite their feelings, and stir them up to exercises of intense, frequent, and protracted devotion.
2. That there are others, of a less excitable temperament than those just spoken of, but with apparently the same disinterested objects, who are not merely careful to shun every species of outward evil, but devote themselves heart and soul to the performance of deeds of charity and benevolence; and in particular, are always ready to come forward in support of any scheme which appears calculated to promote the interests of mankind.
[51] 3. That there is a third class of individuals, more retired than either of the two former classes, who, not only in secret cultivate heart-religion, and in secret minister their alms, but add to all this a strictness of self-denial, and a disposition to avoid unnecessary intercourse with the world, which seems to advance their claims to the profession of pure and undefiled religion to the highest possible degree which we are capable of conceiving.
Now that these three distinct classes of religious professors do exist, I admit. That their religion is of a much more refined nature than that which has for its object the indulgence of lustful, avaricious, or ambitious propensities, and that it is more beneficial to society as well as permanently more gratifying to themselves, I admit likewise. Nay, I go so far as to admit, that many of the features which I have just described may be found co-existing in the same mind with genuine Christianity. But I deny that any or all of the phenomena enumerated spring from spiritual religion. So far from this, they are all without exception of the earth, earthy, and may with the utmost ease be shown to be so.
The first class of phenomena are decidedly sensual. They spring as directly from flesh as hunger, thirst, or the sexual appetite, do. This becomes obvious when we reflect, that it is chiefly in persons prone by nature to the pleasures of sense that they make their appearance. The man of pleasure, it has in every age been observed, always makes the best devotee. Now, as an addictedness to the gratification of low, sensual appetites, in preference to the cultivation of the mental powers, has independently of religion been found to characterise the great mass of society, just so, a disposition to indulge the feelings, in preference to the exercise of the judgment, has been found equally to characterise the great mass of those who make a profession of religion. The indulgence of feeling in religion is, indeed, merely the principle of sensuality assuming a refined disguise. And disguised it is, for, as in feeling such religion begins, is it not matter of notoriety, that in feeling it almost always evaporates? How often is the man who has shed tears under a touching sermon, and who with loud and apparently sincere professions of penitence has bewailed his previously licentious life, found after a while abandoning the semblance of piety, and even, perchance launching out his [52] blasphemies against the Most High! How often have the highly wrought up religious feelings of the young, the thoughtless, and the inexperienced, been the precursors of events the most awful and distressing!5 The grand principle of Scripture is, that, whatever springs from the dust, may, nay must, to the dust return again. A mere religion of feeling has nothing more than an earthly origin. When earthly mind has been cast into a religious mould corresponding to its nature, it comes out hungering and thirsting after sensible excitements, and becomes desirous to propagate these to others. Hence phenomena with which men of observation in a country like this are conversant every day. But all excitement of the feelings tends downwards. Soul, being mere earthly mind, is necessarily dragged down by that upon which it is dependent. Thus it happens that a religion of mere feeling, the exercise of mere sensible devotion, cannot long be kept up at its originally exalted pitch. It gradually, sometimes indeed rapidly, declines. Facilis decensus averni. Down, down, it slides from worse to worse. At last it generally terminates, as is natural, in the dog returning to his vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
5 See the conclusion of Burns’ Holy Friar. Burns, although dreadfully debased and licentious himself, was a shrewd observer of human nature.
Secondly. The principle of ostentation will be found to explain easily and satisfactorily a large number of religious phenomena. Many things are done that the performers of them may be seen of men. By means of this principle our blessed Lord accounted for the religious practices of the Pharisees of his time; and it is no less useful to us in disclosing the secret springs of human conduct at the present day. The man in whose breast this principle predominates, cares little or nothing for sensible excitements; nay, perhaps, joins with Christians in expressly condemning them. To gain the good opinion of others, is the end at which he aims; and to which every thing else is sacrificed. It is no imaginary character that I now delineate. The observation and experience of years have furnished me with almost innumerable instances of it. What is the only real ground of religious confidence of nine out of ten of the more sober class of those who make a profession of piety? [53] Why, just this, that others, circumstanced like themselves, think well of them. A good hope of their state expressed by some supposed experienced Christian, is to them a foretaste of heaven. While, on the other hand, a doubt expressed, or even implied, concerning it, by such a one, fills them with agonies indescribable. What is all this, but man living on man? What is it, but man seeking for the honour which cometh from fellow worms of the dust, in preference to the honour which cometh from God only? And yet, let me not be understood as unduly running down the ostentatious, or depreciating the services which they render to society. They are generally blessings to the community in which they reside. The tone of public morals is improved by their conduct. If wealthy, by their contributions to hospitals, and dispensaries, and bible societies, and missionary societies and tract societies, they not only directly benefit their fellow men, but are indirectly the means of stimulating others to acts of liberality and beneficence. But although thus, religiously considered, rich, and increased in goods, it is not, alas! towards God. The religious treasures which they have been so painfully engaged in accumulating, have been amassed for the purpose of purchasing golden opinions from their fellow men. The structure of good works which during a lifetime they are employed in rearing, is merely a pedestal upon the summit of which they propose to place themselves, that they may there be gazed at and admired by others. Now, will any man say, that objects like these can lay claim to more than an earthly origin? Persons of the character in question, expend their time, their money, and their influence, that they may receive in exchange the approbation of their fellow men. It is with them, therefore a mere matter of bargain and sale. They introduce the commercial principle into religion. Gaining applause, as they obtain what they aim at, they have their reward. What is all this, however, but the earthly mind of man, under one particular phase or aspect, shewing its utter inability to rise above mere earthly conceptions of religion?
But earthliness of views is not confined to those who seek in religion for animal excitement, or the applauses of others. It is as strikingly exemplified in the conduct of the serious, retired, self-denying personages, who bring up the rear. According to their own statements such persons seek God. Him it is, that by their strenuous efforts, and self-[54]righteous services, they profess to be desirous to propitiate. But who is the being that in reality they serve? It cannot be the God of the scriptures; for he is unchangeable, he is already propitious, and, instead of being induced to confer his favours by the actions or importunity of his creatures, he bestows them freely. It must be some other being inferior to God, of whom change, capability of being influenced by others, and a disposition to barter his favours, are the characteristics. And in whom are these features to be found? In man, evidently, and in none besides. That is, man is the God of the natural mind. And this, for the best of all reasons, that human nature, in its conceptions, is incapable of rising above itself. To one untaught from above, man is the highest being with whom he is, or can become, acquainted; and therefore, towards a being invested at the utmost with human attributes, must the worship and services of such an one be directed. I say at the utmost, for heathens have frequently shewn themselves unable, in their conceptions of Deity to rise even to the level of human nature itself. But, surely, to conceive of Deity as mere man, requires no higher capacities than those of the earthly mind. Besides, in so conceiving of God, the earthly principle of ambition, finds ample and appropriate gratification. If to have influence with our fellow men, especially with those of exalted rank, be pleasing to the human mind, how much more to be capable of prevailing even with God himself! Milton’s Satan, bringing down the godhead to his own level, and then “daring to defy the omnipotent to arms,” is merely the personification of this principle. The man, then, who proposes to himself by a course of self-denying and self-righteous conduct, to render Deity propitious, that is, to effect a change in the mind and purposes of Deity towards him, by this very fact of regarding God as changeable, shews himself to be regarding him as a being who is altogether such as he himself is. To call the being so conceived of, his God, may be all well enough; but to confound this imaginary being with the living and true God of the scriptures, is the height of absurdity as well as blasphemy. And yet, thus to conceive God, is the loftiest flight which the natural mind of man is capable of taking. To sum up all in a few words. To conceive of God as what he hath revealed himself to be in the scriptures, the unchangeable Jehovah, sovereign arbiter of the fate of his [55] creatures, and bestowing upon them eternal life freely, is to have been taught from above, and to have had the mind thereby rendered spiritual. To conceive of God, however, as a mere man, which every one must do who hopes to be able to influence Deity to become propitious towards him, requires no teaching beyond that which common sense and ordinary observation can supply.
Painful, I am aware, it must be, to not a few, thus to have religious character stripped of the external disguises, by which so many of them continue to impose on themselves and others. And yet, how can I avoid the exposure? Surely, it is incumbent on all who know the religion of Christ Jesus, and who have been enabled thereby to distinguish between it and a religion of mere flesh and blood, to do all that in them lies to undeceive their fellow men in regard to this momentous topic. Too justly deserved in every age, is the severe remark of Pascal, originally applied to the theologians of his time, “le monde se paye de paroles: peu approfondissent les choses.”6 Knowing that this is but too true, shall we, who are somewhat better instructed than our neighbours, by neglecting to point out an essential difference, which we know to exist, contribute to keep up the long-prevailing delusion? Religion is a term applied to phenomena in their nature “wide as the poles asunder.” With the world it means generally little more than a correct exterior; or, if a few advance farther, it is merely to include under the term likewise an earnest desire, by strenuous efforts, and self-denying exercises, to escape from the wrath to come. In the scriptures, on the contrary, it means the knowledge of God as what he is, that is, as love; the possession of peace of conscience, and the certainty of eternal life, flowing from this knowledge; and the habitual influence exercised by love to God as having first loved us over the mind, in constraining us to live, not unto ourselves, but unto him, and thereby to bring forth fruit to his praise and glory. Now how is it possible for one, actuated by a principle of common honesty even, much less by divine love, when he finds the word religion used in senses so totally different as these, and when he knows that the former view of the subject, however common is decidedly erroneous, to hesi-[56]tate about opening up to his fellow men, at whatever hazard, the mere earthly origin of the religious practices which are most highly esteemed among them?
6 Provinciales, Lettre 2de.
Let me not be understood as asserting, that the phenomena of which I have been treating separately, are always, or indeed commonly found existing apart from one another. Because a man’s ordinary religious views and pursuits are of a grossly sensual character, it does not follow, that he must be altogether destitute of religious feelings of a more refined description. Nor, because his religious character is on the whole refined, are we to suppose that he is an utter stranger to grosser desires and affections. On the contrary, the two descriptions of phenomena are found continually passing into one another by almost imperceptible gradations. The licentious professor of Christianity is often barely distinguishable from the high-toned and reckless enthusiast. The man whose whole soul seems to be bent on the acquisition of money, often, from motives of sheer ostentation, plays the part of the man of liberality. And he, whose desires to obtain the favour of God have been for a time so strong and overweening as to impose even on himself, has been known to doff the air of humility, which for a while he had assumed, and to stand forth confessed the victim of intense and ungovernable ambition. In fact, it is an observation as old as the oldest period of society to which the annals of mankind reach, that differences of age, residence, occupation, and other circumstances, necessarily affect and modify the human character. But whatever the alteration effected by change of state or other circumstances may be, if the human mind alone be concerned, it is at the utmost a transition from the exhibition of one set of earthly feelings and phenomena, to that of another. There is a certain limited range, within which the human mind can act. From one part of this to another it can pass with ease. It finds no difficulty in putting off the character of the licentious profligate, for that of the man who cultivates religion for the sake of its devotional fervours, or vice versa. But to overstep the bounds prescribed to it, and, of itself, to attain to spiritual, that is, real, views of religion, this is AN IMPOSSIBILITY.
Such, then, is the human mind, and such its progress from its lowest to its highest manifestations. Independently of religion, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the [57] pride of life, mere earthly principles, are so decidedly and exclusively its motives of conduct, that, viewed in this light, there cannot exist the shadow of a doubt as to its essentially earthly nature. Even when religion is introduced to its notice, it generally shews itself unable to conceive of that heavenly principle, except after a very low earthly fashion, that is, as subservient to the gratification of low, sensual, grovelling desires. Hence the constantly-recurring phenomena of licentious, covetous, and ambitious professors of Christianity. Occasionally, however, the mind takes a loftier flight, and, spurning the ordinary objects of human pursuit, aims, by its religious exercises, to attain to sensible excitements, which it is apt to regard as sweet spiritual feeling, the applauses of the world, or the approbation of a creature of its own imagination, which it denominates God. I say, a creature of its own imagination, for who, in this highest stretch of human religion, and, consequently, of the human mind, is the being worshipped by man? Not the God of the scriptures; for he is unchangeable and he is known by his worshippers, for it is as having bestowed upon them eternal life freely through his Son, that their services are rendered to him. Whereas the God worshipped by men naturally is a changeable being; of his intentions towards them they are ignorant; and the only hope cherished by them is that by the services which they render to him they may be enabled to bend him to their wishes. In other words, the God of mankind naturally, is, at the utmost, a being like themselves. To conceive of God as a mere man, is, however, the highest attainment of soul or natural mind. What, however, is proved by this, except that the human mind as earthly by its nature, is necessarily earthly also in all, even its highest, manifestations?
SECTION VI.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS CONFIRMATORY OF THE COMPLETE EARTHLINESS OF SOUL EVEN IN ITS RELIGIOUS MANIFESTATIONS.
Enough, and more than enough, has been said to prove to the generality of mankind, the thorough earthliness of soul. But I confess that I have not satisfied myself. [58] And it is probable that some of the more reflective class of my readers may be desirous to see a somewhat ampler development of my last position, that the God of the mere natural mind is at the utmost a being invested with human attributes. There are men who are suspicious, and properly suspicious, of what are commonly regarded as demonstrations in theology. “We,” say they, “will not be put off with mere words. We must have facts in proof of your assertions.” This demand is just and reasonable. To endeavour to meet the wishes of those who make it in reference to my position respecting the complete earthliness of the human soul, and yet to do so in as short compass as possible, is my object in the present section.
There are two facts, continually presenting themselves to us in the views and language of mankind in general concerning religion, which are to my mind conclusive as to the complete earthliness of their notions. The first is, that it is on human testimony alone that the professed belief of the great majority of mankind in Christianity is founded. And the second, that what are called spiritual and divine blessings, are almost universally regarded and represented as being bestowed conditionally. What is particularly striking in the whole matter is, that these two facts are equally susceptible of proof, whether we have recourse to the learned or the unlearned.
First. It is on human, not on divine, testimony, that such conviction of the truth of Christianity as is possessed by the great majority of mankind is found to rest.
Whence the professed reception of Christianity on the part of the great majority of the inhabitants of this country? It owes its origin, unquestionably, to the early instructions of parents and teachers, to prevailing custom, and to the numerous secular advantages which are found to stand connected with it. That is, in Great Britain, Christianity is professed generally on the very same grounds on which human beings are Mahometans in Turkey, and idolators in Hindostân. But who will venture to say, that the credit given by the former to the Korân, and by the latter to their Shastras and Vedas, is more than the result of human testimony? Their fathers have so believed, therefore, they themselves believe. Does not this shew, that a sort of belief in what is actually di-[59]vine revelation, on the mere authority of man, is possible? nay, more than possible, is highly probable? And is not the matter of fact, as it may be observed in this our native land, exactly such as, with the foregoing premises to warrant our conclusion, we might have anticipated? Take away those whose belief in the Holy Scriptures, such as it is, springs from the testimony of their fathers, and the power of early prejudice, and how few, alas! remain! But does the credit which human beings attach to any topic — no matter what it may be — on the authority of man, require to be traced to any higher or nobler principle than mere earthly mind?
“Surely, however, the belief of our men of letters is better founded.” Wait a little, and we shall see. That their belief is in many cases the result of more laborious and painful investigation, than is that of the common people, I readily admit. But upon what principles are their enquiries conducted, and to what conclusion do they tend? Why, their endeavour is to see at one glance, and in a concentrated point of view, every species of human evidence that can be adduced in behalf of the scriptures, and thereby to have their conviction of their truth carried out to the highest pitch imaginable. For this purpose, they bring together the testimonies of ancient writers, sacred and profane, to the truth of the gospel history — try to satisfy themselves, from the obvious and well-known laws of the human mind, that the apostles in giving testimony to the facts of Christ’s mission could neither have been deceived themselves, nor could have intended to deceive others — and by having recourse to these, and various similar expedients certainly do contrive to make out what lawyers would have no hesitation in denominating a very strong case. Nay, if you will, the strongest case of accumulated human testimony ever yet brought forward. And what is the conclusion at which, after all their efforts, they arrive? Why, merely a conviction resulting from human testimony. It is stronger, it is better founded, it is more reasonable, than that with which the great bulk of mankind satisfy themselves; but having man’s statements, and man’s reasonings, alone, for its only basis, and then resting upon principles with which man as an inhabitant of this present world is conversant, in what, except in degree, does it surpass any other conviction of the human mind?
[60] The facts last mentioned, men of powerful understandings, but sceptical in their notions, have not failed to perceive and take advantage of. Some of them, such as Hume and his followers, catching at the common practice of attempting to prove miracles, things by their very nature divine, by human testimony, that is, at the attempt to prove the greater by the lesser, have tried to insinuate, first, that human testimony is had recourse to, because it is the strongest which can be obtained in regard to the point in question, and, secondly, that human testimony as inferior never can prove that which is divine. In other words, they have had the acuteness to perceive, that the common practice of resting divine testimony on the basis of that which is human, affords them a most commodious lever by which to get rid of divine Revelation altogether. Another class of men, such as the German Naturalists, aware of the strength of the human testimony by which the main facts of the gospel history is proved, and not having any experience in their own minds of the power of a higher testimony, have regarded human testimony as all that is required to prove that which is divine, and, consequently, have considered themselves entitled to bring both the human testimony, and that which avowedly rests upon it, to the tribunal of their own natural minds. — Curiously enough, both the one class and the other of these acute and profoundly thinking men, by the mode of procedure which they severally adopt, concur in establishing my main proposition. Hume and the German Naturalists both equally disclaim all supernatural revelation to themselves. They thereby acknowledge the thorough earthliness of their own views. And demonstrating, the one, that human testimony can never prove that which is divine, and the other, that what is entitled to be admitted as divine testimony is something which must have been previously established by human testimony, they both most happily establish, each after his own peculiar fashion, the ignorance, folly, and mere earthliness of the notions, of those, whose only reason for believing the record concerning Christ Jesus to be divine, is their having succeeded in proving it to be so by mere rational and human expedients.
Beautifully has our blessed Lord, in a passage of scripture rarely observed, and still more rarely understood, laid [61] down the distinction between what man can, and what he cannot do, with regard to divine testimony, between the respective provinces of earthly and heavenly mind. John 5:32. There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.7 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. That is, “acknowledging, as you Jews do, the divine mission of John, the testimony which he hath borne concerning me as the Messiah, is sufficient to convict you, in the event of your persevering in your opposition to me, upon your own principles.” Verse 34. But I receive not testimony from man. — 36. I have greater witness than that of John. — 37. The Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. — 38. Ye have not his word abiding in you; for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. That is, “this testimony of John, although sufficient negatively to convict you, or bring you in guilty in your own consciences, is not sufficient positively to satisfy you of my divine nature and character. Indeed it was never intended to do so. Higher testimony than that of John, or of any other mere man, even the testimony of God himself, is requisite for that purpose. And until you can hear me, who am truth itself, addressing you as the faithful and the true witness — until you can feel the force, and recognize the authority, of my verily, verily — αμην αμην; as it is only man’s testimony you hear, so it is only by a conviction resulting from such testimony that you can be influenced.” Thus, then, according to our Lord, a conviction arising from human testimony, even with regard to topics in themselves divine, is the highest to which the earthly mind of man can reach. Human testimony concerning Christ Jesus may drive, and frequently has driven, the sceptic and the infidel into a corner; has exposed his subterfuges, and made him feel the littleness of the evasions, to which from time to time he has had recourse. Nay, there are natural minds, gifted with more honesty than is possessed by others, from which, after much sturdy [62] and embittered opposition, the strong human evidence of the truth and majesty of Christ’s character has extorted forth an open and manly avowal of faith in his name. But all such conviction, being merely negative, and the result of the exercise of men’s earthly faculties, however powerfully it may operate for a while is liable at any time to be subverted and pass away. God himself must enlighten the mind, by becoming, through his word, the witness to his own truth, before there can exist in man any positive belief — any principle superior to what is earthly — any conviction, as it requires not, nay, rejects, all confirmation from human authority, so it is equally incapable of being shaken or subverted by human opposition.
7 Singular language, if the truth of Christ’s Messiahship had depended on a creature’s testimony. The language is, however, what it should be. It is, the Creator, bearing testimony to the creature even when, for the sake of argument, he is availing himself of the creature’s testimony.
A second view of the thorough earthliness of the human mind is afforded us by the fact, that by it all spiritual and divine blessings are regarded as being bestowed conditionally.
That every act of kindness conferred by man upon his fellow man, results from the existence or performance of conditions, is too obvious to require any lengthened illustration. I must stand in some particular relation to an individual — I must have conferred upon him some favour — or I must in some one way or another be likely to promote his interests — before I am entitled to expect benefits at his hand. The necessity of possessing or performing conditions is, then, the view of the ground of the obligation to confer favours enforced upon mankind by their earthly state and circumstances.
Into the subject of religion man necessarily carries this earthly idea. He imagines, that upon the possession or performance of conditions by himself depend all his hopes of enjoying the divine favour. His teachers, in general as ignorant of the subject as he himself is, take care to foster and encourage this idea. And the more strenuously they exhort him to perform the conditions of eternal life and thereby become his own Saviour, the more do they appeal to views and principles already existing in his bosom, and the more likely are they to succeed in acquiring and retaining an ascendancy over him.
Now what is the fact in regard to this matter?
Why, first, God himself enforces the necessity of conditions being performed, before any one can enjoy his favour, and enter into his glory. But there are these strik-[63]ing differences between the conditions proposed by man, and those proposed by God. 1. While man’s conditions are brought down to the level of man’s ability, God’s conditions are absolutely impossible for man to perform. They consist of love to God, with all the heart, mind, soul and strength, and love to our neighbour as ourselves. 2. While the conditions proposed by man yet remain in one way or another to be performed, all the conditions of obtaining eternal life proposed by God have already and gloriously on man’s behalf been fulfilled. The Son of God hath by himself brought in an everlasting righteousness, having magnified the law and made it honourable, hath taken away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and hath thus left nothing whatever to be done by the creature in order to his being saved. That is, while according to man, judging according to his earthly notions, the salvation of the creature may be wrought out by himself and still remain to be accomplished by him; on the other hand, according to the word of God, the work of salvation is what no creature can accomplish, and yet this work of salvation nevertheless has been accomplished.
Secondly. The enforcement of the necessity of conditions being performed at all, in order to the enjoyment of salvation by the creature, is merely an accommodation on the part of God to the mind of the creature. For, according to scripture, as the conditions were imposed by God, so likewise he by whom they have been fulfilled is God. What, however, is this but to inform the creature, in a way suited to his capacities that properly speaking, there are no conditions of eternal life at all? Observe, the conditions could not be fulfilled by the creature; Rom. 5:20; they have nevertheless been fulfilled by the Creator. Rom. 8:3. Instead of their being conditions properly speaking, they must be means through which God makes known to us, in a way suited to our capacities, that eternal life is bestowed freely by him upon the children of men. And laying all reasonings aside, is it not the fact, that eternal life is expressly declared to be the gift of God?
[64]
SECTION VII.
PHENOMENA OF INSANITY.
I am not aware of the existence of any set of circumstances which proves so distinctly and decidedly the thorough earthliness of soul as the phenomena connected with insanity.
In whatever point of view insanity be considered, whether as idiocy, that is, natural defect of understanding, or lunacy, that is, superinduced derangement of understanding, in either, or both of these cases, it will be found to depend on, and be regulated by, the state of the brain, and other parts of the physical system of the individual.
In the following cases insanity springs so evidently and directly from the state of the brain as to render details and illustrations altogether unnecessary.
1. When the brain is obviously defective, as in the case of those who are idiots from their birth.
2. In the case of those whose insanity has been superinduced by injuries inflicted from without; such as, blows on the head, wounds inflicted on the cerebral mass, &c.
3. The same connection between physical injury, and mental alienation is obvious in cases where the brain is affected from internal causes such as effusion of blood or serum, pressure of any portion of the cranium on the cerebral mass, habitual intoxication producing delirium tremens, or even habitual insanity. If I remember rightly, in a work of Dr. Haslam’s on Insanity, perused by me many years since, it is stated that in almost all, if not all, the post mortem examinations of the brain of insane patients instituted by the author, it was found that effusion of some one kind or another had taken place.
There are two other kinds of insanity, in the production of which the influence of physical causes is almost equally manifest.
1. I mention those cases in which it appears to be hereditary. The very matter of the body holds insanity in a latent state, as it were, for a while, but ready to break out whenever the suitable exciting cause shall be presented.
[65] 2. There are changes connected with age and sex from time to time taking place in the human body. These, it is well known, are in many instances critical as to the future state of the understanding. Many a mind, apparently sane, in the ordinary sense of the term, up to the time of some one or other of these changes occurring, has fallen a victim to the influence of the physical causes by which that change has been produced.
In all the cases mentioned, the connection subsisting between certain bodily circumstances as the cause and certain mental phenomena as the effect, is clear and striking.
“But,” it may be alleged, “physical causes afford but a limited explanation of the reasons and appearances of insanity. There are moral causes likewise in operation. These, as far as we can judge, seem to be in numerous instances perfectly independent of body or external circumstances. The mind, and it alone, by its internal workings, gives birth to them. The body, it is true, from the intimate connection between it and mind may ultimately come to be affected by them, but it is not in any particular state of body that they begin. The existence of such phenomena, therefore, does not necessarily infer the earthliness of soul.”
In answer to this objection I observe,
1. We have here nothing but an assertion that the phenomena in question do not spring from bodily causes, and this, without any attempt whatever to disprove the fact already established by an overwhelming mass of evidence, that natural mind as such is completely dependent on body.
2. Many of the phenomena of insanity which in former ages were supposed to be exclusively mental, have, by more accurate and better conducted researches, been traced up latterly to physical causes; and even many of those which are upon the whole still considered to be moral, are by the best authorities, admitted to be so mixed up with such as are physical, as to render it extremely difficult, if not impossible, in such cases to distinguish between the one and the other.
3. The science of phrenology, whether truly or erroneously it matters not, professes to be able to trace up all the cases of insanity of which we are now treating, either to the existence of an original disproportion among the vari-[66]ous organs of which the brain consists, or to the undue excitement of some one, or two, or more, of these particular organs. Now here we have an express, and what at least must be acknowledged to be a very plausible explanation of the whole matter. Can those who maintain the existence of mental, independently of physical, causes of insanity, produce a better? Can they shew it to be untrue? Although from the very recent appearance of phrenology, and the comparatively few and slender opportunities for observing which its advocates and supporters have possessed, the positive evidence in behalf of the solution proposed by them may be defective, it strikes me, that, reasoning from analogy, and from the data which they actually have, there exists a very strong prima facie case in their favour. And should the event, as I am convinced it will, turn out to be a complete confirmation of their theory in this respect, how decidedly, then, will it be proved to the satisfaction of every one capable of judging on the subject, that, soul is from its very nature entirely dependent on body.
But even were we, for the sake of argument, to grant it to be impossible to point out in every case the physical origin of mental derangement, at all events we can shew what are the subjects upon which insanity uniformly and necessarily turns; and as these are uniformly something earthly, are always something or other connected with this present world, in that way at least, the thorough and intense earthliness of the natural mind of man can be made out.
Mental derangement, in all those cases which are commonly regarded and treated as moral, turns on one or other of the following topics: — animal feeling, avarice, ambition and religion.
Of the earthly character of the three first of these topics, it is unnecessary for me, after the details into which I have already gone, to say much. Only this may be remarked, that the thorough earthliness of the natural mind comes out more undisguisedly in such cases, than when the intellectual powers, the rudder of the soul, are able in some measure to regulate its motions, and keep its ebullitions under check and control. All who have had much to do with the insane, especially those who are conversant with the sights and sounds of woe familiar to the inmates of a lunatic asylum, must have been struck at the proofs afford-[67]ed by the language and actions of patients labouring under an excess of phrensy, of the value of reason, in however slender a degree it may be possessed. The purest of the pure, in the estimation of friends, neighbours and acquaintances, giving unrestrained utterance to words the filthiest and most obscene — the man of previously unsuspected miserly habits, now hoarding with care and avidity the nails or counters, or rags, or whatever else comes within his reach, and the apparently modest and unobtrusive, now, by the pleasure which he takes in his crown of plaited straw, and in giving laws to imaginary subjects, unintentionally confessing that it is pride which has driven him from the busy haunts of men, furnish striking although melancholy comments on the thorough earthliness of the human mind, and the wisdom, as well as goodness of God as exhibited, in the degree of restraint to which in those who pass for sane its more disgusting traits are commonly subjected.
As to religion, I never yet heard or read of the religion of Christ Jesus having sent any one to an asylum, or having rendered it necessary that he should be put under restraint. Nay, I have known instances of persons saved from incipient phrensy by the soothing and salutary influence of divine truth. The reason is, that God is always presented to the mind of him by whom he is believed in as Love, or what he is; and thus the necessary effect of true religion, by speaking certain and everlasting peace to the conscience, is to still its agitations, to soothe and tranquillize it. The religion of Jesus is indeed the spirit of a sound mind. But the victims of false religion are innumerable. They are positively Legion. If from time to time men, to whom God is presented in the character of a gloomy tyrant everlastingly gloating over the sufferings of his victims, or what is worse because tantallizing, to whom he is presented as a being whom they themselves must in some way or another propitiate, have their reason overturned, there is nothing wonderful in such a result. Nay, there is an obvious connection between cause and effect. Positive alarm and constant anxiety lead, by most obvious steps, to mental derangement. But all this merely proves earthliness of mind as well in those who propose, as in those who are impressed by, such views of Deity. It is religion certainly, which is the proximate cause of such mental aberrations. But it is a grievous mistake to represent persons as rendered [68] insane by the religion of Christ, whose derangement has preceded from their having been led to ascribe to him who is therein revealed as Love, the character of the vilest and most detestable of his creatures.
There is one case, and one only, in which I can conceive it possible for the mind to be injuriously affected by true religion. That is, when the gospel of Christ is first made known to it. There is something so gloriously, so overwhelmingly, delightful, in the first manifestation of the truth to a conscience long harassed by a sense of guilt, or long annoyed by the misrepresentations of blundering or interested guides, that it is perfectly possible for the mental powers to be for a while unhinged and unsettled by the excess of joy consequent thereon. This, I am satisfied, but rarely happens. Here is another proof of the earthliness of the natural mind. Fitted only and properly for worldly things, it cannot bear the sudden inroad of a principle so totally foreign to its nature as the discovery of what belongs to a higher and a heavenly state. Besides, so copious a disclosure of divine truth, all at once, but rarely occurs. The same God, who, having given us the constitution which we have, knoweth well we are but dust, and whose Son, during his manifestation in flesh, taught his disciples as they were able to bear, generally introduces the truth in a much more gradual way, and in one much more suitable to the limited and fragile nature of the human faculties, into the conscience. And, when at any time, in the exercise of his infinite wisdom and sovereignty, he does give some poor priest-ridden, sin-harassed, mental slave, all at once such a glorious discovery of sin as already pardoned, of salvation as perfectly secure, and of eternal life being unconditionally bestowed, as, by the excess of pleasure connected with the discovery, to suspend for a while the ordinary and healthful action of the intellectual faculties, this state of things he permits not to continue. The animal excitement speedily subsides. The realities of our earthly condition soon demand the exercise of our most vigorous exertions. And divine truth being by its very nature, the reverse of turbulent and exciting — being calm, peaceful, and tranquillizing — the temporary insanity, if insanity it can be called, which a divine principle for the first time taking hold of human faculties may have produced, soon gives place to that real soundness of mind in regard to [69] this world and its concerns, by which the very few who are in reality partakers of the divine nature, are necessarily distinguished.
SECTION VIII.
SCRIPTURE UNIFORMLY REPRESENTS THE HUMAN MIND AS EARTHLY.
Few have observed, because few have read and reflected for themselves, that God’s dealings with the human race, as made known to us in the holy scriptures, have, from the very first, been conducted on the principle of the thorough earthliness of the natural mind. On the contrary, so stupid indeed, are mankind as regards divine things, that God has been supposed to have treated our first parents, while in their state of innocence, as beings capable of understanding and relishing spiritual things. The facts of the case constitute the best refutation of so monstrous and romantic an idea. It was in circumstances of mere earthly comfort and happiness that man was originally placed. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and to keep it. Gen. 2:15. It was earthly dominion merely that was conceded to him. And God said unto them, subdue the earth, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Gen. 1:21. It was a continuance of earthly life only, that was promised in the event of his continued abstinence from transgression. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. 2:17. Out of the ground wast thou taken, for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 3:19. Are my statements disputed? Let any one who calls them in question, have the goodness to put his finger upon a single passage in the three first chapters of Genesis in which, except in type, heavenly blessings are spoken of and revealed. They will not deny that, literally at all events, [70] mention is made of earthly enjoyments. So far we are agreed. But they say that, along with these, our first parents possessed also enjoyments of a higher kind. As this, from defect of scripture evidence, must rest upon their own bare assertion; and as, by making the state of Adam originally to have been the same with that which our blessed Lord is the means of introducing, they do away with the distinction between the type and the antitype, they must excuse me if I prefer scriptural authority to theirs: and if, perceiving that Adam in his originally pure condition was dealt with merely as a being of the earth, earthy, I thence draw a conclusion as to the native, essential, and thorough earthliness of his mind.
I am forced on the same inference when I consider God’s dealings with the nation of the Jews. Their typical character, I deny not. They were clearly the representatives of that spiritual Israel whom God is bringing to the knowledge of himself out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and the land of Canaan into which, after their wanderings in the wilderness, they were brought, as clearly denotes, the state of glory and blessedness into which the spiritual Israel, the church of the living God, is ultimately introduced. But, in a literal sense God dealt with the Jews merely after an earthly fashion, and as capable of viewing things merely in an earthly point of view. I need not recur to Warburton’s Divine Legation of Moses in proof of this. Its evidence is of a higher kind than the questionable positions of that learned and original but decidedly paradoxical writer. It is evinced by such facts as: — 1st, God separated the Jews, not spiritually, but merely as a nation of this world, from the other earthly nations of the earth by which they were surrounded. 2nd, He bestowed upon them, as an earthly nation, the possession of the land of Canaan, that is of an earthly country, as their peculiar inheritance. 3rd, It was by motives of an earthly kind they were deterred from transgression. By continuing obedient, they were to continue God’s favourite people, to retain possession of the land of Canaan, and were to enjoy the fruits of the ground, and other earthly blessings, in rich abundance. By transgression, on the contrary, they were to forfeit all their peculiar earthly privileges. Deut. 28, throughout. Now is it possible to conceive proofs of the thorough earthliness of the [71] human mind more decided and incontrovertible than these? — God, after having selected the descendants of Abraham to be a peculiar people to himself, can only draw forth their gratitude, and restrain them within the bounds of obedience, in connexion with the bestowment or forfeiture of earthly blessings. Surely this, to a reflecting mind, speaks volumes as to the utter incapacity of the natural mind of man to conceive of heavenly things, or to be influenced by heavenly motives.
Nor is our inference in the slightest degree impaired by a consideration of God’s dealings with the members of his true Church in every age, especially in New Testament times. On the contrary, his procedure towards them furnishes us with its strongest confirmation. Believers of the gospel are, according to the 7th and 8th chapters of the Romans, partakers of two distinct natures or minds. They have, as Adam’s descendants, the nature and mind of the earthy; they, have, as begotten again by the word of truth, the first fruits of the nature or mind of the Heavenly. They have not soul merely, but also the first fruits or beginnings of spirit. Agreeably to this fact we might anticipate that they would be capable of being operated on by two distinct sets of motives, corresponding to the two distinct sets of principles of which they are possessed. And so it is. If the love of God, dwelling in their hearts by faith, be the principle which, in so far as it exists and operates, constrains them to live not unto themselves, but unto God; thereby standing connected with, indeed constituting, spirit, or the divine nature, John 4:24, 1 John 4:8, they are also restrained from evil, by motives addressed to them as still possessing earthly minds, and as still inhabitants of this present world. They are warned continually as to the temporal injurious consequences of misconduct. If they indulge in any species of evil, no matter what, they are given to understand that, instead of escaping punishment or having it mitigated to them, they shall be still more severely chastened upon earth, than such as have the plea of comparative ignorance to adduce in their behalf. How strikingly thus is the native and intense earthliness of the mere human mind established. If even in those who have the first fruits of heavenly principle, earthly mind still requires to be dealt with in a manner corresponding to its earthly nature; of [72] course, in those who are destitute of such heavenly principle, there is nothing else but earthly mind on which to operate.
DIVISION SECOND.
PHENOMENA OF SOUL, EXPLAINED BY ITS SHADOWY NATURE.
I am not able to adduce any instance in which ψυχη directly signifies shadowy mind. In 1 Corinth. 15:45, it might, without any violation of the sense of the passage, and in a way calculated to throw much light both on the text and context, be rendered shadowy being. The words would then read: — The first man Adam was made, or was, a living shadowy being, the last Adam was made, or was, a life giving substantial being. If correct in this, what is to hinder the adjective ψυχικη, derived from the noun ψυχη, from signifying shadowy, or connected with a shadowy being, in James 3:15?
Upon this translation, however, I neither insist, nor do I intend to make it the foundation of any inference. Independently of it altogether, I know from Romans 5:14, that Adam was the type, figure, or shadow, of him that was to come. Hence his nature in general, and his mind in particular, was merely figurative or shadowy. The value of this fact, as solving with ease, numerous phenomena of the human mind which are otherwise inexplicable, will be best seen as we proceed.
SECTION I.
SHADOW, WHAT?
There is good reason to believe, that the word shadow, although in every one’s mouth, and although we have been accustomed to apply it to the subject of religion from our earliest infancy, conveys but a vague and indistinct notion of things to the mind. If, then, we would proceed with [73] advantage, the very first step to be taken is to define its meaning. This becomes the more necessary, as no word is used in scripture except in a fixed and definite sense; it being the great beauty of the sacred writings, that the words of which they consist as the words of the Lord, are pure words; that they are as silver tried in a furnace of fire, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6.
A very slight degree of reflection will suggest the three following leading facts as connected with the use and application of the word shadow.
First. It denotes something which, by its nature, is destitute of solidity, and consequently passes away. This, indeed, is almost the only signification which popularly it has. We perceive it in the axiom, “what shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue.” It is correct so far as it goes; but, as we shall see immediately, it is very far from embracing the whole truth regarding the matter.
Secondly. Shadow necessarily implies the existence of substance. In other words there can be no shadow, unless there exist a substance by which it may be projected. Without the gnomon, of what use were the sun dial? Simple and obvious as this fact is, and readily as it will be acquiesced in by every one to whom it is proposed, it is truly astonishing how seldom it is present to the mind when the word shadow is made use of figuratively in common conversation. That shadow is something transient, occurs at once to every mind; that it necessarily implies the existence of a substance corresponding to it, by which it is produced, although a fact which, when stated to them, all will readily admit, is nevertheless, strange to tell! what few, and that rarely likewise, are found taking into account. In morals and religion this fact is by the majority continually overlooked. Now I have no hesitation in laying it down as an axiom, no substance, no shadow, the truth of which in reference to the present subject, will soon be made apparent.
Thirdly. There can be no shadow where there is perfect darkness; there can be none where there is perfect light. This may be easily verified by a reference to the sun dial. During the night, if perfectly dark, no shadow is, or can be, projected by the gnomon. And in tropical countries, whenever the sun comes to be directly overhead, that is, whenever light has attained to its acmé, the shadow, [74] which up to that time had been gradually diminishing, ceases to exist. It is absorbed in the substance. Thus, then, shadow can exist only in a period and in circumstances intermediate between the beginning and the perfection of light. And farther, in the morning, the shadows are necessarily longer and larger, but worse defined, than they are found to be as the sun advances towards the zenith. As we approach the fulness and perfection of the meridian blaze, the shadows, while they shorten, acquire a distinctness of outline, and present themselves to us with a minuteness and accuracy of shape, which in many cases supersede the necessity of our looking at the substances themselves, in order to discover what they are.
SECTION II.
THE LAW OF MOSES.
The meaning of the immediately preceding paragraph will be best illustrated, and the correctness of my statements best established, by a brief allusion to what the New Testament Scriptures have mentioned respecting the Mosaic Law.
In his Epistle to the Colossians, chap. 2, verses 16 and 17, the Apostle Paul thus expresses himself: — Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” And so, likewise, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 8, verses 4 and 5: — For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle. For see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.” Chap. 9:23,24. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than [75] these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”
Now the Mosaic law, or the series of ritual institutions which God by the instrumentality of Moses imposed upon the Jewish people, consisted merely of shadows, for: —
1. All those institutions were, by their very nature temporary and transient. They were appointed to continue only till the time of reformation. Heb. 9:10.
2. They implied the existence of substances corresponding to them, which, in due time, were to be revealed. The work of Christ, as consummated by his sacrifice of himself, and the mediatorial kingdom which he was to set up, were “the coming events” which “cast” the rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic law as so many “shadows before.” But for “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” and “the church which he hath purchased with his own blood,” the Mosaic ceremonial, and the nation of the Jews, never could have existed.
3. The morning of divine revelation had dawned before the shadows of the law made their appearance. At first, the intimations of the coming Messiah, although numerous and widely spread, were extremely obscure. Afterwards, as the time for his advent approached, one prophet after another was commissioned to speak of him in a way better defined and more distinct. Until at last, in the full meridian blaze of the sun of righteousness, these shadows were at once and for ever swallowed up in himself their substance.
SECTION III.
THE FACULTIES AND PROPERTIES OF SOUL, SHADOWY.
Hoping that I have succeeded in making myself understood with respect to the meaning of the word shadow, I now proceed to apply the foregoing remarks to the elucidation of some of the leading phenomena of the human mind.
[76] Those who have considered man in a moral and religious point of view, and have given to the world the benefit of their reflections, have almost always shewn a disposition to lean to one or other of the two following extremes: —
First. Either they have been so eager to represent man as completely vile and worthless as to have denied him even the semblance of virtue, and to have represented him as in all his actions knowingly and intentionally aiming at the deception and injury of his fellow men.
Or, their ideas of man’s excellence and perfectibility of character have been such, as to have led them to ascribe to him the possession of every conceivable virtuous principle, and to represent him as having been kept hitherto only by circumstances from the exhibition of these.
Now, it so happens, that the real phenomena of human nature, when accurately, cautiously, and impartially, observed, do not agree with, and cannot by any possible management be made to agree with, either of these two extreme theories. On the one hand, man, however vile and worthless he may be, is continually, by deeds and offices of kindness, solacing the minds, and relieving the wants, of his fellow men. On the other hand, his most amiable traits of character appear to be limited by their very nature, and, not unfrequently, appear connected in the same individual with views, feelings, and conduct, of a totally incongruous description. Man as a whole, is apparently a being completely at variance with himself. How is all this to be accounted for? If totally evil, whence his occasional exhibition of benevolence and generosity? If thoroughly virtuous, whence his constant aberrations from the strict path of duty, and the low, grovelling, earthly character, which he is constantly exhibiting? Assuming the truth of either of these extreme theories just mentioned the phenomena of human nature are perfectly inexplicable.
What either of these, however, fails to do, the understanding of the shadowy character of the human mind, with ease accomplishes. It furnishes us with a satisfactory solution of every difficulty.
By metaphysicians of almost every description, the powers and faculties of the human mind have been classified or arranged under two heads: those of the understanding, and those of the will.
To begin with those of the understanding.
[77] To the view which I am now to present, it is of no consequence what particular classification of these may be made. Let us reduce them to a very small number with the school of Helvetius and Condillac, or represent them as numerous with the phrenologists, it is all one. In whatever point of light we regard them, we find that they are merely shadowy or representative.
This shadowy character of theirs, appears in the first place, when we consider them objectively, or with a reference to the subject matter about which they are conversant. The ordinary affairs of human life, or the arts and sciences, are what generally occupy the human mind. But these are all matters connected with time, that is, with a transient state of existence. In this point of view, then, they are shadowy. — Again, the range of human investigation is most extensive. There is no topic into which the mind of man does not attempt to pry, or, if already inquired into, with which it does not attempt to render itself still more familiar. Is not this apparent boundlessness of range of the human mind, the fit shadow or representative of that real boundlessness of a still higher understanding, from whose glance nothing is hidden, to whose penetrating eye all nature lies open? Still farther, the tendency of the human mind, as it advances in its researches and acquirements is to simplify yet more and more the objects of human knowledge and research, and, thereby to reduce them within narrow compass. The arts and sciences in the earlier and ruder stages of society, have a loose, straggling, and indefinite appearance, and present but comparatively few points of resemblance to one another. This want of connection, however, as knowledge advances, gradually more and more disappears. Analogies subsisting among different branches of science are from time to time observed, which had previously failed to arrest attention. Witness, for instance, those surprising recent discoveries, by which the identity of magnetism, electricity, and galvanism, has been all but established. But we have seen, that as natural light increases in intensity by approaching towards the zenith, the tendency of the shadow is to diminish in size, and become better defined. Does not the fact of the various topics which come within the range of human knowledge gradually becoming simpler and better defined, and thereby capable of being reduced within narrower compass, as the light of science advances, shew that [78] in this respect, likewise, the term shadowy is strikingly applicable to the human understanding?
But, in the second place, it is when viewed subjectively or with a specific reference to what they are in themselves, that the shadowy nature and character of the powers of the human understanding most completely appear. Looked at in this light, the principle thing that strikes us in regard to them is their indefiniteness. We cannot fix the boundaries of human capacity. Not more certainly is the rude Hottentot or North American Indian unable to conceive of the appearances which mind has put on among civilized nations, — not more unable were our barbarous ancestors in the dark ages to anticipate the mental vigour, and range of thought, displayed by the Newtons, the Halleys, and the Leibnitz’s, of happier periods, than we are to assign limits to the expanse of the intellectual faculties at some remote æra of the world. And yet, unable as we may be to circumscribe the utmost bounds of human ability, bounds we know it must have, for it is not infinite. Do not these facts, taken together, practically attest the shadowy nature of the human understanding? It is not infinite, and thereby stands distinguished from the mind of God. But the exact boundary of its efforts and capacity who can assign? It is always growing, always expanding, so that it is impossible for us at any particular period of its progress to say of it, thus far it has gone, but it shall go no farther. What is all this, however, but to represent man’s understanding as the exact and appropriate image of that of God? God’s mind neither has, nor can have, bounds. To the mind of man we are unable to assign any. That is, the latter, although not in reality boundless, is to us as if it were so. Expressed in another form, what is the import of this? Why, merely to admit, what it has been my object to prove, that the human understanding is, by its very indefiniteness, the shadow or representative of that which is infinite because divine.
Let us now direct attention to the powers of the will; or, as these have been sometimes denominated, the active powers.
No question has been more fiercely agitated in the schools of metaphysics and theology, than that respecting the freedom of the will. The exercise of will or volition, is, among two or more trains of thought, or courses of con-[79]duct, which lie open to us, to adopt one in preference to another. In so doing is man acting freely, that is, sovereignly and unconstrainedly; or, is he, of necessity, even in choosing, compelled to act as he does? This, I conceive, is a fair statement of the question.
Had the doctrine which I am now engaged in propounding been rightly understood, this question would never have been agitated; or, if so, would soon have been adjusted to the satisfaction of all parties. Man’s shadowy nature affords its solution.
All voluntary actions are those in which we act with choice, or according to our own pleasure; and when acting voluntarily we certainly have no sense or feeling of constraint. This, although a most decided necessitarian, I most readily concede. But when more than this is demanded, considerations of the most weighty kind compel me to withhold it. In the first place, to suppose that the creature should in any case, it matters not what, will that which it was not the intention of the Creator he should will, is to my mind to suppose the creature to be so far independent of the Creator. This, however, cannot be; for, the withdrawal of the former in any respect whatever from the jurisdiction of the latter, would be an express denial of the divine omnipotence. — In the second place, a vast number of the difficulties with which this question has been complicated, have arisen from not understanding aright the relation in which the will of the creature stands to that of the Creator. What the creature aims at, or the object of its volitions, is in some way or another, its own gratification. But will those who, professing to believe in the divine omnipotence, venture to assert that there is any thing in the circumstance of the creature naturally aiming at its own gratification, or at an end different from the Creator, which disqualifies it to be an instrument in that very respect in the hands of the Creator? What is there to hinder God from making use of and overruling this very difference between the respective aims of his creatures and himself, as one grand medium of manifesting by contrast what he himself is? See, in proof, Rom. 9. In the third place, when God is pleased to communicate to any one the knowledge of himself, he does not, properly speaking, and paradoxical as the expression at first sight may appear, bring the will of man into greater subjection to himself than formerly it was. For, the will of the [80] creature was, and by the very necessity of its nature behoves to be, even when intentionally opposing it, completely subject to, and fulfilling, the will, or intention, of the Creator. Rom. 8:20. In believing the truth then, this thorough subjection of the creature’s will, is not begun but continued. Compare Rom. 6:16-18, with Rom. 7:25, in the original. But the change is this. Naturally, the creature although in reality fulfilling the will of the Creator, was, in so far as its own purpose was concerned, aiming at an end or purpose different from that of the Creator. Supernaturally, the will of the creature, or the end which the creature aims at, becomes the same with the will of the Creator. Naturally, the aims of the creature and the Creator are totally different; supernaturally, they coincide. In both situations, the creature is necessarily and equally subjected to the will of the Creator. But in the former situation his subjection is unintentional, from the difference between the ends aimed at by himself and God; in the latter, man’s will, and God’s will, happily coinciding.
These things being premised, the shadowy nature of the human will, may, I think, be stated with every prospect of my being understood. In the first place, man, in all his volitions or acts of will, is influenced by motives; every particular volition being always the result of, and agreeable to, that motive, or combination of motives, which, for the time being, happens to be the strongest. In this respect it is a beautiful type, figure, or shadowy resemblance of the will of God himself, which, although uninfluenced by any thing out of itself, is, if I may so speak, constrained to be what it is by the very purity and perfection of his nature. In the second place, man, in acting voluntarily, has the feeling of his thoughts and actions springing only and ultimately from himself; a feeling which, although deceptive and the result of his ignorance, is essential to, and necessarily connected with, remorse or self-approbation, that is all the phenomena of the moral sense. This very feeling of the self-origination of what he voluntarily thinks and does, renders man, as to his will, the appropriate shadow or representative of him in whose will all things in reality originate, and concerning whom it is declared by the Apostle, that of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. Rom. 11:36. In the last place, the will of man, although naturally different from and opposed to the will of [81] God, becomes the same with that of God; or man, in his thoughts and actions, comes to aim at the divine glory, the same end at which God himself aims, in exact proportion as the divine nature is communicated to him and dwells in him.
It may be interesting to some of my readers to know that the shadowy or representative nature of the human mind, and human things in general, does not seem altogether to have escaped the notice of our justly celebrated Milton. The following passage taken from the Paradise Lost is remarkable:
What surmounts the reach
Of human sense I shall delineate so,
By likening spiritual to corporal forms,
As may express them best; though what of earth
Be but the shadow of Heaven, &c.
For farther information respecting Milton’s sentiments, on this point, I refer to a note on the 18th page of the translation of his posthumous Treatise on Christian Doctrine.
SECTION IV.
INSTINCT.
Nothing tends to prove more decidedly the shadowy character of soul, or natural mind, than the facts which are connected with the subject of instinct.
Instinct stands to reason, in the same relation that reason does to spirit. Reason is the shadow or representative of spirit; instinct, therefore, is the shadow of reason.
By instinct the lower animals, and even man himself in the earlier stages of life, perform a number of actions conducive, nay absolutely necessary, to their existence and well-being, without understanding the reasons why they are performed, and, consequently, without being influenced by reason to their performance. The actions to which by instinct they are prompted, are always the best which, under existing [82] circumstances, they could do — often superior, indeed, to those which have their origin in the exercise of the rational faculties — but springing as they do from a blind impulsive influence, they must ever occupy an inferior rank in the scale of intellect to actions, the motives as well as the objects of which are understood.
The instincts of man may be classed under two heads: — those which have a reference to the life that now is, and those which have a reference to that which is to come.
In man, the former class of instincts are fewer than in the inferior animals. And this because the possession of reason by him enables him to dispense with many of them.
They are also chiefly temporary; most of them, like the desire of suck, being confined to the period of infancy.8 Such instincts of this description, however, as man has, he shares in common with the brutes.
8 For the shadowy nature, even of this, I would direct attention to 1 Peter 2:2.
It is to the latter class of human instincts, or those which have a reference to a higher state of existence, that I would direct attention. Of these, the brutes exhibit not the slightest vestige. They are peculiar to man. They constitute one of his grand and distinguishing attributes. And by means of them the shadowy character of the human mind becomes strikingly manifest.
I treat, first, of the instinct of happiness.
Man is always and necessarily dissatisfied with his present condition. To the future he looks forward for the enjoyment of a happiness which he has never realized in the present or the past.
This desire of felicity in man is of the nature of an instinct. It is a mere sentiment and not the result of the exercise of the rational faculties. Hence it appears in every human being, and at every period of human existence. Age, even, that quells the fire of passion, cannot extinguish it. It is so wrought into the very constitution of man’s nature, that with man’s existence only it can cease to exist.
In no respect, perhaps, does the instinctive nature of the desire of happiness become more perceptible, than when looked at with a reference to the objects of its pursuit. It seeks for gratification in the things of time and sense. No matter, however much disappointed others may have been, [83] nay, however much we ourselves may have been, in time past, it is from such things alone that happiness is still anticipated. The man whose life has been one continued series of disappointments, — who, in the language of Johnson, has found that “human life is everywhere a state in which much is to be endured,” — still looks to the world to indemnify him at some future period for the trials and privations which in time past it has forced him to undergo. Is not this the very height of folly and extravagance? Is there any way of accounting for conduct so irrational, except on the ground of its springing from an instinct deeply and indestructibly implanted in human nature?
The instinct of happiness, however trifling in itself, acquires value and importance when viewed as the image and representative of a higher principle. Man desires happiness, because happiness is to be found. It is true, that as the feeling dwells in human bosoms naturally, or as it is a mere soulical principle, it can never be satisfied. And this, because there it is shadowy, and as such seeks after shadowy sources of gratification. But there is a substantial principle, corresponding to the shadowy one, which never can be disappointed. I mean, that desire of enjoying God, which necessarily results from the knowledge and love of him. To this, the desire of happiness common to all men instinctively points, and in this finds its appropriate termination. The moment that God is made known to any human being, that moment is implanted in the mind the first fruits of the substantial principle, of which the ordinary desire of happiness is merely the shadow. He now begins to desire intelligently, what formerly he desired only instinctively. Formerly, the desire of happiness, to whatever degree disappointed, still clung to the creature for its gratification; now, in consequence of the earnest of real happiness already enjoyed, it is exchanged for, or rather swallowed up in, the substantial desire of and delight in realities.
Would my readers see at once the analogy and the contrast simply and strikingly exhibited? Let them look at the respective characters of Adam and Jesus Christ. In both, there was the desire of happiness: but in the former, its tendency was merely to the continuance of earthly enjoyments; in the latter, to the joy which was set before him in a higher and heavenly state, to God as the strength of his heart, and his portion for ever.
[84] Let me direct attention, in the second place, to the instinct of immortality.
I say advisedly, the instinct of immortality, for more than an instinctive tendency in regard to this all-important subject cannot dwell in the human mind naturally. A
“Fond desire, an earnest hope,
A longing after immortality,”
if it be used to signify more than an instinctive tendency of man can only be regarded as a mere figment of poetry.
And what is it that this instinct points to? To immortality, considered as eternal life or the life of God? Not directly, I trow. If it did, the instinct in question would be a divine principle, and the distinction between Soul and Spirit, for which throughout this work I am contending, would be subverted. No, the natural desire of immortality, like the natural desire of happiness, is a mere negative principle. It is a desire to avoid losing the life that now is, not a desire to possess that which is to come. What Adam naturally wished for, was the unceasing prolongation of his earthly existence, the only advantage connected with continued obedience. Forfeited although this natural life has been by transgression, his posterity, as inheriting his mind, have naturally no higher object than he himself had. To retain the life that now is merely, or to be immortal in the sense of escaping the stroke of death, is all that the instinct in question directly leads to.
Thus am I well aware, that the instinctive desire of immortality, or rather the feeling of unwillingness to part with their present life, which mankind naturally exhibit, is never once to be confounded with the heavenly principles of faith and hope. These have respect, not to the earthly existence which Adam forfeited, but to that fulness of joy which is in God’s immediate presence, those rivers of pleasures which are at his right hand for evermore. Psalm 16:11. Faith being the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, Heb. 11:1, and resting directly on the authority of God himself, 1 John. 5:9-11, is a confident and spiritually intelligent anticipation of a future eternal existence, the earnest of which is in itself already enjoyed. Between that reluctance to part with the present life which dwells in every human bosom, and that certainty of immortality which is the peculiar portion of the children of God, there exists [85] then, this difference, that the one directly has respect to an earthly, the other to a heavenly principle, and this because the one is of Soul, the other of Spirit. And yet, distinguished as they are, the one is the shadow or representative, as well as first fruits, of the other. The instinct of immortality never could have sprung up in the mind of a single child of the dust, unless immortality itself had existed to gratify it. In the breasts of his creatures God hath implanted no instinct in vain. Do the young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God? Psalm 104:21. It is because he hath made ample provision for giving them their meat in due season. 27. And doth God take care for the inferior animals? 1 Corinth. 9:9. Hath he implanted no instinct in the brutal tribes without assigning to it a suitable gratification, and shall he be supposed to have implanted the highest of all conceivable instincts in his intelligent creature man merely for the purpose of frustrating it? God forbid that such a thought should be cherished by us for a single moment. The very reverse is the fact. The earnest expectation of the creation, and especially of man himself as the head of that creation, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, Rom 8:19, as to it the source of emancipation from the bondage of corruption, and thereby of life and immortality, this expectation, instinctive though it be, shall not be disappointed. The shadowy feeling shall ultimately be swallowed up in the substantial enjoyment, and shall thereby, to the satisfaction of all, demonstrate its present representative character. Even already the instinct in question is known to be shadowy by us who believe, in consequence of the first fruits of what it points to having been conferred on us. We have passed from death unto life. John 5:24. To know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, is, we find in our blessed experience, to possess eternal life in its beginnings. John 17:3. And if, by means of the burdens and trials of life, if annoyed by ourselves as well as by the world, we groan within ourselves waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body, Rom. 8:23, the first fruits of the substantial principle in us are merely tending forward understandingly, to what the shadowy principle in the majority of mankind is tending to instinctively, viz. the gratification of both, in the complete and ultimate enjoyment of immortality by all.
[86]
SECTION V.
THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSCIENCE.
This, although when understood one of the simplest of all subjects, has, by the ignorance and perverse ingenuity of man, been more entangled and perplexed than almost any other.
That conscience is at best a shadowy, emblematic or representative principle, a very few remarks will suffice to shew.
Its function is to pronounce sentence on the moral quality, that is, on the goodness or badness, of the thoughts indulged in, and the actions performed, by ourselves and others. To enable it to discharge its office aright, it is provided with certain rules of judgment or a certain standard of right and wrong. The highest demand which we are entitled to make upon it is, that it shall judge truly, without fear, favour, or affection, according to the measure of light which it has, not according to that which it has not.
Conscience is almost incessantly impelled to the exercise of its judicial authority. It is scarcely ever allowed to be altogether quiescent. In our own minds, while awake, we may, if attentive, detect ourselves almost constantly pronouncing moral judgments with respect to ourselves or others. Our thoughts the meanwhile are accusing or excusing one another. Rom. 2:15. To sit in judgment thus internally, evil doing, not well doing, is the grand, original, impulsive cause. Law having been enacted, not for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, not to reward the good, but to restrain and punish the bad, 1 Tim. 1:9, conscience, or the internal faculty of deciding according to law, is stimulated to action, not by goodness, but by real or supposed wickedness. The result of the moral investigation may be to acquit, or pronounce good, that is to decide that the thoughts or actions in question have been according to law, but the cause of such an investigation will always be the clear suspicion or insinuation of evil, and the grand means of conducting it, will always be the contrast of supposed evil and supposed good. Conscience has for the range of its decisions the territory which lies between violation of its own standard of right and wrong, and the observation of it. [87] Over this territory, its jurisdiction is complete. Absolute goodness, however, that is, goodness as uncontrasted with wickedness, it has nothing to do with.
These things being premised, it is obvious that the authority of conscience is extremely limited and imperfect. It judges on defective knowledge, and it has to do, properly speaking, only with evil. However valuable, therefore, in the absence of higher principle, it can never be certain that in its decisions it is absolutely right. It can never do more than pronounce relatively to its own standard of right and wrong, by whatever means that may have been acquired. To whatever degree or extent it may be enlightened, for ought it knows, it may be calling evil good, and good evil.
Such is the highest standard for estimating the morality of actions with which soul, or the natural mind of man, can supply us. This standard may be higher, or it may be lower; the mind which applies it may be more, or it may be less, enlightened; but to rise above relative notions of things, to conceive of goodness as any thing more than the negation of evil, is for mere man absolutely impossible. To be liable to mistake continually in our moral judgment, no less than to err in our practice, is the very condition of humanity. A state of things like this cannot by its very nature be permanent; and yet it may be the emblem of something that is so. Is this actually found to be the case?
The scriptures remove all doubt with regard to this point. They contrast the defective moral judgments of the mere human mind, with a judgment in such matters which is always according to truth. They contrast human virtue, or mere abstinence from evil, and its echo conscience, with love to God, or principle of positive goodness, and faith in divine testimony as its unseparable concomitant. There is thus set before us a substantial principle completely corresponding to, and yet completely contrasted with, the shadowy one.
Beautifully, as well as satisfactorily, is this instruction conveyed. The operations of conscience are exemplified in Adam, and Adam’s posterity; the operations of a principle higher than conscience, appear embodied in the life and character of Jesus Christ. Human beings, proceeding on defective principles, and employing as the medium of [88] their moral judgments defective faculties, can never be perfectly right; the Son of God, proceeding on the principles of eternal truth and applying these to existing circumstances by supernatural faculties, was raised above the possibility of mistake. To avoid violating law, and thereby to satisfy the dictates of conscience, was the highest object that Adam could have aimed at or attained to; to exhibit the influence of the principle of love, a principle by which law as merely prohibitory is entirely superseded, was at once the object and the attainment of the mind of Jesus Christ. Need more be said to point out the analogy, and yet the difference between natural conscience, and the mind that was in Christ Jesus? They both pronounce moral judgments and that authoritatively; and there is a sense in which they both are courts of ultimate appeal, it being as impossible, while the human mind continues unenlightened from above, to reach any higher tribunal, as it is in reality to get beyond the judgment of God. So far, then, they are analogous. But they differ, also widely; for the one class of judgments proceed upon partial, the other, upon general principles; the one may be reversed, the other, cannot; the one negative, the other positive; the one are judgments of the creature, the other of the Creator. By the judgments of God, all the moral judgments of man, which are certainly emblematic of them, are ultimately rectified. What is all this, however, except in other words to declare, that the principle of natural conscience is shadowy, or emblematic of a higher principle?
SECTION VI.
SIN AND DEATH.
Sin and death may be regarded as suggesting righteousness and life by way of contrast. For this purpose they are often employed in the sacred writings, especially in the New Testament scriptures. Rom. 10:27, 5:23, 6:21, 1 Cor. 15:[89]20-22. This however is not the point of light in which I now intend presenting them.
They are not so much, properly speaking, the shadows of righteousness and life, as proofs that the righteousness and life of which respectively they are the terminations are shadowy. To make myself understood, be it observed: — there are in scripture two kinds of righteousness, and two kinds of life spoken of; the righteousness and life of the creature, and the righteousness and life of the Creator. The former kind of righteousness consisted in Adam’s abstinence from violating the single divine prohibition, and the former kind of life, on his exemption from undergoing the punishment conditionally threatened. His righteousness and life consequently, were both negative. The latter kind of righteousness, however, or that of Christ, consisted in the exhibition of love, or the complete fulfilment of divine law in principle and practice; and the latter kind of life, in the possession of a divine and heavenly existence, by which death is for ever and completely destroyed. Consequently, the righteousness and life now spoken of were positive.
If this be understood, the relation occupied by sin and death becomes at once apparent. The creature or negative righteousness and life might by transgression come to an end or were capable of being forfeited; the divine or positive righteousness and life, however, nothing could subvert or destroy.
Sin and death are thus the terminations of shadowy states, and not properly speaking, shadows themselves. It was Adam’s original righteousness, not his sin, that was the type or shadow of Christ’s divine righteousness; it was Adam’s original life, not his death, which was the type or shadow of Christ’s everlasting life. The use of sin and death, among other objects, was to prove, that the righteousness and life of the creature were but shadowy. Had this simple fact been understood by the myriads of those who have undertaken to write on the subject of theology, we should never have had the state of the Creature, confounded with that of the Creator, — we should never have had that righteousness and life of Adam which at the best were merely soulical or natural, represented as spiritual, and thereby placed upon a footing of equality with that which they merely typified, the righteousness and life of Jesus Christ.
[90]
DIVISION THIRD.
THE PHENOMENA OF SOUL EXPLAINED BY ITS SELFISH NATURE.
SECTION I.
THE DEFINITION OF SELFISHNESS.
By selfishness I mean that principle of a created nature, whether brutal or intelligent, which prompts the individual to make his own gratification, in one way or another, the end of his thoughts and actions.
I beg that the terms of this definition may be attended to, and taken in the strictest sense in which they can be construed. The making of self-gratification the end at which we aim, is what constitutes the very essence of selfishness.
It matters not what the means adopted for the accomplishment of this purpose may be. It may be the indulgence of the animal appetites, it may be the cultivation of the intellectual powers, it may be the refined pleasures attendant on the moral sentiments, or, perchance it may be the due and well-regulated adjustment of all these; but if the course pursued terminate in self, selfishness is the appropriate name of the principle from which our exertions spring.
Now this principle of selfishness is one of the grand characteristics, is, perhaps, emphaticé, the grand characteristic, of soul. It is man’s very nature. Strip him of selfishness, from that moment he ceases to be what he is. As will afterwards be shewn, generosity, or the principle which makes the good of others its object, so far from belonging to man, is the divine nature. Indeed, we can never see clearly the distinction between Adam, the man of the earth, earthy, and Jesus, the second man, the Lord from heaven, until we are brought to understand, that selfishness was the nature, because the principle of the actions, of the one — generosity the nature, because the principle of the actions, of the other.
SECTION II.
SELFISHNESS — THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF SIN.
The reason of this is obvious. To have selfishness, or self-gratification, for the end of our thoughts and actions, [91] is absolutely inconsistent with subjugation to divine law. Selfishness can be satisfied, and satisfied only, with unrestrained indulgence. On the contrary, the very nature of law, whether human or divine, is prohibitory, or, its very purpose is to restrain. Its language to him who is subjected to its operation is, whatever the wishes, desires or inclinations of your mind may be, to a limitation of these in certain respects you must submit. Divine law, therefore, authoritatively sets bounds to the indulgence of the selfish principle. What is this, however, except in other words to declare, that the tendencies of man, and the nature of divine law, are essentially and necessarily at variance with each other? The human mind is prompted to unlimited self-gratification by the strongest of all natural laws, that of its very constitution; but the law of a superior, or law emanating from superior authority, prohibits the indulgence of this feeling. From this very contrariety between the necessary tendencies of soul or creature mind, and the restraint imposed upon it by the prohibition of the Creator, we may see obviously laid the foundation of disobedience or sin.
And from these very sources sin has actually proceeded. The mind of Adam was at its origin and by its constitution selfish. It aimed at self-gratification and could aim at nothing higher; of this fact the grand reason will in the next section be developed. To meet and gratify this nature of man, the whole system of things was, in every respect but one, constructed. The exception consisted of the single divine prohibition, or law, to which he was subjected. This, like a disturbing force in physics, tended to the destruction of that natural harmony which otherwise universally prevailed. Trifling as in itself it was, by assailing man’s selfishness, it assailed his nature in its tenderest point. Not only did it prescribe bounds to appetite, and make man feel, by reminding him of, the incompleteness of his knowledge, but, its tendency was, in the keenest and most offensive manner, to wound his sense of fancied independence. While inviolate, the selfish principle, that grand law of man’s nature, could not be thoroughly complied with. Nay, this single prohibition tended to mar all the enjoyments derived from the gratification of selfishness otherwise. To gratify self thoroughly, a thing to be accomplished only by violating the prohibition, was, therefore, the irrepressible tendency [92] of man’s mind. And when at last, by the presenting of the suitable temptation, the sensual appetite, the desire of knowledge, and the feeling of pride, which constitute man’s nature, were all at once and completely operated on, the principle of selfishness having acquired its full strength and intensity, every barrier and impediment gave way, and sin, or the violation of divine law with a view to the gratification of self, for the first time took place.
As it was at first, so also was it afterwards. The law of Moses was neither more nor less than a series of restraints imposed on the selfishness of man. In prohibiting the indulgence of propensities natural to every human being, it proclaimed the existence of an authority higher and greater than the gratification of self. This was to attack human nature in its strong-hold. Hence, as a matter of course, a rebellion on the part of those subjected to its sway against its authority. Our lips are our own; who is Lord over us? was the language of defiance to which it prompted. The restraints of law opposed a feeble and inefficient barrier to the feeling of pride thus roused; nay, by irritating it, they were found to stimulate it to still more vigorous and decided action. In the asserting of his fancied self-independence, one divine prohibition after another was by man trampled under foot, or, in other words, sin after sin was by him committed.
Under the immediate influence of the selfish principle, sin in New-Testament times likewise is committed. Indeed, the greater restraints which Christianity imposes on this principle is the cause of its being now a still more fruitful parent of sin. It is not a single prohibition, as in the case of Adam; it is not a series of restraints almost solely external, as in that of the Jews; but commands, reaching to the thoughts and intents of the heart, to which, since the coming of the Messiah, mankind have been subjected. Selfishness, in its almost imperceptible risings, in its minutest ramifications, is now prohibited. Thou shalt not covet is now the language of divine law to all who can hear its injunctions. And what has been the result? To produce a greater tendency to obedience? To make the selfish principle alter its nature, and forego its authority? Just the opposite of all this. If a single transgression was committed by Adam, — if sin abounded among the Jews, — it has actually superabounded among the nominal followers [93] of Jesus Christ. The attempt to subject the selfish principle itself to restraint, has merely had the effect of rousing that principle into more fearful and devilish activity. Sin, in the minds of men made acquainted with the restraining nature of divine law, but ignorant of the only way in which alone it can be complied with, works all manner of concupiscence. Rom. 7:8. If the animal desires cannot be gratified consistently with conscience, man takes refuge in the cultivation of the intellectual faculties; and if the cultivation even of these, is found to trench on the dictates of that eternal monitor, the moral sentiment will be called into action with a view to its gratification. The fact is, that, in one way or another, self must be complied with. It is the law of man’s nature, and, therefore compels obedience. No matter what impediments may be thrown in its way, it will always maintain its ascendancy. Prohibitions addressed to it, restraints imposed upon it, merely afford it so many opportunities for manifesting its sovereignty. So necessarily is the gratification of self the end of man’s actions, that the more numerous the attempts to rein it in, the more numerous are the occasions afforded it of shewing that to it, laws must yield, not it to them. To selfishness, the law of man’s nature, every other law must give place, except the law or principle of a higher nature itself; Rom. 8:1,2, or, in other words, to try to subject selfishness in its internal workings to prohibitions, is merely to open so many additional avenues to the entrance of sin, by affording so many additional opportunities for the violation of law.
SECTION III.
ITSELF AN EFFECT OF MAN’S SITUATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
If selfishness be the immediate cause of sin, it nevertheless claims to occupy no higher rank than that of being itself merely an effect.
[94] It springs directly from the dependence of soul or natural mind on cerebral development. That portion of organized matter which is the seat of mind being limited, the mind which depends on it is necessarily limited also. Indeed, the quantity of intelligence displayed, is in every case evidently in exact proportion to the quantity and condensation of the nervous matter with which it stands connected. In animals of the radiate class, it is scarcely if at all, discernable; and in those that are vertebrate, it is uniformly regulated by the size and development of brain. But brain is, in every case, a limited portion of matter; and therefore, the mind which is dependent on it, whether that of the inferior animals, or that of man, is necessarily limited also. Now it is this limitation of mind, or intelligence, which constitutes the very essence of the selfish principle. For selfishness is neither more nor less than the human mind endeavouring to promote a limited object, that is, operating in a way suitable to its limited nature. This will be obvious when we consider, that to be bounded, and to be capable of aiming at an object that is boundless, implies a manifest inconsistency. Yet this inconsistency is held by every one, who, admitting the dependence of the human mind on brain, nevertheless denies its natural and necessary selfishness. But one of two distinct ends can be intelligently aimed at by any human being. The one is a limited, the other an unlimited one. An unlimited end it cannot be; for, by an unlimited understanding alone, which man’s confessedly is not, can such an end be conceived of. The end, or object, pursued by man must, therefore, be limited. And what object? Why, evidently, something within the bounds or limits of that which operates. But the mind of each individual or person, himself is the utmost extent of the operating principle. It follows, therefore, that the mind of each individual, or he himself, must be at one and the same time the agent, and the utmost end, of the actions which he performs.
But I should do justice, neither to myself, nor to my argument, were I to stop here. In every animal, selfishness is, for the reason just stated, an essential property of its nature. Human selfishness, however, if it does not spring from, is at all events augmented and strengthened by, a cause peculiar to itself. While the acquisitions of other animated beings are confined within certain definite bounds, it is [95] impossible to assign limits to the intellectual and moral attainments of man. The dog, the horse, the elephant, of to day, are what the same animals were a thousand years since; or if particular individuals of their respective species may by training acquire a degree of sagacity surpassing that of their fellows, the superiority is confined to themselves. It extends not to the various tribes to which they belong. Not so, however, with man. We find the species, as well as the individual, in a state of continual progress. The discoveries and experience of one generation having been added to that of another, human beings at present far surpass their predecessors of a remote age in the extent of their knowledge and cultivation; and will, in their turn, be completely outstripped, and thrown into the shade, by those who succeed. It is this capability of indefinite advancement which communicates a peculiar intensity to human selfishness. Giving the appearance of boundlessness to that which is in reality bounded, it flatters man by suggesting to his finite understanding the idea of its ultimately being enabled to grasp that which is infinite. That is, gradually enlarging the boundaries of natural mind it gradually strengthens the principle which we denominate self — a principle, “the appetite of which grows by what it feeds on.” To a mind which, as bounded, is thus necessarily selfish, how captivating, although delusive, the prospect of extending the range of its intellectual empire without limits and without end! The error lies in confounding what is indefinite, with what is infinite — in overlooking the fact, that a mind’s capability of indefinite progress, renders it fit to be merely the shadow or image of, not the same with, the infinite mind of the Creator — and in not understanding, that to attain to real boundlessness, whether of existence or knowledge, man must have his own shadowy nature exchanged for, and swallowed up in, the substantial nature of God.
SECTION IV.
THE INSANITY OF SELFISHNESS.
Selfishness, and human nature, or selfishness and soul or natural mind, are, we have thus seen, for all practical [96] purposes, synonymous and convertible terms. Whatever, then, can be proved respecting the one, is of necessity proved also respecting the other. Now, of man by nature it is declared in scripture, both by implication and expressly, that he is insane. The Apostle Paul writing to Timothy, says, speaking of himself and other believers, God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. 2 Tim. 1:7. This obviously implies, that where the truth is not believed, that is, where the man is in a state of nature, his mind is unsound. Farther; the wisest of men, before the advent of Christ, thus speaks of human beings in the book of Ecclesiastes: madness is in the heart of the sons of men while they live. Eccles. 9:3. God’s word thus, in terms the most explicit ascribing unsoundness of mind to the children of men, supposing me to stop here, would not the insanity of selfishness, as the grand principle of human nature, be thereby of itself sufficiently established?
But over and above the proofs of the insanity of the selfish principle thus furnished, the same thing may be evinced by a variety of other arguments.
First. To make any thing which by its nature is limited, an end or final cause, is merely the very height of absurdity. Yet this is what the soul, or the natural mind of an intelligent being like man, always and necessarily does. It proposes to him, his own pleasures or gratification, that is, himself, as the end of all his pursuits and actions. And with its suggestions, notwithstanding the checks which conscience and circumstances are continually giving, we find him as a matter of course complying. That is, in obedience to the dictates of the selfish principle, he puts what is bounded in the place which, even his own understanding tells him, can only properly be occupied by that which is boundless. Is not this folly? Nay, does it not deserve a harsher appellation?
Secondly. When opposite commands are issued by conflicting authorities, common sense dictates our yielding obedience to him who has the rightful claim to it, and who in the event of being resisted is able to punish. Such, however, has not been the result produced by the operation of the selfish principle. Under its influence, human beings, in every age, and during the subsistence of every dispensation, have preferred complying with the suggestions and temptations of the creature, to observing the express com-[97]mands of the Creator. Is not this the complete establishment of my position, that selfishness is a principle radically insane? Adam was forbidden by his Creator, that is, by Him who had a right to his obedience, to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In him, as possessed merely of soul or creature mind, there was nothing upon which the Creator could operate except the selfish principle; and had that principle in its purest state been sound, compliance with divine authority must have been the result. It is true, by the prohibition bounds were imposed on his selfishness: but they were imposed by Him who as the boundless one, had a perfect right to dispose of his creatures and their actions as he pleased. But the selfish principle in Adam was operated on from another quarter. The creature held out to him in the event of compliance with the temptation, the prospect of independence of his Maker; that is, flattered his bounded understanding with a prospect of acquiring, by compliance with the temptation, unbounded existence and enjoyment. God by the prohibition had suggested what was true, the bounded nature of the creature mind; the creature by the temptation had suggested what was false, the possibility of its becoming boundless. But, the principle of selfishness was restrained by the divine prohibition — whereas, it was flattered with the idea of being emancipated from restraint, by the creature temptation. The result was, that obscuring the right of the Creator to obedience, and the certainty of punishment in the event of disobedience, the selfish principle in Adam naturally and necessarily incapable of judging soundly in such matters, prompted to transgression, and thereby to its own destruction.
Another exhibition of the unsoundness of the selfish principle has been afforded in the case of the Jews. Temporal blessings were largely bestowed on them, and God undertook to continue their protector and friend in the event of their not violating by disobedience the Covenant into which he had seen meet to enter with them. Selfishness, if sound and enlightened, would have dictated compliance with injunctions so reasonable; proceeding too as they did, from one who had the right to demand obedience, as well as the power to punish should he be disobeyed. But no. Selfishness, in their case, as in that of our progenitor, showed itself to be a principle incapable of prompting to sane [98] and judicious conduct. Operated on by creature temptations suitable to its nature, it urged the descendants of Abraham to acts of increasingly daring transgression; until at last, it led to their complete and signal overthrow.
Has selfishness prompted to sound conduct in our days? Let facts speak. The church of Christ, although enjoined to hear the Lord alone, and threatened with the severest judgments should she listen to false and corrupt human teachers, is now, as in former ages she has been, under the influence of the same selfish principle, disobeying her divine head, and thereby treasuring up to herself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous displeasure of God. Who that considers aright these various exhibitions of the nature and tendency of the selfish principle in man will venture to deny that it is rootedly and essentially unsound?
Thirdly. Selfishness shews itself to be a principle of insanity, by leading to results which, in proportion as they are realized, are productive of misery. It prompts the debauchee to acts of intemperance: but, instead of the longed for and expected gratification, distress of body, anguish of mind, and shortening of life, constitute the only harvest which he reaps from his excesses. It prompts the man of avaricious mind to go on heaping wealth, in the hope of acquiring thereby a satisfaction of which at the present moment he knows himself to be destitute: but alas! the only fruit of his laborious and persevering toils is pain at every step of accumulation, and ultimately anxiety lest by any adverse fortune his gains should be wrested from his grasp. In no respect, however, is the insane character of selfishness more manifest, than when viewed in the light of its intellectual and moral results. What is the necessary consequence of advancement in classical learning? of success in scientific research? Increasing happiness, or, at least, permanent tranquillity? Let the experience of the learned and the philosophic answer. If candid, they must admit — nay, when candid, they have admitted — that increase of knowledge, is increase of misery. As, in mountainous regions, the more elevated the traveller is, the more qualified is he to judge of the heights which yet lie before him, and the difficulties which it is necessary for him still to surmount, so the more enlightened upon natural principles the mind of man is, the more is it made to feel the limitation of its views and the narrowness of its conceptions. That species of in-[99]toxication which is produced by intellectual greatness, cannot blind the mind of him who labours under it to the fact, that the more enlarged his apprehensions of things have become, the more points has he presented to the assaults of enemies, and the more opportunities has he afforded for the inflicting of wounds upon his self-love. In one word, a painful sense of weakness and limitation is all that he has reaped from his most daring excursions into the regions of science and philosophy. Can the principle of selfishness, as leading even in its loftiest flights to effects so certain and so melancholy, be regarded, or spoken of as any thing else than by its very nature insane? This, however, is not all. It is when looked at in a moral point of view, that the insanity of selfishness becomes still more marked and conspicuous. It prompts to indulgence, whatever impediment, human or divine, may stand in the way. And, supposing it gratified, what follows? Either self-reproach, or remorse of conscience, or perchance both. The loss of outward respect, occasioned by violations of public opinion, gives birth to the former; the consciousness of violating our own convictions of right and wrong, to the latter. Need I say, such feelings are misery, pure, unvarnished, misery? And as, to the endurance of such feelings, selfishness, by scorning and throwing off all restraint, natively and necessarily tends, is any thing more required to characterise it as a principle by its very nature and constitution unsound?
SECTION V.
IMPOSSIBILITY OF SATISFYING THE SELFISH PRINCIPLE BY INDULGING IT.
The truth of this is so obvious, and so generally admitted, that it almost sets illustration at defiance.
Lives there a single human being, however isolated, who at one period or another of his career has not been [100] brought into contact with that most disagreeable of all personages, a spoiled child? The sport of whim and caprice — one moment desiring what the next he loathes — irritated at the slightest incident that runs counter to his wishes — the tormentor of himself and others. And whence this phenomenon? Why, merely from the indulgence of the selfish principle. Instead of being crushed and controlled — instead of being subjected to the salutary discipline of restraint — the little creature is from his earliest years accustomed to have every wish and caprice gratified, perhaps, even anticipated, — and thus to have feelings roused into premature and preternatural activity, upon the due regulation of which his own happiness, and that of his immediate connections, absolutely depends. The process of spoiling is thus extremely simple. Selfishness demands gratification; parents and guardians, instead of controlling, indulge, and thereby strengthen, it; and, although they know that sooner or later circumstances will impose restraint, they have the cruelty to leave to the harsh and rigorous teaching of the world, a lesson which, in a kindlier form, should properly come from themselves. Well, hath infinite wisdom declared, he that spareth the rod, hateth the child.
Effects similar to those which have been just mentioned, flow from the demands of selfishness being yielded to by the adult. His leading passion, whatever it may be, is never satisfied. The more it is indulged, the more it craves indulgence. This is notoriously the case with the sensual and covetous propensities. The debauchee and the miser are merely specimens of human beings in whom these have been indulged to such an extent as to give them an entire mastery over the understanding. In no one case, however, is the impossibility of satisfying the selfish principle by yielding to it more strikingly apparent than of that of the ambitious. It matters not whether the schemes cherished, and the objects aimed at, be those of literature or of conquest. A Demosthenes, a Cicero, a Voltaire, or a Scott, are just as incapable of reposing on their laurels, as an Alexander, a Cæsar, or a Napoleon. More reputation must at all hazard, be acquired; for the past has failed to satisfy, or, rather, past success has contributed only to whet an appetite which by indulgence has now become absolutely ungovernable. Need I add a word more in confirmation of that with which, even the merest tyro in the observation of human nature, must be well acquainted?
[101]
SECTION VI.
ORDINARY NOTIONS OF RELIGION CANNOT SATISFY IT.
However diversified in other respects the various forms of religion which have obtained at different times among mankind may be, they all agree in this, that they are all so many attempts to satisfy by indulging the selfish principle.
For the reason of this, we have not far to seek. It springs directly and unequivocally from the constitution of the human mind, as that existed originally in Adam, and has been transmitted from him to his posterity. Man was, by the very circumstances of his creation, a selfish being. He was placed in a situation of almost boundless physical enjoyment, and to preserve this, was the very highest end at which he was capable of aiming. To his nature and circumstances any thing in the shape of a divine communication behoved, of course, to be accommodated. An unconditional promise would not have suited it, for this among other reasons that it could not have been understood.
He was addressed, therefore, in the language of threatening; a species of declaration which, while it is always connected with restraints imposed upon the selfish principle, is also a pretty intelligible appeal to it. Selfishness, stimulated by temptation from without, rising up in rebellion against this supposed infringement of her rights, led as we have seen, to the first transgression. Man thus became guilty in the sight of God; but his nature underwent no change. If it was selfish originally, it continued selfish still. Divine declarations, if addressed to it, behoved still to rest on selfishness as their basis; and if the human mind were to forge and fancy divine declarations of its own, it was matter of absolute necessity that they should be constructed upon selfish principles. The grand proof of the former is, the prohibitory and menacing character of the enactments issued from Mount Sinai; copious and satisfactory evidence of the latter is afforded by every religious theory of man’s devising from the time of Cain down to the present day.
It is to me a matter of perfect indifference in regard to what nation, or among what sect or party, the facts in disproof of my position may be sought for.
[102] Any who may feel inclined to dispute my position, are welcome to the entire range of time and place. Whatever they may adduce, I pledge myself to prove, that an attempt to satisfy the selfishness of the human mind, by indulging it, is the principle of every religion, and of every modification of religion, that ever has existed, or that now exists; and I pledge myself farther to prove, that in this attempt every individual and sect is, and of necessity must be, unsuccessful. From the observations now to be made I specifically except the religion of Christ Jesus, not as commonly understood and professed, but as it really is, it being my intention to speak of it separately in the following section.
But although the law of Moses was in reality addressed to selfishness as the only principle of soul or natural mind, I should wrong myself and be accessory to the betraying of my readers into an exceedingly mistaken view of the subject, did I fail to point out some remarkable difference subsisting between it, and human systems of religion. Moses’ law contains no promises of happiness in a future life to the observers of it. All the prospects which it held out were merely temporal, or destined to be realized in this present world. This, the celebrated author of the Divine Legation of Moses long since perceived; although he has failed in assigning the true reason of it. It was not because God was desirous to shew the superiority of a divine religion without the sanctions of future rewards and punishments, over religions of mere human origin with all the advantages to be derived from such sanctions, that the Old-Testament dispensation was constituted destitute of them; but because there was an absolute impossibility that a religion like that of the Jews could be fenced around with any other than earthly and temporal sanctions. The highest way in which the selfish principle can be operated on in man, with even the shadow of a prospect of success, is, after having conferred upon him temporal benefits, to render his continued possession of these dependent on his conduct. Indeed, in the nature of things, there can exist, in connection with a temporal or earthly system, no positive promises, or promises of good to be bestowed in a future and higher state of existence, — all the promises connected with such a system being at the utmost merely negative, or declarations, that, avoiding transgression, blessings already possessed shall not be forfeited. In contradistinction to these, positive promises of eternal life are [103] given and fulfilled through the dispensation of Jesus Christ, the fulfilment of them in no respect whatever depending on the actions of the creature, and the realization of them in our minds, being to us the first fruits of spiritual or heavenly-principle.
Such, however, are not the instruments for effecting their purposes of which religions of mere human origin avail themselves. Benefits to be realized, and sufferings to be endured in time, they spurn from them, as utterly unworthy of their regard, as paltry and inefficacious. Nothing appears to them to be able to restrain from evil, or prompt to obedience, short of future rewards and punishments. Hence they all aim at bribing mankind with the one, and terrifying them with the other. There is not a single exception to this that I am aware of. “The untutored Indian” holds out to himself and his friends, as the great incitement to virtue, the prospect of hereafter escaping the vengeance, and enjoying the favour of “the Great Spirit;” — the Mahommedan is taught to fear the decision of the narrow bridge, while he is allured by the beauty of his houris, and the enchantment of his voluptuous paradise; — the Roman Catholic is, by his ghostly instructors, sometimes frightened with the torments of purgatory, sometimes solaced with promises of the exclusive enjoyment of celestial happiness, while his Protestant neighbour, laughing at his imaginary hopes and fears, and despising his subserviency to priestly influence, conceives that it depends upon every man’s own doings, whether he shall be subjected to the pains of Hell or introduced into the joys of Heaven. Even our very courts of justice have caught the contagion. A solemn declaration that we will tell the truth, the infringement of which may be punished by the state, — nay, an oath sanctioned by the imprecation of temporal vengeance in the event of perjury, — will not suffice when we are summoned to give evidence. Our selfishness must be still more deeply appealed to, and this through the medium of our being obliged to imprecate on ourselves future and awful punishment, should we be found to falsify. Untaught by God’s dealings towards the Jews, as recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures, that it is arrant folly to attempt to operate on the selfish principles of human nature by more than temporal sanctions, our Legislators, and Courts of Justice, thus actually bend the bow until they make it snap under their hands. Clearly do all the facts just adverted to, [104] prove the correctness of my statement, that to selfishness, as the grand principle of human nature, the religion of Moses as well as all mere human religions, are accommodated, — while the fact that Moses’ law merely threatened the loss of temporal blessings already possessed in the event of its being transgressed, and that human religions pretend to connect man’s conduct in time, with blessings to be enjoyed, or sufferings to be endured by him in eternity, exhibits a curious and most instructive contrast between the way in which the selfish principle is appealed to on the one hand, by God, and on the other by man.
Among no class of professing religionists, is the operation of the selfish principle more deserving of notice than among those who are commonly denominated the pious or serious. Their object, like that of other natural characters, is their own personal salvation; but they aim at obtaining it by means which to themselves appear to be more likely to ensure that desirable result. External services, although requisite, they conceive to be but a subordinate part of the obligations incumbent on them. While, therefore, they are regular and devout in their attendance at church or chapel, it is by striving to keep their hearts with all diligence, by avoiding mental irregularities, that they expect to obtain admission within the walls of the heavenly Zion. The poor Hindu, with his flesh-torturing, and Ganges-frequenting, propensities, — the Mahommedan with his incessant invocations of Allah, his fasts, and his abstinence from wine, — the Papist with his beads, his genuflexions, and his worship of his wafer God, — nay, their own fellow-protestants, who are content with a sedulous observance of the external ceremonials of their religion, are with them objects of pity, if not even of contempt. Such they conceive to be in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. Stand by, we are holier than you, is the language of their hearts, if not of their lips, in regard to them. Nothing but heart religion for the serious. And yet, what are they, after all, but more intensely, more devilishly selfish, than the wretched creatures whom they affect to despise? Self is their idol. Their own salvation is the object, and the highest object, at which by all their exertions, all their instances of mental self-denial, they are capable of aiming. In conceiving that a religion of pure motives and principles has a closer connection with salvation than one of mere external abstinence and ceremonies, there is a marked superiority in [105] their sentiments over those of the ordinary classes of naturalists; so marked, indeed, as to justify us in saying of them, in the words of our blessed Lord, that, in a certain sense, they are not so far as the others from the kingdom of heaven; — but in fancying that this purity of heart is capable of being attained to by their own efforts, and that by it they render themselves deserving of everlasting happiness, as they thereby think more highly of their own capabilities, and desire to engross to themselves a larger measure of future enjoyment, than the poor, ignorant, besotted idolater, they exhibit consequently the selfish principle in themselves, in more intense, fearful, and devilish activity, than it appears in him.
Are any of those who are commonly denominated the evangelical and the pious offended by my statements? Well may they be so. They are the very men at whose hearts and consciences I am aiming. Entrenched behind devilish pride, making use of the Messiah as a pedestal upon which to exalt themselves, and ascribing to the God of Revelation attributes which they would be ashamed to ascribe to a respectable fellow man, in order that they may feed their self-complacency by dwelling on the contrast between their own excellencies and the character of the being whom they have thus debased and caricatured — I must make a direct assault upon them. — You sit and feel as gods among your fellow men. Their inferiority of character and pretensions affords constant aliment to your pride. The Supreme Being himself is but the minister to your selfishness, by enabling you, in your own opinion, to work out your own salvation. To satisfy the voracious appetite of self, all your religious services are offered up, your pretended acts of divine worship being in reality merely the worship of yourselves — to still the clamorous voice of natural conscience, is all your aim and all your desire. For this end you deny yourselves — for this end your alms are given, and your other beneficent actions are performed — for this end your sour, demure, and pharisaical countenances are assumed, your fastings and prayers are engaged in, — and a proud, austere demeanour towards those that are without, is exhibited. And this, forsooth, you would pass on us as the religion of Christ Jesus! — Do you know, that to perform your religious services with a view to procure your own salvation, or in any way whatever to forward your own happiness hereafter, is merely attempting to gratify the very same principle which leads the more disreputable [106] classes of mankind to the brothel or the gambling house? You startle at this, perhaps. It is nevertheless true. To endeavour to promote the interests of self by religious performances is merely a more refined way of indulging human nature. Your godships will, I admit, find many, and these too ranking among the more pious members of the community, to applaud you. You will have the incense of flattery offered up to you by them in rich abundance, while the writer of this will be stigmatized as vain, self-sufficient, envious, malignant, and so on. To such, by all means make your appeal. But no matter. It so happens that the things which are most highly esteemed among men, are an abomination in the sight of God. Aiming at the satisfaction of your own consciences, and thereby the gratification of self, as the end of your actions, you are chargeable with self-worship, or idolatry, in its intensest and most refined form — and while so doing, you look down from the height of your purity, with contempt on the debauchee and the drunkard, you are, by the very depth and intensity of your self devotion, ten-fold more the child of Hell than either of them is.
Such, then, is the object of all religious theories of human origin. They attempt to satisfy the selfishness of man by the indulgence of it. But in doing so, are they, are any of them, successful? Let scripture, experience, the necessity of the case, return the answer.
Selfishness never has been, never will be, satisfied by this mode of treatment. On the contrary, in proportion as, by the very attempt to gratify its tendencies, there has been imparted to it additional vigour and intensity, in the same proportion is the difficulty of gratifying it, found to increase.
Ordinary religion, then, so far from diminishing, increasing the strength of the selfish principle, being, indeed, the food by which it is properly nourished, and furnishing it with the materials for the demands which it is continually and increasingly putting forth — does it not obviously follow, from the very necessity of the case, that, to satisfy the selfish principle by our religious exercises, and religious abstinences, must be felt to be a growingly difficult, should I not rather say, a growingly impossible, task?
[107]
SECTION VII.
SELFISHNESS CAN ONLY BE SATISFIED BY BEING EXHAUSTED.
This arises from the respective natures of Soul and Spirit as already pointed out. Soul is an indefinite principle. Spirit is an infinite one. Now by what means is the former to be satisfied? As indefinite, it is boundless in so far as the creature is concerned; for we have just seen that all attempts to satisfy it on the part of the creature, so far from succeeding, terminate in the strengthening of it, and in the consequent enlargement of its demands. As indefinite, however, it is not in reality boundless. It is merely at the utmost, the type, figure, or representative, of that which is so. As a type or shadow, it is, as has been shewn, capable of being satisfied by its substance. That is, Soul as indefinite is capable of being satisfied by Spirit which is infinite. But the satisfaction of shadow by substance is the swallowing up of the former in the latter. When light is most intense, and substance thereby most thoroughly developed, shadow necessarily disappears. The satisfaction, then, of the shadowy principle Soul, by the substantial principle Spirit, is at the same time the annihilation or exhaustion of the former by the latter.
To explain what has been stated. The selfishness of man requires, in order to its satisfaction, something that shall be at least as boundless as itself. This in time, and in the creature, it cannot discover. Time, and the things of time, are limited. Of earthly good things it can receive only a limited portion, and this only for a limited time. By such things of course it cannot be satisfied. Even religion, as commonly presented to, and understood by it, cannot meet its demands. The mind of man when brought into contact with the scriptures is continually making the discovery, that divine law has depths and heights, and breadths and lengths, more extensive than any which it has ever yet conceived of. Thus, then, the limited obedience of the creature cannot satisfy the unlimited tendencies, or indefiniteness, of the natural mind. But what is unlimited, satisfies it. — The creature, although instinctively tending towards what is unlimited, in so far as it acts intelligently endeavours to satisfy itself with [108] what is limited. Hence its unsuccessful attempts to obey law personally, as that by which it is to be relieved from fear and anxieties respecting futurity. All at once and unexpectedly, however, there is presented to a mind, here and there, the discovery of the fact, that law has received an unlimited obedience, and that in this unlimited obedience, the individual to whom the discovery is made is interested. The view itself is supernatural, and appropriately enough has for its subject that which is supernatural likewise. It is the making known the fact that divine law has been obeyed to the very uttermost, and this by the Creator himself manifest in flesh. The law of the Creator has thus received satisfaction from the Creator himself personally. The same supernatural authority goes on to shew, to the individual, that the advantage which might have redounded to the Creator himself personally from his obedience, in its enabling him to retain his earthly life for ever had he so pleased, he chose to part with, by its voluntary sacrifice. And that by this sacrifice of his earthly life, he earned for himself a heavenly life which, as the family of man are one with him, he necessarily earned for them likewise. The information is then, all at once given to the individual, that independently of all efforts of his own, eternal life is his. In other words the discovery is made to the mind, that the Creator made himself temporarily one with the family of man by taking hold of their flesh, that he might make them throughout eternity one with himself, by giving them to participate in the results of his own righteousness or perfect obedience. 2 Cor. 5:21. The individual is thus astonished as well as delighted, to find, that in divine obedience he has discovered that which satisfies and alone could have satisfied, divine law; and that in the same divine obedience he has discovered that, which stands connected with, and alone could have stood connected with, divine life.9 And farther, that from the necessary and everlasting union subsisting between the being by whom this obedience was rendered and this life is possessed, with himself, he has secured to him advantages which he could never have attained to by any efforts of his own. The indefinite cravings of soul are thus satisfied, not by the performance of a limited obedience by the creature, but by the manifesta-[109]tion to it as its own of the unlimited obedience of the Creator.
9 Which eternal life is.
This, however, is not all. Selfishness in man is by this discovery not only satisfied, but exhausted. The righteousness of the Messiah being divine, of course satisfied divine law. But it did more. Being carried out to the extent of sacrificing the nature which he had rendered righteous in himself, it actually exhausted divine law, and all its demands. What more had law to demand from him, who, after having obeyed its requirements to the utmost extent that he could do so while voluntarily subject to it, complied with its demands still farther by voluntarily depriving himself of all the advantages which he would personally have been entitled to by continuing to obey it? By this sacrifice of his it was shewn, that not a nature subject to law, but a nature superior to law, that is, the nature of the Creator, had yielded the obedience required; for, after having obeyed in flesh, it could afford to part with the flesh which had obeyed, which no being possessed of flesh merely, that is, no mere creature, could by any possibility have done. The resurrection of the Messiah from the dead was, therefore, neither more nor less than the Creator asserting his own rights and resuming his own dignity, that of being superior to law. Now the man to whom this divine righteousness is revealed as his own, is, as to his mind, risen with Christ. As one with God, and as interested, consequently, in all that God has done and is, he is raised above law and all its demands. Love, springing from the knowledge of God’s love to him, is now the prevailing principle in his bosom: love, as the principle of law, is, of course, not subject to law. And, as the principle of generosity, which is the opposite of selfishness, instead of leading us to endeavour to hoard up our acts of obedience as a treasure upon which to draw for comfort, which the selfish principle necessarily does, it gives away all its acts of obedience. Having divine righteousness as its own, it can afford to part with mere human righteousness. Nay more, having love, which as divine is by the very necessity of its nature generous, for the principle of its obedience, it is positively constrained to live, not to itself, as it formerly and naturally, and necessarily did, but unto him that died for it, and that rose again. Thus is the righteousness of the law fulfilled, not in those who walk after the flesh, or are possessed merely of Adamic principle, but in us who, as possessed of the [110] principle of love, or the divine nature, are walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
A word or two more with a view to obviate misapprehension. When I say that selfishness is satisfied, as well as exhausted, in myself, and my fellow believers, by the manifestation to us of God’s righteousness, and God’s life, as ours, let me be understood as speaking with a reference to our consciences alone. Our minds, in so far as they are dependent on flesh, are selfish still; and selfish they must continue to be, until their final destruction shall have been accomplished. The reason of which is, that nothing can effect any alteration in any part of Adam’s nature, short of its destruction. Hence when the believer looks to what he is in himself, and especially to the incessant workings of those evil and earthly principles in him which exist and operate in every other human being, he can behold in his Adamic nature, nothing wherein to glory before God. But as to his conscience, he is made new. The righteousness of God entering into it as his righteousness, has changed, by satisfying, and by thereby effecting the destruction of, the conscience which he naturally had. What, therefore, has happened in regard to his natural conscience is merely an example of the position just laid down, that no change can be effected in any part of Adam’s nature, short of the destruction of it. While unsatisfied, the believer’s conscience was selfish or Adamic. Whatever good deeds were from time to time presented to it, its constant cry still was, give, give. It was impossible for us, do what we would, to still its clamours. But God’s righteousness has been unexpectedly and undeservedly exhibited to it as its own. The necessary result of this has been, not only to leave it nothing more to desire, but actually to destroy its selfish nature altogether. Having no longer any occasion for its good deeds, it now gives them away. It is now generous. No thanks to it unquestionably for being so; for it is because God’s righteousness is seen by it to be its own, that all desire, along with all occasion, for satisfying itself, by means of its own paltry human righteousness, is found to be done away with, and obliterated. But although deserving of no thanks or commendation for being what we now find it to be, it is a matter of fact, that the conscience of the believer is now necessarily generous. It is sanctified, (that is, separated or distinguished from what it formerly was, and what the consciences of [111] ordinary men continue to be,) by the truth. In the conscience then, in the conscience alone, is the believer a new creature. In it a change has taken place, by the satisfaction, and thereby the destruction, of what it naturally was. There, old things have passed away; there, all things have become new. For, he who formerly, like the more serious portion of his fellow men, was endeavouring to satisfy the selfish cravings of conscience by all the creature obedience which he could render to it, or by all the marks and evidences of a change in himself which he fancied he could discover, has now all these selfish tendencies in him completely, gloriously, everlastingly, satisfied and extinguished, by the discovery to himself of a righteousness as his own, which, being that of God himself, supersedes the possibility equally of addition or diminution, from any quarter, or of any description.
Where, now, is ordinary, evangelical religion? Its votaries, notwithstanding all their pretensions, never seeing the divine righteousness as certainly, because gratuitously, theirs, never have their consciences satisfied. They never, consequently, become new creatures. The old principle of selfishness reigns sole and predominant in their bosoms. Informed, and so far truly, that the law of God requires perfect obedience of heart, as well as life, they set about, with all their might and main, yielding that obedience to it personally. Thus acting, thus attempting to establish their own righteousness, they never to be sure succeed in satisfying their consciences, but they certainly do succeed in rendering these consciences more devilishly selfish than they even naturally were. Offering to them that obedience, which, if enlightened by divine testimony, they would offer to God himself, and thereby giving to their creature minds the honours and services due to Deity, no wonder if we find them, like their genuine predecessors — the Pharisees of old, tenfold more the children of Hell than ordinary human beings are. I speak strongly, I speak feelingly, but, God being my witness, as may be seen by consulting the inspired record, I speak truly. To be a new creature, in the scriptural sense of the term, is to have the natural, selfish, conscience destroyed. This it can only be, by having its requirements satisfied and thereby swallowed up, in divine righteousness. This it is in every child of God. His conscience is divine. We know that we are of God, by having had his righteousness, and his life, introduced into our minds as our own, through [112] the medium of his testimony. This being the case, and knowing that none are members of the heavenly family, but those who like us have had the Spirit speaking in the word witnessing to their spirits enlightened by that word, as to the fact of their divine sonship, by having had shewn to them their oneness with, and interest in, Christ Jesus — shall we, with such a spiritual understanding of the subject, allow men, in whom it is evident that the selfish principle remains unextinguished, fancy that they nevertheless may be having an interest in heavenly blessings? Forbid it, heavenly Father! Scripture hath declared, and our consciences enlightened by scripture bear testimony to the truth of the declaration, that being justified by faith in the divine righteousness as ours, we have, not, may have, peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; and bears us out, consequently, in maintaining that, wherever this perfect, certain, unchanging, peace is wanting, it must be because there selfishness, the principle of soul, is still holding complete and undisputed supremacy.
[113]
CHAPTER III.
THE USE OR PURPOSE OF SOUL.
INTRODUCTORY SECTION.
Every one enlightened by the divine testimony must be aware, that in perfect wisdom all God’s works have been constructed. This, in so far as respects inanimate nature, and the inferior animals, has often been strikingly and beautifully illustrated. The principle holds of course just as decidedly with respect to man. In perfect wisdom must he, both as to body and mind, have been constituted.
The part of wisdom is to propose to itself the best ends, and to aim at the accomplishment of these by the means which are best fitted to promote them. Now what is the end, or, what are the ends, which God hath proposed to Himself in the creation of Soul? Be it observed, I am not enquiring, what ends we, in the exercise of our own imaginations, may be pleased to impute to him; but, what are the objects which he himself gives us to understand he has had in view? And farther, it is not the inferior and subordinate ends, with which I concern myself; my business being to ascertain if possible from scripture what God has ultimately aimed at. To this subject, and to this alone, do I now address myself.
Two grand ends or objects the word of God shews us to have been in the view of the Creator, when Soul, or creature mind, was by Him summoned into existence. The first was, to obtain the opportunity thereby of manifesting to intelligent beings themselves the nature, the necessarily inferior and worthless nature, of such mind. And the second, to render the natural mind, thus originally bestowed, subservient to the future manifestation and enjoyment of supernatural intelligence. As we proceed, the former of these ends will appear to be inseparably connected with the latter.
[114]
DIVISION FIRST.
ONE OBJECT OF THE CREATION OF SOUL TO RENDER MANIFEST WHAT SOUL IS.
SECTION I.
POPULAR NOTIONS RESPECTING THE OBJECT OF SOUL’S CREATION.
These may be stated very briefly.
In chapter first, we have shewn, that, according to the popular system, soul was not originally fleshly, but has been so rendered by transgression. Conformably to this, it is held by the adherents of that system, that God, having created Adam righteous and holy, placed him in the garden of Eden, entered into a covenant of life with him, and, by means of the law respecting the tree of knowledge of good and evil, gave him an opportunity of exhibiting the perfect rectitude of his character.
To afford Adam an opportunity of shewing how excellent a being he was, especially as to his mind and moral qualifications, is thus, by our ordinary divines, supposed to have been the purpose of God in his creation.
Upon this fundamental principle every other part of their various, and otherwise discordant, systems, is constructed. To man, the breach of this supposed Covenant on Adam’s part is supposed to afford matter of wailing, lamentation and woe. Besides, God having, by means of the first transgression, been disappointed in his original purpose, is supposed to have been thereby laid under the necessity of providing a remedy for the untoward event. Everything is conceived to have been thereby put out of joint. And the whole scheme of salvation by Christ Jesus is, consistently enough by such persons, regarded as being merely a plan devised by infinite wisdom to do away with the effects and consequences of this awkward contretemps, by restoring, recovering, or bringing back, man, to that state of holiness and happiness from which by transgression he has fallen.
Am I caricaturing, nay, am I in the slightest degree misrepresenting, the popular system? I have, no doubt, [115] for the sake of sparing the time and patience of my readers, very considerably abridged it. But should any one feel disposed to call in question the faithfulness of my abstract, let him, before condemning me, take up a copy, either of Milton’s Paradise Lost, or of Boston’s Fourfold State, works easily procured, and, after having perused the speeches put into the mouths of the Father and the Son in the third book of the former, and the First State, or that which treats of man’s innocence and primitive integrity, of the latter, let him then, but not till then, put his hand upon his heart, and say, that I have been guilty of exaggeration.
SECTION II.
REASONS OF THESE.
One of the first steps towards the understanding of what is right, is very frequently a clear conception of the causes which have led our predecessors in any particular path of enquiry astray. The grounds of error may in the present case with great ease be pointed out.
The grand reason of the view of Adam’s original or creation state commonly entertained by theologians, is their being destitute of that knowledge in the light of which alone it can be understood. Whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Now spirituality, or the principles of the divine nature, as laid down and developed in the scriptures, constitute, by their superiority, the only light, which is capable of manifesting what human nature is, and what are the purposes for which it exists. But upon the principles of human nature themselves, disregarding those with which scripture furnishes us, our theologians, like other metaphysicians, choose to proceed in their attempts to investigate this all-important, but difficult, subject. That is, in the most difficult of all enquiries, they prefer the light of a mere ignis fatuus, to that of the meridian sun. Shall we wonder to find them, under such circumstances, continually going astray? — ever learning, without ever being able to come to the knowledge of the truth?
[116] An attempt to look at human nature, not in the light of the divine nature but as it is in itself, is thus the grand master-error, and the grand source of the mistakes of which we are now treating. Of these we may specify the following: —
1. Ordinary theologians are obliged by the necessity of the case to take human nature itself as the standard of purity and excellence. The best specimens of human beings with which they are acquainted, either by history or personal observation, constitute the test to which all others are brought and by which their claims and conduct are tried. Even Adam and the Lord Jesus, although as spoken of in scripture, in reality constituting the standards by which the nature of the first man of the earth, earthy, and of the second man the Lord from Heaven, respectively, are to be measured, are by ordinary minds brought to, and measured by the standards with which they themselves naturally are acquainted. Hence, as uncontrasted with a superior, human nature can never stand out to the view of such individuals as what it is. It can never be seen by them as essentially earthly, shadowy, and selfish. On the contrary, the better specimens of it constituting the only standard of excellence in their minds, the contrast to them is, not between human nature and a superior nature, but between human nature viewed under its apparently best aspects, and the inferior specimens of it. Looking at it in this light, their most strenuous efforts are directed merely towards the elevation of the outwardly gross, vile, and immoral, to the level which their better educated, better principled, and better circumstanced, neighbours, appear to occupy. If this could but be accomplished, all, in their opinion would be well. And that there is a probability of this being accomplished, certain depths of moral principle and moral feeling, perhaps even of spirituality, (for they do not hesitate thus to misapply the term) existing in man’s nature, seem to them to furnish rational grounds for anticipating. Is not this fact of human nature being made, by ordinary religious teachers, the standard or touchstone of itself, the secret, although the true, cause of the excellence and spiritual perfection of character so commonly, but gratuitously, ascribed to Adam in his creation state; and of the notion broached, under so many forms, of Jesus having made his appearance upon earth merely to recover or restore what Adam had lost?
2. As intimately connected with, indeed as a species of corollary from, the error of which I have been speaking, and [117] as another reason of the view commonly taken respecting the object of God in the creation of Adam, may be mentioned the prevailing notion of sin, not being essential to, but merely an accident of, human nature. “Adam,” our ordinary theologians suppose, “might have avoided transgression. It was not necessary for him to violate the divine law. So pure, indeed, was his nature in its original creation state, that he behoved to do violence to it in eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree.” In one word, sin, according to these gentlemen, took place, not necessarily, but by a kind of unlucky accident. This follows from their making human nature the standard of itself. For if any man, or men, can, as possessed of the principles of human nature alone, possess and exhibit genuine excellence of character, then must it, as a matter of necessity, be conceded that sin, or the coming short of this excellence, to whatever extent it may prevail, and however much it may be regretted, is nevertheless merely accidental. Were this notion true, then, certainly, was Adam created, placed in the garden of Eden, and endowed with the faculties and principles which he originally had, with a view to afford him an opportunity of exhibiting his native excellence and dignity. And then farther, certainly, must it be the object of God, although temporarily frustrated in his designs, merely to get rid of the effects of this accident, and, by a series of physical and moral means adapted to the purpose, to bring back Adam’s posterity to that moral purity and excellence which according to such systems, constitute the essential properties of human nature.
A tremendous hue and cry, it is not unlikely, will at this point be raised against me. I shall in all probability be charged with ignorance of what I am writing about, if not represented as being actuated by a most malicious spirit, seeing that I confound the notions of Socinians, and men of Socinian sentiments, with those of men of a decidedly evangelical stamp and character. “It is true,” say my indignant antagonists, “that Unitarians, and men of that description, suppose the existence of something good in human nature, and anticipate from the hitherto unexplored depths of its imaginary virtues, the future regeneration of the world. But we have never entertained so insane, so unscriptural an idea. To us human nature appears to be thoroughly vile. We loathe it, and loathe ourselves as possessed of it. And we maintain the necessity of our being born again, in order [118] to our seeing the kingdom of God. Why, then, with such a total disregard of truth, unless we can suppose you to have done it ignorantly, represent us as holding sentiments which from our inmost souls we disclaim and detest?”
Fairly and softly, my good friends, I beseech you. I neither intentionally misrepresent you, nor am I ignorant of your sentiments. The evidence which I have adduced, and am still farther to adduce, of what your views actually are, demonstrate the accuracy of my statements; and too good reason have I to know what you think, to allow me to avail my plea of ignorance. No, my friends. I admit, that your language and sentiments differ in many respects from those of your Socinian antagonists. I admit, that you are strenuous advocates in your own way for what you denominate the depravity of human nature. But at bottom your principles, and the conclusions which you draw from them, are identically the same with those of the very men against whom your bitterest taunts, and your most awful denunciations, are directed. You may not speak, to be sure, of the present virtues of human nature, although the doing so cannot with truth be disclaimed by all of you, but you take human nature as you conceive it to have existed originally in the creature Adam as the standard of excellence and perfection, and back to this standard you expect that ultimately it will be restored. You may speak in the strongest terms you please of the depravity of human nature, but you mean thereby merely its present depravity; you have no conception that human nature was, at its very origin, earthly, fleshly, and sinful; on the contrary, it appears to you that depravity is superinduced on, not essential to, human nature. Why, even Socinians will concede to you, the present existence of much depravity among mankind, while like yourselves they will represent this as something extrinsic and accidental as a circumstance not inseparable from human nature. As to your insisting on the necessity of being born again, pray, what is your new birth worth? Is it not merely, you yourselves being judges, a restoration to the knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, which, gratuitously, nay, in flat contradiction to the passage which you profess to quote,10 [119] you persevere in ascribing to Adam in his creation state? Do you not perceive, that if believers of the gospel were merely restored to Adam’s original state of purity, it would not be a new birth at all, but merely the perfecting or completion of the old birth, so far from being a rendering of all things new,11 it would merely be a bringing of them back to their old, former creation state? Besides, in maintaining this restoration to Adam’s creation state as that in which the new birth consists, you are playing the game most beautifully into the hands of your antagonists; for, while they speak, openly and unequivocably, of regenerating the world by calling into existence dormant human virtues, it appears that your regeneration, your new birth, is after all, — when stripped of its verbiage, merely the same thing. A goodly subject for quarrelling, this difference between you, after all! Your regeneration is, a bringing back to virtues which Adam originally had, — their regeneration is drawn out of virtues still existing in human nature. Both of you, however, and this is the main point, find your regeneration (absurd term, thus applied,) in human nature itself. My good friends, make up your quarrel with your Socinian antagonists. You are embarked in the same cause, and why, therefore, not act as becomes allies? All the difference between you is — and why not turn this to account as a means of forwarding your common cause? — that while, Socinians, openly make human nature the standard of itself, and openly represent sin as something merely accidental, you Evangelicals, under the influence of more powerfully awakened natural consciences, make the pure human nature of Adam the standard, and make that which was accidental to him, essential to his posterity.
10 Eph. 4:24, &c., where it was not the old man Adam, but the new man Christ, who constitutes the model of knowledge, righteousness and holiness of the truth, after which believers are new created.
11 2 Corinth. 5:17.
The fact is, that all existing classes of religionists, with the exception of two or three very small bodies, are totally ignorant of certain great principles which run through the oracles of truth; and, while they continue to be so, can never form a correct idea of Adam’s creation state, or of the purpose for which soul or earthly mind was originally conferred on him. These principles are: —
1. That the putting of an intelligent being under law implies the unrighteousness of his nature. Scarcely one man in a thousand has observed, that this principle is formally announced by Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy, first chapter; [120] law, says he, is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners; verse 9; and those who have observed the Apostle’s words, not having understood them, have failed in making the requisite application. The issuing of a law or prohibition to Adam as well as the issuing of a series of laws or prohibitions to the Jews, so far from proving their nature to be good, nay, so far from proving the possibility of its either being or doing good, proves the very reverse. It was because the nature of Adam and the Jews was evil, or unrighteous, that it was put under law. And as it was subjected to law because it was bad, it seems to be a pretty obvious corollary, that it could not have been subjected to law for the purpose of giving it an opportunity of shewing that it was good. On this subject I need say no more.
2. Another principle, closely, indeed inseparably, connected with that just laid down, is that no intelligent being under law, can, while properly speaking, do that which is good. Of this principle our evangelical folks are as ignorant as, perhaps, more ignorant than, even of the former. I question much, judging from their writings and sermons, if even the slightest notion of it has entered the mind of almost any one of them. And yet, without comprehending it, the nature, necessity, and efficacy, of the atonement never can be understood. My dear friends, for as having once belonged to your number I have a sort of kindly feeling towards you, let me enquire, if you have ever brought the language and principles of the New Testament as a whole, to bear on our blessed Lord’s remarkable conversation with the young man, recorded Matt. 19:16-22,12 along with the following comment to the disciples, 23-26? Or, have you ever reflected on the language of the Redeemer in Luke 17:7-10, particularly on what he says in the last quoted verse? So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all these things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do. If you do not feel quite at home in regard to these passages, pray have any of you studied the philosophy of Epictetus? For my present purpose, an acquaintance with what he has written will answer tolerably well. Let me suppose, then, that you have [121] studied his Enchiridion. You are aware, that, according to the sentiments of that eminently enlightened individual and the other philosophers of his school, the obedience rendered by an individual who is under law, being due to that law, can never consequently, by any possibility, entitle him to a reward. The utmost extent of the virtue of such a being is abstinence from evil, that is, is merely negative; virtus est fugere vitium; and the utmost extent of his reward, if the phrase can be so applied, is exemption from punishment, that is, corresponds to his virtue by being merely negative likewise. In other words, a man who does not break law, does not incur the penalty of breaking law. He is let alone. But as to any positive reward, that, under such circumstances, is entirely out of the question. His entire obedience being due, when he has rendered it, all that he is entitled to claim is, that he shall not be punished. So far Epictetus. As to what follows, the word of God must be our sole and exclusive guide. God, as our blessed Lord informs us, alone is good. Matt. 19:17. The divine nature, consequently, is the only good nature. But a leading characteristic of the divine nature is, that it is not subject to law. Its very essence being Love, 1 John 4:8, and 16, or the principle of law, Romans 13:8-10, and as being thereby shown to be essentially righteous, Rom. 8:3,4, it requires not to be subjected to law. For any one to be good, or to be capable of doing good, then, he must possess the divine nature; and as possessed of the divine nature, he must be raised above law. In order to be good, instead of continuing under law, the person must be set free from law, by means of love, the divine nature, and principle of law, having been implanted in his mind. Compare Rom. 8:4, and Heb. 8:10,11, with Rom. 7:13 and 14. Adam’s obedience, by abstaining from eating the forbidden fruit, having been due, Gen. 2:16,17, he could never by persevering in that obedience progress to or exhibit real goodness.13 Christ’s obedience in pure flesh, although springing from divine principle, Rom. 8:3, having, from his voluntary assumption of flesh, become due to divine law, he could never, properly speaking, while in flesh, do what was good;14 and could never, consequently, claim more while on earth than exemption from punishment. No man taketh my life from me. John 10:18. [122] It was only by the sacrifice of the pure flesh and blood which he had assumed, of the nature in which righteousness or perfect obedience to divine law had been wrought out, that he could get rid of the obligations of law, as well as of sin and death. Thus having swallowed up law in himself, and having been thereby personally raised above law, he imparts, through faith, the privilege of being raised above law, and that through the principle of law which is love, to us his people. Now good himself, and now as raised above law capable of doing good he imparts the divine nature, or principle of goodness, to us likewise. See Rom. 8:1-4. Ephes. 2:1-8, &c. And thus is it shewn, with evidence the most cogent and irresistible, that, whatever might have been God’s object in subjecting Adam to law, it certainly could not have been for the purpose of enabling him to shew his goodness.
12 Compare verse 21 with Psalm 112:9, and both with 2 Corinth. 8:9.
13 Shadowy, he might.
14 Ps. 17:2.
SECTION III.
WHY WAS SOUL OR CREATURE MIND SUBJECTED TO LAW?
In the first chapter of this part we have gone at some length into the nature of soul. Although the creature of God, and in this sense originating from him, we have seen, nevertheless, that tracing it from its first appearance in Adam as well as in his posterity, it comes into being subsequent to flesh, and is throughout the whole course of its existence dependent upon flesh. It is truly and emphatically fleshly mind. Rom. 7:14,25; 8:6-9. A consideration of some of its leading phenomena has contributed to shew us, how strictly consistent its nature, as declared in scripture, is with matter of fact.
Why was intelligent mind thus called into existence, and exhibited in a fleshly state? The answer which scripture gives, the only answer indeed which can be given, is, that the circumstances of the case, and the ulterior purposes of God, rendered this procedure necessary. Of the former, that is, of the circumstances of the case, we now speak; and by these it was [123] rendered necessary; for mind behoved to be connected with flesh, in order to our Heavenly Father having the opportunity of shewing what mind so situated was.
This we gather from his having condescended to acquaint us with the purpose for which he gave law to man. Our superficial popular divines say, God issued law, that man might obey it. They are right, if they mean the man Christ Jesus, the Lord from Heaven, and those in whom the Spirit of this heavenly man dwells. Rom. 8:3,4. But they are wrong, if they mean ordinary human beings, possessed merely of the ordinary principles of human nature. They are wrong, because, if so, God’s purpose has been frustrated; the Supreme Being having aimed at an end which in that case he has been unable to accomplish. Are they prepared to maintain this undisguised blasphemy? They are wrong, likewise, because inspired authority has expressly declared, that divine law, instead of having been given to mere man, that mere man might fulfil it, was on the contrary, given to him, that his inability to obey it might thereby be made strikingly manifest. The law entered, that the offence might abound. Rom. 5:20. Yet, strange to tell! it is for the purpose of being obeyed by man, a purpose condemned alike by fact and scripture, that God is commonly supposed to have issued law to man. “He gave it,” say our popular divines, “that mere man might obey it.” But man uniformly and necessarily disobeys it. Divine law never has been obeyed, never can be obeyed, by mere human nature. Rom. 7:13,14; 8:7. See the monstrous consequences into which, my good friends, you plunge yourselves. If God issued law to man, hoping that man might obey it, and has been disappointed by the result, what becomes of the divine wisdom? If, however, he gave it, knowing that it would be disobeyed by man, how could he, as having conferred on man the nature and faculties which he possessed, and as having placed him in the circumstances in which he was, have intended obedience to it on the part of man?
It will not avail to get rid of the difficulty, to attempt a distinction between the purpose for which the law of Moses was given, and that for which the original prohibition was issued to man. “The abounding of sin was the object of the former, not of the latter,” it may be alleged. Let me grant, that there are circumstantial differences between the two laws. Especially, that the law of Moses aimed at bring-[124]ing out the abounding of sin, an object which the single prohibition issued to Adam could not have contemplated. Yet, what is all this to the purpose? If the numerous prohibitions of Moses’ law were issued for the purpose of displaying the abounding of sin, might not the original prohibition to Adam have been issued with a view to the display of sin’s existence? If God gave laws to the Jews, not that they might obey, but that in the sense just stated they might disobey them; what is to prevent his giving one law to Adam, not that Adam might obey, but that in a similar sense he might disobey it? The principle being conceded by opponents in so far as respects the nation of the Jews, to contend against its application to the case of Adam is to fight for a shadow.
Reasonings and circumlocution apart, one grand object for which the original prohibition was given to Adam, was not that he might obey it, but that the total inability of fleshly mind even in its purest state, to obey divine law might be made manifest.
Man knows nothing, and can know nothing, of the substances or essences of things; his knowledge of their nature can only be acquired through the medium of observing their qualities or external phenomena. Such is the view not taken by Locke merely; it is the dictate of common sense. Our acting on this principle is the foundation of all our present scientific superiority. If man, therefore, was to know any thing concerning his own nature, it must have been by means of an external display of the qualities of that nature. But how could these qualities have been displayed, except by means of an opportunity having been afforded to them to shew themselves? To bring out or shew, then, what human nature is, especially to shew its utter inability even when pure to yield obedience to divine law, and thereby to make manifest that even in its best estate it is altogether vanity, was one grand object for which divine law was originally given.
To exhibit what any nature is, one investigation rightly conducted, one phenomenon rightly observed, is as good as a thousand. Now the law given to Adam, and the effects of that law, are perfectly sufficient, in whatever point of light we regard them, for determining what human nature is. This law was enforced on a nature which up to the period of the first transgression was pure and uncorrupt; therefore, if, [125] under such circumstances, unable to comply with it, á fortiori, how much less when fallen and degraded. It was a prohibition enforcing the most trifling of all abstinences; therefore, if from the eating of the fruit of a single tree man could not refrain, how much less from the violation of laws imposing more severe restrictions. It was only one restraint, while all besides was indulgence; therefore, if, with every natural advantage on his side, man could not refrain from violating a single law, how much stronger the disposition and tendency to violate, when laws are multiplied almost ad infinitum, and when every circumstance internal and external is against him. To shew that soul, or creature mind, even when pure, was, as, to any disposition and capacity to obey divine law perfectly powerless, was evidently the object of God in issuing to man the original prohibition; and the experiment, (experiment, in the sense of teaching man, not God,) in whatever light we view it, appears to have been, for the purpose for which it was instituted, completely successful.
He, by whom this conclusive experiment was made, hath for our sakes seen meet to repeat it. One act of transgression, committed under the circumstances in which man was originally placed, was sufficient to indicate the existence of evil, but one act could not to minds constituted like ours, have indicated the extent to which evil prevailed. To shew that the commission of sin by Adam while in Paradise was not accidental, but the result of a principle of evil deeply rooted in human nature, the law of Moses was given. And the end for which it was given, it has fully answered. Rom. 5:20. One mode more of evincing the extent and prevalence of sin, and one more only, remained. The law of Moses had, with one exception, prohibited external evil merely. By Christ a law was issued which forbade the sinful thought, desire, or intention. See Matt. 5:20 to end. This brought the exhibition of the sinfulness of human nature to its climax. If the result of the prohibition given to Adam proved, that human nature, even when pure, could not comply with the divine law — if the result of the prohibitions given to the Jews proved, that from external transgressions, even the circumstance of their being the favourite people of God could not induce them to refrain — the prohibitions against heart offences given to the spiritual Israel now, and the fact that they have been totally unable to comply with these, prove, that in us, that is, in our flesh, there dwelleth no good thing. [126] Rom. 7. That is, it carries out the proof of the sinfulness and worthlessness of human nature to its greatest height. All the three laws, just spoken of, have had one and the same object; viz. not to prove the ability of human beings to obey law, but to bring out, and make manifest, their total inability, to yield obedience to it. And, as the result shews, all have, in so far as respects the end aimed at, been perfectly successful. According to the system of revelation, the divine purposes have not been frustrated. Sin, by law, especially by the tenth commandment, as opened up and enforced by our blessed Lord, has become, that is, has been manifested to be, exceeding sinful. Rom. 7:13.
The moment this fact is understood, that divine law was given, not that man might obey it, but that man’s inability to obey it might be rendered manifest, a host of such passages of scripture as the following become plain and intelligible. Without law, there can be no transgression. By the law is the knowledge of sin. Law worketh wrath. And, above all, that remarkable one, the fleshly mind or mind of the flesh, is enmity against God; it is not subject to his law, neither, indeed, can be.
SECTION IV.
ORIGINAL SIN.
Men whose acquaintance with the word of God is not very considerable, may be startled when I say, that of all the topics which have agitated the professing Christian world, that, which is commonly denominated the doctrine of original sin is, with the aid of a few scriptural principles, susceptible of by far the easiest solution.
The doctrine, as heard from the lips of our Evangelical divines, is, that the first transgression of Adam, being regarded and treated by God, as not only his own personal offence, but the offence likewise of his posterity, the punishment due to it attaches not to himself only but also to them. [127] That is, they suffer and die, not on account of their own personal offences, but on account of this original offence of their progenitor. And in proof of the correctness of this view they vouch Rom. 5:12, &c., and 1 Cor. 15:21,22, &c. Against this sentiment of theirs, the batteries of Pelagian and Socinian theology have in every age been directed; the system into which it enters as a constituent part being characterized as cruel, absurd, unjust, and unworthy of the divine attributes; — and instead of the view taken by the orthodox, each man has been represented as dying on account of his own personal offences.
Liberal divinity, in this, as well as in many other respects, stands diametrically opposed to the word of God. But it must be admitted that men, whose views on the whole have been tolerably correct and scriptural, have not always expressed themselves in regard to this matter in a way calculated to disarm opposition, and to present the nature and consequences of man’s original transgression in their true and unsophisticated colours. Assertions respecting this subject have been hazarded which even common sense, not to say scripture, is able to convict of self-inconsistency and absurdity.
No man can understand this subject thoroughly who is ignorant of sin being essential to, may I not rather say the very essence of, human nature. Let the nature of Adam be seen to have been originally and essentially fleshly, and the first prohibition to have been issued for the purpose of rendering this fact externally manifest, and all is plain. The reason of the original sin of Adam having been regarded and treated as the sin of all his descendants becomes, in the light of this fact, self-evident. But let the first sin be supposed to have been merely an accident, — a something counter to the will of God, and which consequently might have been avoided, — I defy any man with such views to make his way through the difficulties of the subject, so as to shield himself from the assaults of Pelagian antagonists.
In order then, to draw the line of demarcation between what is false, and what is true, in regard to this subject, I observe,
Negatively, I do not maintain, that Adam’s personal offence, was the personal offence of any or all of his posterity. Let those who are chargeable with holding and avowing such a sentiment, if any such there be, be held up to the [128] ridicule which they so justly deserve. The act of any individual, can only be the act of that individual, let his rank, station, or circumstances, be what they may. But
Positively, the original transgression of Adam is regarded and treated as the transgression of, or, if the phrase be better liked, is imputed to, all his posterity, in so far as, each one of them suffers and dies just as if he himself had personally committed it. And this imputation of his sin to them takes place for reasons the most valid and substantial. Such as: —
1. Adam’s original sin derived all its virulence and atrocity, not from what it was in itself, for as a mere act it was the most trifling of all conceivable offences, but from the nature of which it was the first external indication. Now the nature from which that transgression sprung in him, has by ordinary generation been transmitted to us, we inherit from him the cause of his first transgression. His sin, therefore, is imputed to us, not as our personal act but as the act of a nature which we share with him by whom it was committed.
2. Another reason of this first offence being imputed to us is, that under similar circumstances, each one of us would have committed it. This properly speaking, is merely a corollary from the preceding reason. I state it separately, however, that I may have an opportunity of meeting and obviating a supposed difficulty. “How do you prove the sameness of our nature with that of Adam? and whence the justice and propriety of imputing to us what was committed by him?” We prove the sameness of the nature, by the uniform sameness of the conduct of human beings when at an after period subjected to divine law and thereby placed in circumstances similar to those of Adam originally. To the nation of the Jews, at a subsequent period, a series of divine laws or prohibitions was given. But by them, no more than by Adam, were the divine laws ever obeyed as such. If complied with in any respect, it was always upon other motives and considerations than those of their having emanated from God. Divine law, as such, never was able, never will be able, to impart strength to mere human nature to resist temptation. It is weak through the flesh. Rom. 8:3. It has been, therefore, uniformly violated by man, and this however strong might be the motives to induce compliance with it. For illustration of this argument, let me refer the reader to Rom. 5, [129] from the 12th verse, to the end of the chapter. The nature which in every subsequent period of the world, and among every nation, has uniformly violated divine law, proves itself thereby to be the same nature as that which, in the infancy of the world, and case of Adam, first violated it; and by this very circumstance justifies the imputation to it of the first offence.
3. And lastly. Love dictated the enclosure of the whole human race in the net of Adam’s first transgression. They have all been dealt with, on one and the same footing of justice, that they might all be dealt with, on one and the same footing of mercy. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Rom. 11:32.
The result of the whole is, then, that we ordinary human beings suffer and die, not properly speaking as the perpetrators of Adam’s sin, but as the possessors of Adam’s nature. That is, we possess that from which his first transgression as an effect, a necessary effect, sprung; and as possessing the cause, we are treated, and justly treated, as if that cause had produced in each one of us the particular effect.
Many valuable and important consequences result from this view of matters. One or two of these may be hinted at.
1. It explains to us the death of infants. As not having committed actual transgression, it is impossible that death can attach to any personal offences of theirs. But God is just. He must, therefore, be thoroughly justified in the infliction of death on the young of Adam’s offspring. And how? Simply and solely on the principle of death attaching to the nature of which they are possessed. The child has in him the same nature as the adult; and time, strength and opportunity only, are wanted for its development. The innocency of children, therefore, if such an absurd term can be applied to beings so constituted, is merely negative, consisting in the fact that they have not yet had an opportunity of shewing what their nature is. But having in them the nature of man, which, from Adam’s transgression and otherwise, has been manifested to be a sinful nature, they are put to death by our heavenly Father on the very same grounds on which we should deem ourselves justified in crushing a nest of young serpents. The creatures, while young, are harmless. But they have the nature of serpents in them; and we consider this, and deem it properly, a sufficiently valid reason for their destruction. Dare we arraign the Creator for dealing [130] with the serpent-like brood of man, on the very principle, and in the very way, in which we conceive ourselves to be perfectly justified in dealing with the young of noxious creatures?
2. When the nature of Adam as the cause, not the effect, of sin, once comes to be thoroughly understood, we learn to think and speak of evil in a way very different from what is customary. Human beings direct their attention naturally and exclusively to the outward transgression of themselves, and their fellow men. Such outward offences, and such only, appear to them to be sins. Hence the horror with which atrocious crimes inspire the ordinary classes of the community; as well as the fuel for pride which they contrive to extract from them. Horror, because they appear to spring from a nature more wicked and atrocious than that of man; pride and self-complacency, because being led to compare ourselves with the beings whose actions we abhor, we feel no small degree of self-complacency arising in our minds from the consideration, that we are not constituted as such monsters are. God we thank thee, that we are not as these men are, is in such cases the language of our hearts. Human nature, however, understood as the source of all evil, produces a very different tone and temper of mind. As from human nature Adam’s first transgression flowed, so from human nature the most atrocious crimes still continue to flow. But what is human nature? A nature possessed by the man in the moon? No. — It is a nature possessed by myself, and by every member of the family of man. What! do I possess the nature of the thief, the adulterer, and the murderer? Yes, even so. I possess the very nature from which the vilest crimes that have ever disgraced and stained humanity have sprung. But for education, the circumstances in which I have been placed, and the restraining hand of God, I might have been guilty of the very villainies wherewith the vilest of the race are chargeable. What is the wretch who expiates his crimes against society at the gallows, or the poor houseless prostitute who walks the streets? Merely beings in whom the nature which I share in common with them, has come out in more unmitigated and uncontrolled vileness than it has in myself and those who are more happily situated. They are specimens of what human nature in any one of us might have, and, unless restrained, may yet, become. How humbling this to human pride, and yet how true! It is human nature, a nature [131] possessed by every descendant of Adam, which has been the cause of every moral evil. Having thus in us the cause of all that is vile, can we triumph, then, merely because it has not appeared in us in its worst and most disgusting effects? Certainly not. The nature of man understood as the cause not the consequence of evil, as the parent of every crime whatever may be its complexion or atrocity, and as the same in all of us, must ever afford humiliating but salutary matter of reflection to the enlightened Christian mind. We learn, thereby to apply the term sin, not to any, or to all of, the effects of which human nature is productive, but to human nature itself — the perennial source of all.
Before leaving the subject of original sin, it is necessary to guard my readers against a mistake respecting my sentiments into which otherwise they are liable to fall. I have said, that, properly speaking, sufferings and death attach to us as partakers of Adam’s nature, not as committers of Adam’s sin. This is true. But were I not to explain myself, it might be supposed by some, and insinuated by others, that I meant to deny, or do away with, the connection subsisting between sufferings and death, and Adam’s first sin. Be it understood, then, that the entrance of sin and death stands connected solely with Adam’s first transgression on the one hand; as the entrance of righteousness and life everlasting stands connected solely with the perfect work of Christ Jesus on the other. The sin which condemns was just as decidedly Adam’s, not our, personal act; as the righteousness which justifies is Christ’s, not our, personal work. See Rom. 5, 12th verse downwards.
DIVISION SECOND.
ANOTHER OBJECT OF THE CREATION OF SOUL, TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO SPIRIT.
SECTION I.
EARTHLY MIND SHEWN TO BE WHAT IT IS, IN SUBSERVIENCY TO THE MANIFESTATION OF HEAVENLY MIND.
Absurd would it be to imagine, that our Heavenly Father in aiming at the manifestation of what soul is, aimed at no [132] other and no higher end. it would be absurd, because it would be to suppose God to have had no other design than merely to render man discontented with himself and his lot. Can this be? Defective wisdom might, from a miscalculation of its resources, have terminated in such a result, or demoniacal malignity might have taken pleasure in the prospect of rendering intelligent beings unhappy: — but that infinite love, guided by infinite wisdom, should have aimed at no higher object than merely to hold up to the short-lived race of men a mirror in which they might contemplate views of themselves calculated to render them miserable, is what no soundly-judging mind can for a single moment acquiesce in.
But such a view of the divine procedure would not merely be absurd, it would be highly criminal. It would be directly in the teeth of the information which God himself hath condescended to give. To his word we are indebted for all our knowledge of the fact, that man’s nature has been manifested. To the same word we are indebted for knowing that human nature hath been manifested merely in subserviency to the manifestation of a higher. Man, it is there stated has been shewn to be what he is, that God might have an opportunity thereby of shewing in bold and striking relief what He himself is. Adam sinned, that, in contrast with him as a transgressor, there might in due time be exhibited a being by whom it was impossible that sin could be committed. Can I, divinely taught, receive and acquiesce in the one fact, without, at the same time, receiving and acquiescing in the other?
The subserviency of the manifestation of Adam’s nature, to the manifestation of the nature of Christ, is the key to the understanding of the scriptures. Every part of them is constructed upon this principle. Adam was the figure of him that was to come. But he was more. He was also his foil. The earthliness and consequent sinfulness of human nature were indispensable preliminaries to the manifestation of a nature that is divine. View Adam alone, and he appears destitute of all significancy. But view him in connection with that glorious personage whom he was to introduce, with whose righteousness his own guilt was to stand contrasted, and by whose glory his own paradisaical state of happiness was to be completely eclipsed, and what importance he assumes! The creature now becomes the herald [133] of the Creator! It is true, that at his own expense he is so. He is exposed in all his own native vileness and deformity, that the Redeemer may appear in the fulness of his glory. And yet, if this previous degradation must be submitted to, is it not on account of the advantages thence to redound ultimately to himself and his posterity?
Divine wisdom hath so overruled the course of events, that every thing which happens, in however many respects an end, is in other respects merely a means to an end. It is in conformity with this, that the display of Adam’s nature as sinful, becomes a means to the display of Christ’s nature as sinless.
The subject of which we are now speaking is merely an illustration of this general principle. If the display of Adam’s sinful nature was an end, it was also a means to the display of Christ’s sinless nature, a still higher end.
SECTION II.
THE PREVIOUS MANIFESTATION OF EARTHLY MIND DEMANDED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
What rendered the manifestation of soul or creature mind first of all necessary?
This is one of those queries, which, although necessarily perplexing to the merely natural man, presents no difficulties whatever to him who has been enlightened and satisfied by divine testimony.
Scripture furnishes us with such answers to it as the following: —
First. The manifestation of Adam’s nature, previously, and in subordination, to the manifestation of Christ’s nature, was demanded by the limited nature of the human mind. As limited, man could only acquire knowledge gradually. Gradation, indeed, or the advance from the lower to the higher, is stamped on every part of the divine procedure. Inanimate preceded animate nature. Vegetables existed [134] before animals. Reptiles, fishes, birds, and beasts were created previous to man. Even man himself was susceptible of progressive advancement. When first summoned into being he was necessarily in a state of complete ignorance. This ignorance he could only get rid of gradually, as God was pleased to impart information to his mind. To be raised from views of self, to views of God, or from the inferior to the superior, was thus in the regular order of things. That is, for God to have raised man to an understanding of the divine character, before furnishing him with views of what he himself was, would have been to have disturbed that regular progression from the lower to the higher, which had characterised every preceding step of the divine administration. So decided and violent a departure from the course previously pursued, could not take place. Limited mind, therefore, was by its author treated in a way corresponding to its limited nature. It was taught gradually. Man was placed in certain circumstances, and in these was, first of all, made to exhibit himself as he was. Then, not till then, following out the progressive course of instruction which the limited mind of the creature required, God was pleased to make known His own character in contradistinction to that of man. That is, a limited view of what human nature is, having first been given, a limited view of the divine nature was immediately and graciously engrafted on it; — the constitution and capacity of the creature having in both been most gloriously consulted. Beautifully and conclusively is this sketch of the argument laid by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinth. 15, 20th verse downwards; but especially in verses 46-49.
But, in the second place, the grand reason of the previous manifestation of the Adamic mind, is the impossibility of man being instructed in divine things, otherwise than by contrast. There can exist no such thing as direct and positive teaching of such matters. Not more certainly does the lever in order to the efficiency of its operations require a fulcrum, than does the mind of man require previous displays of self, in order to its understanding of subsequent displays of God. Not more certainly must there be a back ground to the picture, than are exhibitions required of what human nature is, in order to the contrasted exhibition of what the divine nature is. By seeing man as he is, we acquire the only means of seeing God as he is. Not that [135] the nature and character of man can be understood in any other light than that of the manifested nature and character of God. For it is an axiom in divine things, that human nature receives all its illustration, and we, consequently, all our understanding of what it is, from the divine nature as exhibited to us in the word of God. But what I mean is, that unless and until human nature shall have been first embodied in some external fact or series of facts, the divine nature has no scope for its operations, — no medium through which it can convey to us information concerning itself. The whole will become more intelligible, perhaps, if I remark, that the outward exhibitions of human nature constitute a species of written, or rather symbolic, language. These symbols our natural understandings enable us to observe, but the meaning of them our natural understandings cannot comprehend or explain. Still, however, as without a written character a language could not be taught, so without the external indications of human nature there would exist no possibility of conveying spiritual instruction to the mind. These external indications, then, the Spirit of God seizes on, and, by contrasting them with certain other external indications of a higher nature, explains their meaning. Thus, then, the exhibition of human nature must precede, but the exhibition of the divine nature coming after, can alone shew its signification. Indeed, there must be contrast at every step. Some display of the inferior nature must always go before; but a subsequent display of the superior nature, as contrasted with it, must always follow to explain its meaning. And thus the contrast between the two natures must go on, widening more and more at every step; until having been displayed as far as it can be in time, the complete contrast shall be displayed in the light of eternity.
There is another and a more popular, method of exhibiting the necessity of the manifestation of creature mind, previous to the manifestation of the mind of the Creator, which, as likely to be more satisfactory to many of my readers, I now proceed to lay before them.
By the New Testament Scriptures we are informed of two things: — First; that the grand object of God in all that he does, is his own glory or the manifestation of himself as what he is; Rom. 11:36, &c.; and, secondly, that in this very manifestation to the creature of what God is, consists the possession by the creature of eternal life. John 17:3. 1 John 5:20, &c.
[136] Now, what is God?
Of him we neither know, nor can know, any thing, except in so far as he is manifested or made known. And what we do become acquainted with, when he is manifested to us, are merely the attributes of his character. Concerning his essence, we must as creatures ever continue ignorant. But, blessed be his name, although he dwelleth in a light which no man can approach unto, 1 Tim. 6:16, that light is nevertheless full of glory, or an abundant source of manifestation. We cannot know him as he is in himself, but we can know him as what he hath manifested himself to be, — just, merciful, wise, true, and powerful.
But how could he have become known to creatures constituted as we are? and how, consequently, could creatures constituted as we are, have become partakers of life everlasting?
The only legitimate answer to this, however startling at first sight it may appear to be, is, God could only have become known to us by the entrance of sin.
And the reason is obvious. It was only through the entrance of sin that God could have been exhibited as just in inflicting upon transgression deserved punishment. Previous to the entrance of sin the existence of the notion of justice in the mind of an intelligent being was an utter impossibility. — Again; it was only by sin entering that God’s character could have been exhibited as merciful. Mercy is undeserved favour bestowed on the guilty. And except in consequence of the existence and temporary triumph of sin, could this most glorious of all the divine attributes have become known? Wisdom is displayed in the prosecution of the most important ends, by the means best adapted to ensure their accomplishment. Is not the eternal welfare of the intelligent creation the most important of all the ends which we are capable of conceiving? And when the doctrines of the entrance of sin by Adam’s first transgression, and the destruction of it by the cross of Christ, are at once understood, do not the means of effectuating the end aimed at, appear to be the most suitable and glorious that could by any possibility have been devised? Truth, in combining the execution of threatenings and the fulfilment of promises, could only have been displayed through sin incurring the one, and the blessing of eternal life being freely bestowed, affording an opportunity for giving forth, and carrying into [137] effect, the other. And as to power, how could it have been more remarkably exhibited than in God’s so overruling matters, as that death, an event which at first sight seems to be the destruction of the intelligent creature, should actually become the means of his living for ever? How more remarkably displayed, than in conquering the conqueror of the whole human race? And so of the other divine attributes.
Thus, then, the entrance of sin was subservient, and necessarily subservient, to the manifestation of the divine character. And the manifestation of the divine character was necessary in order to our possession of life everlasting.
Does the necessity of the entrance of sin into the world, that is, of the creation and exhibition of Adam’s nature as what it is, require any farther explanation?
SECTION III.
MIND CONSIDERED SUBJECTIVELY AND OBJECTIVELY.
Without descending into all the metaphysical niceties and vagaries of Kant, perhaps some hints, suggested by his philosophy, may with advantage be brought to bear on our present subject.
What is the mind of man?
It consists partly, of a principle which he brings into the world along with him. That is, it consists, in the first place, of a principle which is conferred upon him even while in the womb, which depends on bodily organization, which is connected necessarily with life, and without which no mental operation subsequent to birth could be performed. Mind, thus considered as dwelling in the individual, is subjective.
Mind is likewise to be viewed as created, stirred up into activity, or dependent on, the objects with which after birth it becomes acquainted. With the exception of what we derive from reflection, all information is communicated to us from [138] without. And indeed, it is very questionable if even the slenderest act of reflection could have been performed independently of that operation of external causes to which the human mind is subject. One thing is plain, that, by the external objects which are presented to the mind through the medium of the five senses, it is excited to think, as well as furnished with the materials of thought. Without the objects, that is, the things external to it, which are every moment arresting its notice, and employing its faculties, what would mind be? Mind, therefore, in so far as it depends on, or is created by, the things by which it is surrounded, is objective.
Now let me entreat a little reflection on the part of my readers.
Mind, it thus appears, is to be regarded both as subjective, and as objective. Subjective, as originally conferred on, and as subsequently dwelling in, the individual; objective, in so far as it is created by, and dependent on, the objects, that is, the beings and circumstances, by which he is surrounded. Now arises in the adult a question. — Whether is the human mind properly speaking subjective, or chiefly objective? That is, whether does that which the mind subjectively is, conform the objects with which it is conversant to itself? Or, do these objects conform the mind to themselves?
At first we should be apt to answer, the mind is little else than the creature of external objects. And this, whether we consider the slenderness of the subjective mental capacities of the human being on the first occasion of his introduction into the world, or consider the fact that almost all the knowledge which in after life he comes to possess, almost all the materials of his thinking, were originally, neither more nor less, than objects presented to his notice. Really, when we take into account the natural ignorance of man, and the necessary superficiality of the mere human mind, one ceases to wonder at the greediness with which the notions of Locke, Godwin and the Socinian party, respecting the supposed natural purity of soul, and its supposed entirely objective constitution and character, have been swallowed by the learned, the profound, and the intellectual, of the human race.
But these “mighty masters of the human mind,” are in the wrong. The Bible, whose testimony in regard to this matter they reject, contains after all better philosophy than they have ever yet formed any conception of. It shews, and as of [139] divine origin its statements are as a matter of course consistent with fact, that the mind of man necessarily conforms all the objects with which it is conversant to that which itself subjectively is.
The process by which this takes place is perfectly obvious.
First. Mind, however feeble, is in existence before objects are presented to it. And this for the best of all reasons. Without the previous existence of mind as a principle, or in its subjective state, there would exist nothing to which objects might be presented, and by which they might be apprehended.
Secondly. Objects are not presented to the mind all at once, on its introduction into the world, but gradually. Very slowly and gradually at first, and with increasing rapidity afterwards, as its faculties enlarge and strengthen.
Thirdly. This being understood, it is manifest, that every object apprehended by the mind, entering into it, and taking up its abode in it, by that very circumstance becomes subjective. That is, objects presented to the mind, from its first entrance on the step of life, constitute its peculiar and appropriate nourishment; — its natural growth, strength, and enlargement depending on the quantity of these, which it is able to take in and assimilate. For objects presented to the mind are to it, what food is to the body. As entering into the mind, they lose their objective character, and become subjective, or part and parcel of the mind itself. But, this being the case, who sees not, that every thing entering into the mind must conform to the subjective nature, whatever that may be, of which it is originally possessed? The few objects at first taken in, are so conformed. The mind thus possessed, not merely of its original subjective nature, but of that strengthened by the objects which it has already contrived to assimilate, goes on to conform to itself other objects. By means of these being still farther strengthened and enlarged, it is still farther prepared to continue the assimilating process. Until, at last, thoroughly matured and confirmed by the acquisition of advancing life, no sooner are things presented to it objectively, than as if instinctively they take the tone and hue of its own subjective nature.
Thus instead of objects conforming the mind to themselves, it is the mind which conforms them to itself; these objects serving merely as food to the mind, and contribut-[140]ing to draw out its powers and faculties, whatever these may be.
I now proceed to shew the bearings of this view on the subserviency of soul, or natural mind, to spirit.
The objects presented to the soul, or natural mind, are of two sorts: —
First. Those which are earthly like itself, that is, such as are conformable to its own nature. Such are objects of lust, vanity, or ambition. These, it is obvious, will from their sameness of nature readily assimilate to the subjective principle, and contribute to draw out and strengthen its natural tendencies, whatever these may be. Indeed, although on principles already laid down, objects must take the character of the subjective mind, not the subjective mind of them, yet it is possible for the force of circumstances, and especially for a course of judicious instruction, very much to modify natural tendencies, by bringing objects of a particular kind constantly to bear on the mental faculties.
But, secondly, the objects presented to the mind may be heavenly and supernatural, and therefore superior to its own nature. If so, one of four consequences only can take place in regard to such objects: —
First. They will attract no attention at all, being disregarded as absurd and insignificant.
Secondly. A false view of their nature may be taken, which may inspire with a temporary interest in them; that interest passing away when we find that they do not answer our expectations.
Thirdly. We may take a view of their nature which, although false, may nevertheless be retained by us throughout life.
Fourthly. There may be communicated to us a true and correct view of their heavenly nature.
Putting aside the first cause, it is evident, that, in the second and third of these consequences, the human mind, as it existed in its original subjective state, and as it has been strengthened and enlarged by the aggregation of successive natural objects, conceives of the divine and spiritual things presented to it, not as they really are, but according to its own nature. It necessarily brings them down to its own level. It conceives of them, not as they are, but according to the nature of its own powers and faculties. The objects presented are spiritual; but, in the second and third case, [141] it is by a mind subjectively natural that they are apprehended, or, rather, supposed to be apprehended; and hence, it is only as stripped of their objectively spiritual character, and brought down to the level of the subjective natural mind, that they are at all thought of. That is, the mind has no understanding of them whatever.
But in the fourth and last case, a consequence follows which differs essentially from any of the other three. The spiritual topics presented to the mind are in this case understood by it. That is, what all along have objectively a spiritual nature, to whatever class of persons they may be presented, communicate subjectively likewise a spiritual nature to those by whom they are understood. In the three former cases, the mind which was natural or soulical before the spiritual objects were set before it, continues natural or soulical afterwards. These objects either attract no notice at all; or, after being dragged down to the low level of mere human nature, they are conceived of merely after a natural fashion. But, in this fourth case, the consequence of presenting them to the mind is, that instead of the human mind operating upon them, they operate upon the human mind; that, instead of the human mind bringing them down to its level in order to its conceiving of them after a human manner, they elevate the mind to their own level by communicating to that mind a real and spiritual conception of what they are. In the three former cases, especially in the 2nd and 3rd, the mind continues in itself, or subjectively, soulical, although spiritual things are presented to it objectively, and although it may appear to other minds as soulical as itself to be acquainted and conversant with such spiritual things; in the fourth case, the mind, although previously like others subjectively soulical, no longer continues so, but becomes subjectively spiritual, — the objective spiritual things having acquired a subjective residence in it, that is, in other words, these objective spiritual things having conformed the mind subjectively to themselves. The mind in this fourth case, and in it alone, is made new. 2 Corinth. 5:17. And the Spirit speaking in the word, now witnesses with our minds understanding that word, that we are the children of God. Rom. 8:15. John 6:45.
Does the intelligent and spiritually enlightened reader, suppose me, in what I have last said, to have been weaving a theory of my own? Or, has it not rather occurred to him, [142] that I have been presenting, in a somewhat altered form, our blessed Lord’s instructive parable of the Sower?
Looking at that parable, it is evident, at a glance, that only one of the four classes of persons to whose outward ear the word of truth came, are represented as having understood it. And that is, the fourth or last class. “He that receiveth seed into the good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it.” Matt. 13:23. The other three classes understood it not. And why? Because the natural understanding of all of them was left in full operation. “Unto them it was not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven.” Matt. 13:11. The natural understanding of some, led them to treat the word carelessly; of others, to conceive of its joyful message as something totally different from what it actually was, — as promising exemption from tribulations upon earth, instead of ensuring rest with Christ in Heaven; and, of a third class, to reduce it to a system perfectly compatible with the indulgence of earthly views, desires and enjoyments. Matt. 13:19-22. In all the three classes, the natural or soulical understanding, which never did, and never can, comprehend divine truth, 1 Corinth. 2:14, continued in unchanged and uncontrolled operation, although the objects about which that understanding was conversant were divine. But in the fourth case, the word was understood. Not understood by the mind as soulical, for the soulical mind has no apprehension of divine things. But understood by the mind as rendered spiritual, — the understanding of divine things spiritually, that is, according to their own nature, and in their own light, being the only real understanding of which they are susceptible. Can any thing be plainer than the whole scope and import of the parable?
And now for the application of the distinction upon which I have been insisting.
Without the previous existence of mind as subjectively natural, there would have existed nothing to which objects could have been presented; and without the previous reception of natural objects by the mind, there could not have existed material by means of which to introduce divine and spiritual things into the mind.
1. Unless natural mind had existed previously in a subjective state, objects would have had nothing to be presented to, and nothing, consequently by which they could have been received. This is so plain as to require no illustration.
[143] 2. Natural mind required to exist as subjective and as enlarged and strengthened by natural objects, before spiritual objects could have been presented to it, or could have taken effect upon it. The force of my present argument lies in this, that divine things can only be apprehended by contrast. Natural things must first, to a certain degree, be understood by us; and then, the materials of contrast being possessed, divine things may, if agreeable to our Heavenly Father, be introduced into our minds. The natural is thus merely, but necessarily, subsidiary and subservient to the supernatural.
The genealogy of mind, soulical and spiritual, may be thus briefly stated: —
1. Mind exists subjectively soulical.
2. Mind thus subjectively soulical conforms to itself, or tends to conform to itself, all the objects presented to it, whether natural or supernatural.
3. Mind exists objectively spiritual.
4. This objectively spiritual mind, conforms soulical mind to itself, by rendering it subjectively spiritual.
My readers can scarcely fail to observe, that subjective mind, soulical and spiritual, occupies the extremes. It is through mind objectively considered, that soul and spirit are brought into contact, and that the transition from the one to the other takes place. This fact is pregnant with the most important consequences. It stands connected with some of the most valuable doctrines of God’s word.
The progress of soulical mind is from the subjective to the objective. The progress of spiritual mind is from the objective to the subjective. And yet they are inseparably connected, the previous soulical progress being indispensable to the subsequent spiritual one.
SECTION IV.
ADAM’S SOULICAL NATURE IN ALL RESPECTS SUBSERVIENT AND SUBSIDIARY.
St. Paul has “peremptorily affirmed that human nature is to survive in another state,” says the well-known author of the Natural History of Enthusiasm, in one of his more re-[144]cent productions;15 and upon this principle he goes on to construct one of those lively and ingenious theories, which, being admirably suited to the meridian of the Adamic mind, render him a favourite with the ignorant and the superficial.
15 His Physical theory of another life. Chap. i. page 11.
Unfortunately for this imaginative gentleman’s theory, as well of for the systems of men of still more acute and comprehensive understandings, the argument of the Apostle in the 15th of the 1st Corinthians, the chapter referred to by him, is exactly the opposite of that which he states it to be. Instead of maintaining survivancy of human nature hereafter, the inspired writer is shewing, by a train of analogies and contrasts the most beautiful and conclusive, that it is confined to this present life. The man of the earth, earthy, and his posterity, live here, and here only. Human nature according to the Apostle, has nothing whatever to do with a future state.16 It is the nature of Christ, as the nature of God, that lives for ever. And we live hereafter, not as possessed of the nature of Adam, the earthy man, but as possessed of the nature of Christ, the Heavenly man. Thus, human nature, as it came from the dust, so it returns to the dust. While the divine nature, as essentially immortal, wherever it is found, exists tor ever.
16 Except to introduce it.
True it is, we, who now are human beings, do live for ever. This fact, not understood by the mere Adamic or soulical mind, has been the source of errors innumerable. Among these the following ranks as one of the most prominent. “We live for ever;” therefore, (such has been the common conclusion, a conclusion which we have not been ashamed to borrow from the heathen world,) “we are naturally and necessarily immortal.” No, say the scriptures, your immortality has a totally different origin. You live for ever, not because a fleshly nature like yours of itself, is or can be immortal, but because God hath been manifested in flesh, and because he hath thereby united flesh to himself inseparably and everlasting. You live for ever, because God, after having exhibited flesh pure and perfect in himself, sacrificed it, and because, by his resurrection from the dead, having changed it in himself into a nature similar to his own, he hath thereby fitted it for heavenly existence and enjoy-[145]ment. You live for ever, because the nature into which he hath changed flesh, and of which he is now in possession, he is pleased graciously and gratuitously to communicate to you. In a word, our immortality, according to the scriptures, is not the result of our connection with an earthly head, for through him we inherit death as our portion; but it is the result of the assumption, purification, sacrifice, and glorification of human nature by the Son of God. It is the result, not of our possessing human nature but of our being made partakers through Christ of the divine nature.
”But Butler, in his Analogy, Taylor, in his Physical theory of another life, and others, do not mean, that human nature as such is to survive this present life. Their meaning is the same as yours, when you say, that it is the nature of Christ, or the divine nature, that is to live hereafter.”
Supposing this apology to be made by any of the friends and admirers of those learned and talented men, in what a curious predicament do they place their principals. If we live hereafter, not as partakers of human nature, but of the divine nature, then what becomes of the much vaunted argument from analogy? As, in that case, the two natures stand contrasted with each other, as decidedly contrasted indeed as darkness and light, of what use or avail are reasonings derived from supposed sameness? Works constructed on this last principle, in so far as truth is concerned, must be absolutely worthless — must be labour completely thrown away. — Besides, if so be that we live hereafter as partakers of the divine nature, of what use is it to attempt by any efforts of our own to find out what our future state shall be? All we can know of the divine nature is as manifested in flesh. Consequently, all we can know of it is, as it makes its appearance in this present world. By the rending of the veil of mortality, and by that alone, shall we be able to comprehend it as it exists and is manifested in a higher state of being. Indeed, the express declaration of an inspired apostle hath put an extinguisher upon every profane attempt to pry into futurity. It doth not yet appear, says he, what we shall be. We merely know, (and this indeed is our highest possible attainment,) that what he is now, we hereafter shall be; and that when we are like him, but not till then, we shall see him as he is. Now, in the teeth of a statement like this, emanating from the infallible Jehovah, is there not [146] something that smacks dreadfully of infidelity, in a poor conceited worm of the dust, pretending to understand, and to be able to hold up to the view of others, what shall be our future state and circumstances? And, when examined into, how laughable are the hypotheses in which all such efforts are found necessarily to terminate. “A residence in the material sun,” forsooth, “may be our future destination.”17 “Man, know thy place, and be humbled under a sense of thy ignorance,” is the proper check to such presumption and folly.
17 Physical Theory of Another Life.
All the absurd theories which have been broached with regard to a future state of existence, and they are legion, will be found to have had their origin in, or at all events to have been connected with, ignorance of one, or other, or both, of the two following scriptural principles: —
First. That God so far from restoring, through his well-beloved Son, the state of paradisiacal blessedness which Adam originally possessed and forfeited, is on the contrary raising us through his Son to a state of blessedness infinitely superior to that which Adam in his original state either enjoyed, or by any possibility could have enjoyed.
Few seem to have the least conception of the import and bearing of such scriptural statements as: — Adam was the figure of him that was to come, and, the first man was of the earth, earthy; the second man was the Lord from heaven. Had ordinary religionists an understanding of the truths embodied in these passages, they would see, that it is impossible to represent Adam as having been originally spiritual, or as having originally possessed a pure, holy, and heavenly, nature, without positively contradicting them. And yet thus contradicted, they continually are. “Adam was created a spiritual and immortal being, but forfeited his original spirituality and immortality by transgression.” But if naturally spiritual and immortal, what, my good friends, becomes of Adam’s typical or representative character? If, spiritual originally, then, instead of having been the type or figure of Christ, he must have been the same with him! If he was originally immortal, he was Christ’s equal, not Christ’s inferior! That is, if Adam was spiritual and immortal as he came from God’s hands, his nature is made to have been the same with that of Christ, instead of having been, as scrip-[147]ture shews it to be, merely figuratively similar to it! The earthly man is in that case confounded with the Heavenly man! The fact is that the soulical mind sets up Adam’s paradisiacal earthly nature as the standard of excellence and purity, and supposes that all things are concurring to bring matters back to it. Whereas scripture states, and the spiritual mind sees, that the standard of excellence and purity, is the heavenly nature of Christ Jesus, and that all things are concurring to carry matters forward to it. That is, there neither is, nor according to scripture, can be, a restoration of Adam’s paradisiacal nature and state. When forfeited, it was forfeited at once, and for ever. Adam’s righteousness originally was soulical, not spiritual. Adam’s life originally was indefinite, not infinite. In other words, his righteousness and life, as originally possessed by him, were emblematic or figurative of something better. It is this figurative character of them, which renders their restoration impossible. For as figures they necessarily passed away, or came to an end; and thus contributed, not to their own restoration, but to the introduction of the realities of which they were emblematic. But upon this subject I have insisted at such length in my Three Questions Proposed and Answered, and in my Assurance of Faith, that for further information respecting my views, I must content myself with referring to them.
Can any person, labouring under the erroneous impression of the restoration of the creature to Adam’s paradisiacal state of righteousness and life, ever have a clear and self-consistent view of the gospel?
A second scriptural principle, closely interwoven with the preceding, in the understanding of which ordinary writers on the subject of religion shew themselves to be woefully ignorant, is, that this present world, and all that is connected with it, especially the earthly nature of man, exist merely as subsidiary, and in subserviency, to something higher and better, or, in other words that they are merely of the nature of means to an end.
Had this principle been understood we should never have had human nature and sin represented as existing for ever. Not human nature; for, from scripture, it appears to have been brought into being for no other purpose than to pave the way for, and introduce, the divine nature. Beings clothed with the nature of Adam exist here, in order to the existence and manifestation of beings clothed with the nature of Christ [148] hereafter. Not sin; for it has entered and abounded, not that thereby it might receive everlasting confirmation, but that thereby grace might enter and might more abound. Sin has had a temporary and limited reign conferred upon it, that, through the medium of the destruction of it and its reign, Grace might ascend her throne, and establish a dominion which is unlimited and everlasting. — Say I these things on my own authority; or saith not the scripture the same things also? Is it not the express language of Revelation, that flesh and blood, or human nature, cannot inherit the Kingdom of God? and, that it is by the corruptible and mortal nature of Adam, putting on the incorruptible and immortal nature of Christ, that death is swallowed up in victory? 1 Corinth. 15:53,54. Is it not its express language, that sin reigns unto death, in order to the reign of grace through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord? Rom. 5:21. Thus, then, old things exist now, in subserviency to, and in order to their being ultimately superseded by, all things as made new. Soul, or the mind of the creature, especially, exists as the means of introducing Spirit, or the mind of the Creator. Nature, from its first and lowest material elements, up to soul or the mind of man, its topstone, or crowning point, is merely a scaffolding by means of which God builds up a higher and more glorious structure — a series of means by which the grand end of divine manifestation, in the production of a superior state of things, is carried into ultimate and complete effect. Ignorant of this fact, human beings, even the most learned and talented, have, like their predecessors the Manichees of old, imagined, that qualities and persons belonging to time, whose nature, therefore, is merely and necessarily subservient and transitory, may nevertheless be carried out into eternity, and invested with the attributes of Deity itself. Acquainted with this fact, believers of the truth, behold a great propriety and beauty in the present existence of natural objects, and see that they are admirably fitted for the purposes for which they have been called into being: but they never for a single moment overlook the fact that they are merely means, and merely constitute the old things which are destined to pass away, and, consequently, never imagine that they can enter into, or have any connection with, a state, the essence of which consists in the supercession of means by their end, and in the making of all things new.
[149]
PART II.
SPIRIT,
OR THE
MIND OF THE CREATOR.
IN THREE CHAPTERS.
CHAPTER I.
THE NATURE OF SPIRIT.
CHAPTER II.
THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRIT.
CHAPTER III.
THE OBJECT OR PURPOSE OF SPIRIT.
[150, blank page]
[151]
PART II.
SPIRIT,
OR THE
MIND OF THE CREATOR.
CHAPTER I.
THE NATURE OF SPIRIT.
SECTION I.
SPIRIT EXISTS.
To the consideration of the all-important topic of Spirit, we now address ourselves.
It is clear, that there is no ordinary natural substance of the nature of which we can form conceptions directly. At the present day, it scarcely requires the penetrating genius of a Locke to prove this. Even of soul itself, although most nearly present to us, and the subject in which, by the confession of the most acute understandings, all our ideas inhere, our conceptions are limited to the phenomena which it presents. We know it only by reflection on its feelings, recollections, and acts of judgment. If so, in what other way can we become acquainted with the existence and nature of Spirit? And if capable of knowing it only by reflex operations, must we not content ourselves with comprehending, and bringing under the notice of others, some of its leading phenomena?
Thus far all goes on swimmingly. But here an important idea suggests itself. It is true, that of natural things and natural mind, all our conceptions are taken in by means of their qualities or phenomena. And yet, this could not be, unless there existed soul or natural mind in which as their subject or substance, these qualities, or phenomena, could [152] inhere. Does not this seem to require, that, in the event of the existence of spiritual qualities or phenomena, that is, of phenomena superior to those with which soul, or natural mind, is conversant, there must exist a spiritual mind, or mind adequate to their reception? Natural qualities are treated of and spoken of by Soul, or natural mind. Reasoning analogically, must there not, in order to the apprehension and explanation of spiritual phenomena, exist Spirit, or spiritual mind? He who denies the existence of any thing spiritual, has, of course, nothing to do with my argument. The moment, however, that a single quality superior to those with which natural mind makes us acquainted is supposed, I do not see how the conclusion as to the existence of spiritual mind can be got over.
But, reasoning apart, the word of God expressly asserts that such a spiritual mind exists, and that to possess it, is indispensable to our reception of spiritual subjects. There is such a mind. But we, says Paul, have the mind of Christ; that is, as the context shews, we have a mind distinguished from, and superior to, that which as human beings we derive from Adam. Again: we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God. Without possessing this mind, spiritual things cannot be apprehended. The soulical man, or man with a soul, receiveth not the things of the spirit of God because they are foolishness unto him, &c. Can any language more simply and explicitly declare the fact of the existence of spiritual mind, and the necessity of possessing it in order to the understanding of spiritual subjects?
SECTION II.
WHAT IS SPIRIT?
If understood in the last section, I mean to assert the two following things: —
1. That no man can form any conception of spirit, or spiritual objects, who is not himself possessed of spiritual principle.
[153] 2. That, after all, our spiritual conceptions, although, like our soulical ones, inhering in a mind corresponding to their nature, are, like soulical ones, not conceptions of the substance of spirit directly, but merely of some of the phenomena by which, to the spiritual mind, it manifests its existence.
When, therefore, in this chapter, I propose to treat of the nature of spirit, I no more profess to be acquainted with its essence, than the mere soulical man dare profess to be acquainted with the essence of Soul. Indeed, far less. For if unable to apprehend the essence of the finite, still less, of course, the essence of the infinite. But when I propose now to speak of the nature of Spirit, as distinguished from its phenomena to be considered hereafter, my purpose is merely to draw the attention of my readers at present to points which are absolutely essential to the understanding of the subject. Topics which depend on these general observations, and which consequently are secondary to them, I intend to class under the head of phenomena.
The nature of Spirit, understanding the word nature in the sense in which I have explained it, will be best seen and presented by recurring at once to that grand storehouse of spiritual knowledge, the sacred scriptures. And as this is a subject which can only be apprehended by means of contrast, let us try if the inspired volume does not so present the character of Adam, in contradistinction to that of Christ Jesus, as to furnish us with the required information.
The few following particulars, as briefly stated as is consistent with perspicuity, will be sufficient for my purpose.
1. To Adam, in Paradise, a single prohibition was given, and that imposing so slender a restriction, as to imply humanly speaking, no difficulty in the keeping of it. Yet before the most trifling of all temptations he fell. — To Jesus, while on earth, was given the most severe and trying of all commands, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, &c. This he fulfilled to the very uttermost. Temptation presented in its most alluring and powerful form had no influence whatever over him. The loss of this present life could not deter him from obeying the commandment which he had received of the Father. — What do these contrasted facts teach us? Why that the former had a mind the nature of which was to be overcome. The latter a mind the nature [154] of which was to overcome. Soul, then, is conquered; spirit is conquering, mind.
2. To Adam was held out, not the prospect of acquiring heavenly blessings, but the risk of forfeiting earthly advantages, in the event of his transgressing. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die. — To Jesus was held out the prospect, not of retaining his earthly state, but of acquiring heavenly blessings. It was the import of the Old Testament prophecies concerning him, as he himself acquaints us, that he should be betrayed into the hands of the chief priests and elders, that they should crucify him, and that the third day he should rise again. Agreeably to this it had been declared in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that not for earthly joys, but for the joy set before him in the heavenly state, he endured the cross, despising the shame. — By this, are we not clearly and convincingly taught, that the nature of Adam’s mind was earthly, and that the nature of Christ’s mind was heavenly? Soul, then, is earthly; Spirit is heavenly, mind.
3. Adam’s mind came into existence with flesh, throughout his lifetime it depended on flesh, and, when he died, its existence terminated. Hence, it is expressly denominated, in the eighth of the Romans, fleshly mind. — The mind of Jesus on the contrary existed before his appearance in flesh, for he was the inspirer of the Old Testament prophets, 1 Peter 1:10-12; and it has continued to exist since he put away flesh, for he is now at his Father’s right hand expecting until his enemies shall be made his footstool. — Of the former mind, then, it is the characteristic to depend on flesh; of the latter not to depend on it. That is, soul is dependent; Spirit is independent, mind.
Perhaps the best, because the shortest way of bringing out the nature of Spirit, in contradistinction to that of Soul, is what follows: —
Concerning Adam it is expressly asserted that he was merely the figure of him that was to come. This being the case, there must be the same difference between Adam and Christ, as between a figure, and the reality which it represents. A difference which must obtain in regard to their minds, no less than in regard to their bodies. But Soul, or the mind of Adam, was merely figurative mind. Spirit, or the mind of Christ is, then, substantial mind.
4. Heterodoxy and Orthodoxy sometimes pretty nearly balanced.
[155] That Adam was the figure of Christ Jesus, is, curiously enough, a view which the heterodox and the orthodox are, by their respective systems, equally precluded from taking. To shew this is easy; and the proof of it may perhaps contribute to throw still farther light on the subject of which I am treating.
According to the Unitarian body, Jesus was a mere creature. So likewise was Adam. But if so, with what propriety of language can the one be spoken of as the type or figure of the other? — One mere human being, the figure of another mere human being! Soul the figure of Soul! — The notion is absurd. Degrade Christ Jesus to the level of Adam, and that moment the typical character of Adam is an empty name.
But are the views of ordinary Trinitarians more consistent with the inspired record? Let facts speak. Adam, in their apprehension of things, was a spiritual being, and possessed a spiritual nature, as he came from God’s hands. Of Jesus they can find nothing higher to say, than that he likewise was a spiritual being, and had a spiritual nature. That is, according to them, a spiritual being, was the figure of a spiritual being! — After rating the Unitarians soundly for degrading the Creator to the level of the creature, they, as if to justify their opponents in what they have done, and to shew that they themselves can be quite as absurd, proceed to elevate the creature to the level of the Creator! They represent spirit, as being the emblem of spirit! That is, they make a thing to be the figure of itself! — Under these circumstances, pray, what material difference is there between the one class of religionists and the other?
In one word, how, according to either the system of the heterodox, or that of the orthodox, can Adam be the figure of Jesus? The former bring down the Creator to the level of the creature, making soul to be the figure of soul! The latter, raise up the creature to the level of the Creator, making spirit to be the figure of spirit! Both equally subvert Adam’s figurative character. In so far as consistency with scripture is concerned, both seem to me to be pretty much upon a par.
How simply are all difficulties got rid of and is the figurative character of Adam preserved, by adopting the view which it is the great object of this work to present. In scripture, the mere creature Adam, is represented as the [156] figure of the Creator manifest in flesh, Christ Jesus. Of course, the mind of the former, is not the same with, but merely the figure of, the mind of the latter. But if so, soul cannot be the figure of soul; nor can spirit be the figure of spirit. What remains but that soul, or the mind of the creature, is the figure of spirit, or the mind of the Creator?
5. Spirit still farther defined.
Although, from the nature of the subject, it is absolutely impossible to treat of Spirit except as contrasted with Soul, I would fain try if I cannot submit to my readers, a still more simple and distinct definition of Spirit than I have yet done.
i. Spirit is internal mind. It may be appropriately enough denominated the mind of mind. — In the mind of Christ, dwelt the mind of God. The father that is in me, he doeth the works. — In us who believe, dwells the mind of Christ and of God. Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. — The entrance of divine testimony is thus actually the formation of a mind within the mind which we naturally have.
ii. Spirit is substantial mind. — Soul, with all its faculties, is shadowy. Hence it is necessarily the subject of error and delusion. In Scripture, as if with a view to pour contempt on the metaphysical acumen of a Berkeley, it, and its fancied discoveries, are fitly characterised as a dream. — Spirit, however, is substantial. Its nature is truth. I am the truth. Hence all its discoveries enter the mind possessed of the principle of stability; and, having once obtained a footing there abide for ever.
iii. Spirit is everlasting mind. Soul is depending on flesh, comes into existence with it, and passes away with it. In that day, that is, in the day of death, his thoughts perish. — Spirit, as the mind of Christ, is independent of flesh, knows neither beginning nor end. It existed, for it inspired the prophets before our Lord’s incarnation; it has existed since his resurrection, and it shall continue to exist for evermore.
In few words: Soul, is mind from beneath; Spirit, mind from above.
Soul is mind dependent upon flesh; Spirit is mind upon which flesh and all things besides, are dependent.
6. The order of Spirit, the inverse order of Soul.
When, dismissing all theories, we endeavour to ascer-[157]tain what the scriptures have stated as matter of fact respecting Adam and Christ Jesus, such circumstances, as those about to be mentioned, attract our notice: —
With respect to Adam. In the narrative of his creation, the existence of his body is declared to have preceded that of his mind. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Thus, in the case of Adam, body, in point of fact, existed first, and mind, second.
With respect to Christ Jesus. — His mind, that is, he himself, we know existed before his appearance in flesh, for by him were all things made; indeed, he was before all things. His body of flesh and blood, however, began to have existence, only between eighteen and nineteen hundred years since. In his case, then, mind, in point of order, was first, and body, second.
Thus, apart from all reasonings on the subject, and viewed as a mere matter of fact, the order of the existence of the body and mind of Adam, was the opposite of that of the mind and body of Christ Jesus. That is, the order of the existence of the latter, was the inverse of the order of the existence of the former.
Two very striking conclusions seem to result immediately from the facts just stated: —
i. That, as in Adam’s case, his body existed previous to his mind, it seems to follow, that his mind was made for his body, and not his body for his mind. In other words, that his mind was made to depend on his body. — And, that as in the case of the Lord Jesus, his mind existed before his body, it seems equally to follow, that his body was made for his mind, and not his mind for his body. In other words, that his body was made to depend on his mind.
ii. That this inverse order of the existence of body and mind, in the respective cases of Adam and Christ Jesus, was for the purpose of effecting a connection between earth and heaven. By the circumstance of Adam’s body having been created directly out of the dust of the ground, a necessary connection was shewn to exist between man, and the earth. Compare Gen. 2:7, with 3:19. By the circumstance of the mind of the Lord Jesus having been heavenly, that is, by the circumstance of he himself having come down from heaven, a necessary connection was shewn to exist between the [158] Lord Jesus and heaven. And as, what came from earth, must tend to earth, is the scope of the passages quoted from Genesis, so, what came from heaven must tend to heaven, is the scope of the whole of our blessed Lord’s history, especially in his intercessory prayer recorded in the I7th chapter of John’s Gospel. — But the body of Adam the earthy, was not brought into contact with the mind of Jesus the heavenly, directly and immediately. Such an immediate connection was impossible; and, had it been possible, would have been worthless. Two intermediate steps were requisite, to connect the one with the other. It was necessary, 1st, that the earthy and dependent mind of Adam should transgress, in order to render divine interposition necessary and possible. And, 2dly, that the Creator should appear in a pure body of flesh and blood, taken out of the creature, in order, on the one hand, that his body should be fit for his residence and fit to be sacrificed; and, on the other, that his body should be a connecting link between himself and the creature. — Thus, then, while Adam’s body connected man with earth, and Christ’s mind, connected the Messiah with Heaven, it was Adam’s mind as sinful which stood directly connected with the appearance of Christ’s body as sinless, and thereby connected the creature with the Creator. Gen. 3:6,15.
7. Generation and Regeneration.
The bodies and minds of Adam’s posterity are propagated in the same order in which the body and mind of Adam himself were originally created. First, the body is formed in the womb; and then, after the lapse of a certain time, the quickening principle, or element of soul, is imparted. It is body, first; mind, second. Thus are human beings, like their progenitor, connected by means of their bodies with the dust from which he was originally taken; and thus are their minds, as brought into existence subsequently to their bodies, made like his necessarily to depend upon them.
But the order of regeneration is exactly the reverse of this. It is the mind which, in the first place, is the subject of the new birth or new creation; indeed, which alone has the first fruits of a divine nature imparted to it upon earth. The new creation of the body does not take place till the resurrection. — Simply and beautifully has the Apostle Paul set the order of regeneration before us in his Epistle to the Romans. Throughout the 7th and at the beginning of the [159] 8th chapters he treats of some remarkable circumstances connected with the manifestation of the character of God, and thereby the new creation of mind, in the case of himself and his fellow believers. Such persons, he shews, have had conferred on them the first fruits of spirit, which, in them, is life and peace. Rom. 8. But they have as yet undergone no change of body. For the body is still dead because of sin, although the spirit be life because of righteousness. Rom. 8:11. But matters are not thus always to continue. For, if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you, 13. That is, having been regenerated as to your minds now, you enjoy that privilege as the earnest and foretaste of the regeneration of your bodies hereafter. Thus, as in generation believers had been conformed to their earthly, so in regeneration they are conformed to their heavenly, head. As by his mind, which was heavenly and everlasting, taking hold of human nature, it purified and prepared a body of flesh and blood for its own especial residence, heavenly mind having existed in the first, and body merely in the second, place; so by his heavenly mind conforming to itself by faith the minds of his people here, and thereby their bodies likewise hereafter, the existence of heavenly mind in the first place, and heavenly body in the second place, occurs in them, in the very same order in which they had previously existed in him.
Have I been successful in shewing, in the section which immediately precedes this, that the mind and body of Christ Jesus exist, in the inverse order of the body and mind of Adam? In that case how striking must it be to observe, that regeneration, by the new birth, first, of the minds, and, secondly, of the bodies, of Christ’s people, conforms them to the inverse order of their heavenly head’s existence; just as generation, by giving them, first, earthly bodies, and, secondly, earthly minds, had conformed them to the order of the existence of their earthly head.
8. Assimilating nature of Spirit.
There are only two grand principles of assimilation, that is, principles which have the effect of conforming other things to themselves, set before us in scripture. These are flesh and spirit.
Flesh is the leading principle of the Adamic nature. It [160] came first into existence in Adam himself, and it is the medium by which his nature is conveyed to his posterity. As taken from the earth originally and directly, its necessary tendency is to assimilate to itself, and thereby to earth, the life or soul of man, and every thing belonging to him to which it gives birth. Not more certainly does the body of the brute, as composed of earthly materials, necessarily assimilate to its earthy nature the mind and affections therewith connected; than does the body of man, as equally taken from the earth, necessarily assimilate to its earthly nature and organisation, the mind and affections therewith connected. Both are equally and certainly, of the earth, earthy. Beyond this present world, it is absolutely impossible for the Adamic mind, as necessarily earthy, either in its conceptions or desires, to reach.
Spirit is the leading principle of the Christ-like nature. It existed from everlasting, and it shall exist to everlasting; and is the only medium by which the divine nature can be communicated from the Creator to the creature. As heavenly in its origin, its necessary tendency is to assimilate to itself, that is, to conform to its heavenly nature, all things with which it brings itself into contact, and upon which it is its good pleasure to operate. Not more certainly does fleshly body tend to assimilate to itself soul or fleshly mind, than does spirit, or heavenly mind, tend to assimilate or conform to itself fleshly mind, and fleshly body, and every thing else which may be subjected to its influence.
If these facts be well understood, then are we enabled: —
i. To comprehend and relish the argument of the Apostle Paul, prosecuted throughout the 7th and 8th chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. In the 7th chapter, he speaks of his having discovered in himself a mind which was thoroughly opposed to God; not only unable to obey divine law, but positively cherishing the most inveterate enmity towards it. He also speaks of his having made this discovery, in the light of his possession of the first fruits of a nature by which God’s law is loved and delighted in. The 7th chapter at the end, and the 8th chapter at the beginning abstract and bring to a point, the views dictated and insisted on in the 7th. To flesh, or rather to the dependence of his natural mind on flesh, is traced up by him the fact, of his natural thorough addictedness to sinning. With the flesh I serve the law of sin. The mind of the flesh is enmi-[161]ty against God; it is not subject to his law, neither, indeed, can be. To spirit or the mind of Christ, as introduced into his conscience by faith, is equally traced up his discovery of evil in himself, and his conquest over it. So then, I find, that is, discover in the light of a higher principle, a law in my members, &c. With the mind, I serve the law of God. The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath made me free, &c. In other words, to the assimilating tendencies of flesh, he traces up his inability to obey divine law, although in itself holy, and just, and good. And to the assimilating tendencies of Spirit, as having in the Messiah thoroughly obeyed divine law, and brought it to an end; and as being in the Messiah’s people a principle of love; is traced up the possession and exhibition of the first fruits of righteous or divine principle, by himself and his fellow believers.
ii. Flesh as a principle of assimilation, is limited; Spirit as a principle of assimilation, is unlimited. This arises from flesh, being the principle of a creature; and, spirit, the principle of the Creator. Flesh, as leading creature principle, may subdue, and does subdue, fleshly or creature mind to itself. But there its influence stops. It cannot, as mere creature principle, reach higher. Spirit, on the contrary, as the mind of the Creator, is universal and unlimited in its influence. Nothing is withdrawn, or, is Capable of being withdrawn, from its influence. Hence, while flesh is recognized as capable of subduing only soul, or fleshly mind, to itself; it is expressly declared, with regard to Him who is possessed of the spirit without measure, that he is able to subdue all things unto himself. Both flesh and spirit, thus have assimilating tendencies; but how delightful and glorious to think, that the partial and temporary assimilation of some things by the one, is subservient to, and to terminate in, the complete and everlasting assimilation of all things by the other.
9. The same subject.
What happened to our Lord’s personal body affords a simple and beautiful illustration of the assimilating nature of Spirit.
Before shewing this, it may be proper to submit some preliminary observations.
It is generally supposed, that the Lord Jesus, during the period of his abode upon earth, was conformed in all respects to the nature of the creature. This is in a certain [162] sense true. But like every thing else connected with the manifestation of the Creator in flesh it must be understood with a large salvo. For, in the first place, every tyro in the knowledge of the scriptures must be aware that the nature of the creature was not put upon Jesus involuntarily , as is the case with us; but that he assumed it voluntarily. Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. In the second place, the nature of the creature was assumed by the Creator, just in so far as he could assume it. The value and importance of this last remark will be best appreciated by those who have been enabled to enter into the spirit of the story of the brazen serpent lifted up on the pole by Moses, as quoted and applied to himself by our Lord in the gospel of John, and as briefly but instructively alluded to, by the Apostle Paul in Rom. 8:3. The cure of the Israelites was effected, not by one of the serpents, which had stung them, but by a figure fashioned exactly like one of those serpents. Just so, he by whom sin was taken away, came not in sinful flesh, or in the serpent-like nature of man, but came in the likeness of sinful flesh, as the antitype of the brazen serpent. What is all this but informing us, that the Creator assumed and appeared in the nature of the creature, just as far as the Creator could do so; that is, in other words, that, when he assumed the nature of the creature, and to appearance conformed himself to that nature, he was in reality and of necessity, conforming that nature to his own. It was the likeness of mere human nature, not mere human nature itself that he appeared in. If, as a man, the Creator was during his earthly state in all points made like unto his brethren, or conformed himself to them; as a man, likewise, he was without sin, or conformed the nature which he had assumed to his own divine nature.
These preliminaries being understood and admitted, I observe, that, when we consider Christ’s personal body, two distinct steps in the process of its assimilation to spirit are clearly discernible. First. The assimilation of flesh and blood by Christ’s personal body during its earthly state, to a pure flesh and blood body. And Secondly. A still farther assimilation is exhibited, in our Lord’s converting what had been a pure flesh and blood body, into a heavenly and glorious body.
In the first place, our blessed Lord manifested the assimilating nature of Spirit by rendering the personal body which he assumed, during his abode upon earth, a pure flesh and [163] blood body. — In Adam, body, like mind, had corresponded to the nature of its possessor. As a creature, his body was creaturely merely. But as a creature who was the type or figure of the Creator, his body was the emblem of that superior body in which the Creator was afterwards to make his appearance. That superior body was the personal body of the Lord Jesus Christ. A body hast thou prepared for me. As the product of Spirit, or heavenly mind, operating upon flesh and blood, and thereby assimilating these to itself, Christ’s body while similar to, was nevertheless thoroughly distinguished from the bodies of Adam and his posterity. It was no doubt like Adam’s, rendered capable of suffering, and capable of dying. But instead of having been like his shadowy, it was substantial; instead of having been impure, it was pure; instead of having been corruptible, it was incorruptible. So far from his flesh and blood, having been imaginary, or merely apparent, flesh and blood, an idea which the Docetæ are charged with having held, it was soul and substantial flesh and blood: indeed, the only real and substantial flesh and blood that ever existed. It was thus flesh and blood assimilated to spirit, as far as flesh and blood, while continuing such, were capable of being. — In this way, the impossibility of spirit, or the nature of the Creator, conforming itself to the nature of the creature, except through the medium of really conforming the nature of the creature to itself began to be developed. And by this first step of assimilating flesh and blood as such to itself, was paved the way for that ulterior process of assimilation by Spirit, of which we are now to speak.
In the second place. The rendering of the personal body of the Lord Jesus pure, even as a flesh and blood body, was merely subservient to the conversion of the pure flesh and blood body into a spiritual body. This was to carry the process of assimilation a step farther. — The history of the manner in which this was effected, may be thus abridged. While on earth, our blessed Lord was very peculiarly situated. His body was pure; but pure as it was it had no right to enter into the heavenly kingdom. From heaven it stood excluded by the sentence, that flesh and blood should not inherit the kingdom of God; a sentence which affected the Creator manifested in the nature of the creature, no less than the mere creature himself. There was but one way in which the Creator could introduce his personal body into heaven. That was, by parting with or getting rid of, its flesh and blood, or [164] creature form. He required, therefore, to sacrifice or destroy it, as a flesh and blood body. This he did. He offered himself a sacrifice without spot, unto God. Immediately the assimilating influence of spirit went forth to a still greater extent than at first; and what had appeared, previous to his crucifixion, merely a pure flesh and blood body, now appeared, when risen from the dead, in the still higher form of a heavenly, glorious, and spiritual, body. It was the same body, as was proved satisfactorily to Thomas; but it was the same body in another, because a superior state. — Jesus’ body after his resurrection from the dead, was no longer flesh and blood. It was flesh and blood, formerly rendered pure, now rendered spiritual. In other words, it was pure flesh and blood body converted into spiritual body; the same Spirit which, by the birth of Jesus into this world, had accomplished the former step in the process of assimilation, having, by his resurrection from the dead which was his birth into the heavenly state, accomplished the latter also. With his body thus rendered spiritual, Jesus appeared and disappeared at pleasure; and with it thus changed, he finally ascended into Heaven. One step in the assimilation of Christ’s personal body by Spirit to itself, thus having been subservient and preliminary only to a second and higher step, how strikingly is there thus evinced to us the tendency of Spirit, as supreme power, to assimilate all other things to its own nature. And how absurd, thereby, are proved to be the views of those who, while, correctly enough, they maintain that Christ carried with him to heaven the same body which he had on earth, speak as if they conceived him to possess that body now in the same form in which he had it then. — “He has,” say they, “a flesh and blood, or human, body, now.” — No truly. His flesh and blood body, or, rather, his body in its flesh and blood form, he parted with, and parted with for ever, when he voluntarily sacrificed it on mount Calvary.
10. Christ’s state after his resurrection, the same as previous to his incarnation.
Some remarkable circumstances connected with the resurrection state of the Lord Jesus, may here be fitly alluded to. Alluded to, I say, for it is far from being my intention to exhaust the subject. By a mind pretty well taught from above, the nature of Spirit, as distinguished from Soul, will, through the medium of what follows, be more correctly ap-[165]prehended. Minds of another description, I would recommend to pass over this section entirely; as, if they attach any meaning to it at all, it is but too probable they will suppose my intention to be exactly the opposite of what it is.
Be it observed, then, that as time, no less than space, is a mere state or affection of the human mind, we are unable to conceive of any person or thing except as existing in time. There is but one way in which, consistently with this mental constitution of ours, eternity, and things connected with eternity, can be presented or rather suggested, to us. We must have it shewn to us, not absolutely, but as existing, previous to time, and subsequent to time. It is in accordance with this principle, that the nature of our blessed Lord, as eternal, is set before us. He had a time existence; or, there was a period during which he appeared on earth, and as a man had intercourse with men. But his existence, properly speaking, was an eternal one. In appearing in flesh, he was merely accommodating to a certain degree the nature which was peculiar to him, to our understandings and to our circumstances. How was the higher intimation to be conveyed to us, that he was an eternal being? Why, merely by shewing him as existing previous to his becoming man, and as existing subsequently to his ceasing to be man. — But existence previous to time, and existence subsequent to time, are all the conception which we are able to form of eternity. — When Jesus then, is declared to have existed before he assumed flesh, and to continue to exist after he has put off flesh, he is thereby declared to be possessed of eternal existence. He is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
This, by the way, while it furnishes us with the only conception of eternal existence which, while in flesh, we are capable of attaining to, furnishes us also, with the true distinction between Soul and Spirit. Soul is mind confined in its existence to time. Spirit is mind which existed before time began, shewed itself for certain purposes existing in time, and continues to exist after time comes to an end. Soul, therefore, cannot be the same as Spirit; although it may be, as in scripture it is, actually represented to be the figure of Spirit. Plato evidently had caught a glimpse, from Revelation, of the truth in regard to this matter, when he held, that immortality á parte post, or future immortality, [166] necessarily implies immortality á parte ante, or past immortality. That is, his acute mind, could not separate an eternal existence after time, from an eternal existence before time. He blundered, undoubtedly, in supposing that such an existence could be predicated of the mere human soul. But his blunder was not greater than that of the majority of those calling themselves Christians, who while they deny to the soul an immortality á parte ante, nevertheless contend for its possessing an immortality á parte post. Nay, it was less. For, in the first place, he had not the advantage of that gospel Revelation, by which life and immortality have been brought to light. And, in the second place, by establishing the necessary connection between a past, and a future, immortality, although he neither succeeded, nor could have succeeded, in shewing that such an immortality belonged to the mere human soul, he may nevertheless be said to have in some measure anticipated, one of the most glorious New-Testament discoveries, respecting the nature of spirit.
But to return.
The following circumstances of resemblance, or rather identity, between the state of the Being who spoke to the Old Testament Fathers, and the state of him who conversed with his disciples during forty days after his resurrection, are selected out of many others that might be adduced and insisted on. They appear to me to be so remarkable that I think they can scarcely fail to arrest the notice of even the most undiscerning.
i. It appears to have been one in the form of a man, who conversed with our first parents in Paradise, and with Abraham at the tree under Mamre. It was one in the form of a man, with whom Jacob struggled during the whole night, even until break of day; and from whom he ultimately received the blessing. It was one in the likeness of a man, who proclaimed himself to Joshua, to be the Captain of the Lord’s host; who did wondrously in the sight of Manoah; who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, &c. So Jesus, in the form of a man, conversed with his disciples frequently after his resurrection. Especially, on the evening on which that event took place; on the evening of that day se’nnight; at the Lake of Tiberias; and at the period of his ascension.
ii. The Being who appeared as a man to the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets, was possessed of sovereign authority; issuing his commands, bestowing his rewards, and [167] inflicting his punishments, as such. — So, Jesus, after his resurrection, assured his disciples, that all power was given to him in heaven and earth; the promises which he gave to them personally, and the exact fulfilment of these, testifying to the truth of his statement, and the right which he had to issue the Apostolic Commission.
iii. He who appeared in the form of a man to Abraham, condescended to partake of the food prepared by Sarah, which the Patriarch set before him. — He who appeared to his disciples at the Lake of Tiberias, also ate of their provisions.
iv. The being who conversed with the Patriarchs, appeared and disappeared, that is, assumed and laid aside, the human form, at pleasure. — So did the Son of God, after his resurrection. He all at once appeared in the midst of the eleven while they set at meat; not by suddenly opening and shutting the door, after the manner of a juggler as has been supposed; but by assuming for the time, and for a particular purpose, the human form. This, both before his incarnation, and subsequent to his resurrection, was to him perfectly easy. He was then the substantial being. In putting on the human form it was the substantial, for the moment assuming a shadowy appearance. Very differently, however, was he situated while on earth. He had then, for a most glorious, and to us all-important, purpose, substantialized in himself our shadowy nature. But when he had accomplished the purposes for which that temporary assumption had taken place, he destroyed, by sacrificing it, this substantialized human nature. Thenceforward human nature became, as previous to his incarnation it had been, a mere shadowy nature. And as, previous to his appearance in flesh he shewed it to be shadowy, by assuming it and laying it aside, at pleasure; so, after his resurrection, by appearing and disappearing at pleasure, he not only shewed himself to be the same being who had manifested himself to the patriarchs previous to his incarnation, but also, that he had returned again to the very same state, in which he had been previously.
Observing and understanding then, this singular fact, of the Messiah having appeared subsequent to his resurrection, in the same state in which he appeared previous to his incarnation, some passages of scripture, otherwise puzzling, become quite easy and intelligible. We now perceive how it was, that he who ascended into Heaven, is the same being [168] who had previously descended from heaven; how, during the days of his flesh, the Messiah could pray, to be glorified with his Heavenly Father, with the glory which he had had with him, before the world was; and, above all how the glorious Being, whom John saw in mystic vision, could use the sublime language; I am the first, and the last; I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore. But, what is still more to our present purpose, in the light of the scriptural phenomenon of mind existing before time, and existing after time, we acquire our best, because our most correct, notions, of what spirit, as distinguished from soul, is. And in the light of spirit, having clothed itself with an existence in time, that it might thereby acquire an opportunity of bestowing upon soul an existence throughout eternity, we acquire a more correct idea of the manner in which soul becomes immortal, than by adopting the common, but unscriptural, view, of ascribing to soul, immortality of itself.
“But is there not something excessively puzzling in the proposed conception of a Being, whose state previous to his incarnation, was exactly the same as that in which he appeared subsequent to his resurrection?”
There is; and that simply because the idea proposed is a spiritual one. Were eternity spoken of after the popular fashion, as time which has neither beginning nor end, the natural mind is able, or, what is to the same effect, fancies that it is able, to form some conception of it. Time is one of the original modes, forms, or affections, of the human soul; and, therefore, the protracting of time indefinitely backwards and forwards, is within the scope of a mere soulical effort. But, let eternity be spoken of as what is before and after time; that is, as what is independent of it; immediately soul is hurried out of its depth: and this, because a spiritual idea, that is, an idea superior to those with which it is naturally conversant, has been presented to it. To suppose that under such circumstances mere soul should not be puzzled, would be, both to contradict the express language of the Apostle in 1 Corinth. 2:14, and to suppose the existence of a more stupendous miracle than any of those which stand recorded in the scriptures of truth.
11. Assimilating nature of Spirit, resumed.
To resume the consideration of the subject treated of, in the last section but one.
We have seen, that Spirit assimilated to itself the personal body of the Messiah.
[169] i. By rendering it a pure flesh and blood body. That is, Spirit in apparently conforming itself to the nature of the earthy, was in reality conforming the nature of the earthy to itself.
ii. By the still farther step of converting the pure flesh and blood body, through death, and the resurrection from the dead, into a spiritual body. That is, the partial conformity of the earthy to the spiritual which took place in the former step, ran up into complete conformity in the present one. The complete spiritual mind, now inhabited complete spiritual body.
But the assimilating power displayed by Spirit, in its operation on the personal body of the Messiah, was far from having exhausted itself in that glorious result. On the contrary, the blessed change effected on the Messiah’s body by means of the resurrection, was merely the precursor and first fruits of still more glorious consequences to follow: —
1. The work of assimilation is carried on farther, in conforming to Spirit, even during their fleshly existence, the minds of a few privileged individuals of the human family. This is effected by means of a process the most simple and efficacious. A discovery is made to them of God, not as what he necessarily appeared to be previous to the Messiah’s resurrection, the prescriber of law, and exactor of its fulfilment, but as announcing the fulfilment, nay, the complete exhaustion of law, by Him who was necessarily and essentially one with us. Rom. 10:4. To have this fact revealed to the conscience of any one on divine authority, is to have God manifested to that individual as what he is, viz, Love. And to have the knowledge of God as Love, is to have that enmity to God wherein the essence of fleshly mind consists, Rom. 8:7, superseded by love to God, as having first loved us, 1 John 4:19, the essence of spiritual mind. Rom. 8:2,5, &c. Thus, then, to have had conferred upon us the first fruits of spiritual mind, is to have experienced the assmilating influence of Spirit within.
2. Spirit having thus succeeded in assimilating to itself the minds of certain human beings, and this by establishing in their consciences the first fruits of spiritual principle, thereby paves the way for that resurrection of their bodies from the dead, glorious and spiritual bodies, in which a still further display of its assimilating power is afforded. Thus does the energy of Spirit travel downwards. Having subdued to itself [170] during the currency of their earthly life the impure soulical minds of the destined heirs of salvation, by the manifestation to them of God as he is revealed in Christ, it exhibits still further power, in conforming to itself, at the resurrection of the just, even the impure fleshly bodies of these same individuals. Sown in corruption, ir raises them in incorruption; sown in dishonour, it raises them in glory; sown in weakness, it raises them in power; sown as soulical bodies, it raises them as spiritual bodies. 1 Corinth. 15. The spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, having, while they were on earth, dwelt in them, a divine power had been put forth in them, which, reaching and penetrating to their mortal bodies, ultimately, quickens even them; that is, by raising them from the dead in due time glorious bodies, ultimately conforms and assimilates even them, to the spiritual nature of their minds. In this way it is shewn, that the power of Spirit, although, in regard to us, it begins by the reconciliation, and thereby the assimilation, of impure minds to itself, is not limited to this effort; but is able, in the case of a certain quantity of impure fleshly matter at least, to conform or assimilate even it to its own nature.
Does the process of assimilation to itself by Spirit end here?
Most of those who make a profession of Christianity think that it does. Spirit appears to them, in the resurrection of Christ and his believing people, to have exhausted its assimilating energy. Thenceforward, it is engaged in a hopeless and everlasting struggle with the opposite principle of flesh: flesh having succeeded in assimilating to itself the whole family of man, Rom. 3:10-20; and spirit being able to wrest and rescue from its grasp, only a small proportion of those thus originally subjected to its sway. This view of matters is satisfactory to such persons, because, they themselves being destitute of spiritual principles altogether, or having but very feeble apprehensions of spiritual things, have never comprehended the object of the manifestation of God in flesh, nor the glorious steps by which that object has been accomplished. And, therefore it is that the eternal struggle of the good principle with the evil one, the grand dogma of Manicheanism, comes, for want of a better, to be acquiesced in as true, by religionists of almost all descriptions.
Persons somewhat better, because spiritually informed, in regard to these matters, have their attention arrested [171] by the following suggestions and declarations of the word of God.
First. To its suggestions. These are, —
1. That all persons and things which were once seen, or are now beheld, are mere figures. — This is shewn in regard to the inferior animals. In how many passages of scripture are they introduced, when it is apparent, that what they signify, and are calculated to teach, and not what they are in themselves, is the object kept in view by the inspired writers. See, in proof of this, Psalm 104, Isaiah 11:6-9 and innumerable other portions of sacred writ. — It is shewn in regard to man. Adam is expressly declared to have been the figure of him that was to come. So were, in different ways, the patriarchs, priests, and kings of old, as is manifest as well by express references to them, as by the general tenor of their history. The King of Babylon, Nineveh, etc., were figurative. The Jews, as a nation, were emblematic of the New Testament Church. And so on. — It is shewn in regard to the Old Testament Dispensation. All its ceremonies were the shadows of better things to come, and figures of the true. — It is shewn in regard to the present heavens and earth. These, as now figurative of, are destined in due time to give place to, new Heavens and a new Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2. That all natural things are to undergo a thorough change, by being made new. That a new state of things was to supersede that which existed before the coming of the Messiah, is the declaration of more than one passage of the Old Testament Scriptures. Let one serve for a specimen of the rest. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. — This shall be the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer. 31:31,33. And that a new state of things is to supersede that which at present exists, is equally the declaration of the New Testament. The Heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth, also, and all the things that are therein, shall be burnt up. 2. Peter 3:10. The former prophecy received its accomplishment in the passing away of the law, as having been fulfilled and exhausted by the Son of God; the latter shall receive [172] its accomplishment, likewise, in the passing away of the things of time and sense, as having been realized in, and swallowed up by, the same glorious personage.
Now what is the hint, in regard to Creation, suggested by the figurative character of all things that now are, and by the fact of their being ultimately superseded by a new and more glorious state of things? Why, evidently, this: that the elements of the present material creation are not substances, or realities, for, if so, they could not have passed away; and therefore, that what is commonly denominated creation, was not the bringing of substances, or realities, into existence.
Second. Let us now listen to what the word of God declares directly respecting the nature of Creation.
The information wanted is contained in the following passage: —
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things that are seen, were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3. For an explanation of this passage, clear and simple when understood as it is, it will be in vain to look into the pages of that dull and stupid, although laborious, writer, McKnight. Occupied as his mind was among Greek particles, a subject which, although minute and suited to his range of intellectual vision, he seems never to have scripturally understood, his views of divine truth when he chooses to propound them, are of the most superficial and worthless description. But, blessed be God, the latter part of the verse quoted, the only part of it with which we are now concerned, speaks for itself. The mere English reader, if taught from above, needs not to have recourse to Commentators for its meaning.
First. It evidently states, that the things which are seen were not made out of nothing. They were produced out of things which do not appear; μη εκ φαινομενων.
Secondly. It as evidently states that visible things were not made, out of any ιλη, or pre-existent matter, similar in its nature to theirs. They were produced not out of such matter, which would have been shadowy, but out of things not now appearing, that is, out of substances.
Taking these facts, along with the indirect suggestions contained in this verse, what is the conclusion to which they lead?
Why, certainly this: — that the things of the visible creation, are not substances, but shadowy resemblances projected [173] into space and time, from substances, actually and eternally existing, and destined in due time to make their appearance, but not now, either beheld, or capable of being beheld. See 1 John 3:2. That is, the putting forth of creative energy by God, through His word, was certainly the giving of a temporary existence to things which had not possessed that temporary existence before, and the doing so, not out of materials corresponding to these things previously in being; but nevertheless, the things thus called into temporary existence were shadows, not substances; and for the temporary existence conferred on them, they were indebted to that everlasting existence of substances, whose shadowy resemblances they are, and into which, as is fitting, they are ultimately again to be resolved.
This theory has the advantage of being, not only simple and the sense of the passage quoted; but, what is of far more importance, of being self-consistent, consistent with the whole tenor of divine revelation, and capable of explaining and removing all the difficulties connected with the subject under which the profoundest philosophers have hitherto confessedly laboured. It is the lever which Kant, the profoundest of them all, evidently wanted, as appears from his observations on Substance, in his prolegomena to Metaphysic, and the confessedly sceptical results of his Theology.
Are the bearings of the preceding observations upon the subject of Spirit in any way ambiguous? I should think not. What is Spirit — but the mind to which Creation owes its origin, and of whose glories and excellencies the various parts of creation are strikingly emblematic? What is Soul — but the mind which was brought into existence with Creation, which is fitted for its contemplation and enjoyment, and which, as itself a portion of creation, is destined to expire along with it? Shadowy things, as all things are which we behold, are thus fitly apprehended, by an equally shadowy mind. But, this shadowy mind, no more than the external shadows by which it is surrounded, could have existed, unless there had existed previously and everlastingly a substantial mind of which it was the figure and emblem.
This Spirit, or substantial mind, was exhibited in flesh in the person of the Son of God. And, delightful to think, occasionally likewise even still there appear in time, the first fruits of substantial or spiritual mind, in a few individuals possessed of the divine principle of faith; forming in their [174] case a closer connection between their present, and a future, state, than what falls to the lot of the ordinary sons and daughters of humanity.
Creation was thus the giving of a shadowy, temporary, and subservient existence to the things which we now behold.
The new Creation, is merely the rendering of the realities of these shadowy things, visible to, and capable of being enjoyed by, those who had themselves previously constituted a portion of the natural creation. And this is effected by means of the making of those persons themselves new, and thereby causing them to become a portion of the New creation, by the Son of God.
Beautifully is this subject, especially the contrast between the Old, and the New, Creation, set forth in the 8th Psalm. Man, contemplated with reference to the former, appears to be a being of the utmost insignificance. The reason of this is, that man as a portion of the natural creation is merely one of a number of shadows, and is actually himself dependent for his existence, paltry as it is, upon these very shadows. But let the picture be reversed and man be viewed with a reference to the spiritual creation, and the prospect becomes most glorious. Jesus the divine man, as having made all things new in himself, and we as one with him, are then represented as having all things under our feet, and subjected to our sway. The natural creation is then seen to have been a mere series of figures and representations, emblematic of the glory and happiness which we, through Christ, and as partakers of his nature, are destined to enjoy. How wonderful to think, that the very ideas of the natural mind, — those ideas which some philosophers have been inclined to regard as the only real existences, — are thus shewn to have substantiality, not certainly in themselves, for in themselves they are shadows, — but in that knowledge, and in those ideas, and those enjoyments, which constitute the very essence of the divine nature.
12. The Atonement.
Another way in which the nature of Spirit may be exhibited, is through the medium of a scriptural view of the doctrine of the atonement.
This doctrine, most glorious in itself, has been completely overloaded with mistakes by those who are commonly called the Orthodox. 1. God, in consequence of the atonement, has been represented as being reconciled to the creature; [175] at the expense of bringing a charge of changeableness against the Most High. 2. God after uttering threats of eternal damnation, has been represented as, for the sake of Christ, not carrying these into effect; at the expense of the divine veracity. 3. The creature has been represented as needing to perform the conditions of faith, &c. in order to render the atonement effectual and available to himself, the completeness, and perfection of the atonement being thereby of course denied.
Vile, however, as this caricature of the atonement is, blessed be God, we are not, in consequence of rejecting it, obliged to avail ourselves of the unscriptural system of Socinus and his followers. We can repudiate the dreams of orthodoxy without embracing the infidelity, childishness, and naturalism, of the Racovian Catechism. While we maintain, borne out by the inspired record, that it is not the Creator who is reconciled to the creature, but the Creator who, in Christ, is reconciling the creature to Himself; — that the Creator, after having issued threatenings executes them exactly, and to the very uttermost, the benefit of the atonement consisting, not in God passing from, or dispensing with any of his threatenings, but in his rendering the complete execution of them, consistent through the work of Christ with the free gift of eternal life; — and that the completeness of the atonement is such as to supersede the possibility of any condition being performed, or any thing being added to it, by the creature; — we can nevertheless contend for the necessity, and magnify the glory, of that atonement which was finished on the cross, in strains as lofty, and with gratitude as strong, as ever emanated from the lips, or were experienced by the hearts of any of those who arrogate to themselves the exclusive appellation of the orthodox.
Without entering into any investigation of the meaning of the English word atonement, and assuming reconciliation, or atonement, to be an adequate representation of what is implied in the Greek word καταλλαγη, I observe that, with all those who really understand the subject, I receive and maintain, as one of the prime articles of my creed, the doctrine of sin having been taken away by the self-sacrifice of the Son of God, and of the creature having been reconciled to the Creator thereby.
So completely has this exceedingly plain and simple subject been deformed and obscured by errors on every side, [176] that my difficulty is to seize upon the point of view in which I may at one and the same moment, present it clearly, and also expose the mistakes by which it has been neutralized. In my Assurance of Faith, vol. ii. pp. 100-117, I have thrown out some hints regarding this matter, which may be useful to those who choose to peruse them. Here, my intention is, while I bring before my readers, the same general idea of the subject which is there given, to avoid as much as possible travelling over the same ground which I have there done; and to avail myself of those clearer notions, as well as of that greater ability to simplify my views, which have been the result of some years’ additional divine teaching and reflection.
There are two parts of the popular scheme of the atonement which carry with them a very decided approximation to truth. The one is, that the atonement was wrought out by means of Christ’s fulfilment of divine law. The other, that we are saved by the combined influence of his active and passive righteousness; that is by what he did, taken along with what he suffered. There is truth in both these averments; but truth alas! so vaguely expressed, and so inadequately apprehended, as to be, in so far as a clear exhibition of the subject and other practical purposes are concerned, nearly unavailing.
The fact is, 1st, that although the atonement did take place in connection with Christ’s fulfilment of divine law, yet it implied, not merely fulfilment of it in the sense of yielding perfect obedience to it, but also such absolute and complete exhaustion of it, as to leave it no longer any existence or possibility of existence. And, 2ndly, that although Christ’s obedience to law previous to the closing scene, as well as his enduring of the accursed death of the cross, are both concerned in the atonement; they are so in two very different senses; the former, indirectly, the latter, directly; the former as a preliminary step, the latter, as that to which the preliminary step pointed, and from which it received all its worth and efficacy.
Retaining what is valuable in the two views just adverted to, and dismissing the rest, I observe, that the atonement is represented in scripture as having been accomplished by means of two steps or processes, distinctly, and yet closely and inseparably connected. The one is, the preliminary step, which consisted in the perfect obedience rendered by the [177] Messiah to divine law. The second is, the atonement properly so called, which consisted in the self-sacrifice of the Son of God, by which not merely were the demands of law satisfied, but law itself was at once and for ever, exhausted.
First, or preliminary, step.
The perfect obedience rendered by the Messiah in pure flesh and blood, to divine law.
Two laws, properly speaking, are all that have ever emanated from the Most High. The one was of the nature of a prohibition to the first man; was given to him immediately after his creation; and was by him soon violated. — The other was, what is commonly denominated the law of Moses. Its summary, indeed, its express language, was, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, &c. This law is generally supposed to have been issued to the nation of the Jews; and there is a sense in which the supposition is perfectly correct. It was given to them ostensibly, and in the first place; and this, 1st to bring out, and make manifest their inability to fulfil it. The law entered that the offence might abound. Rom. 5:20. 2nd. As a schoolmaster to rein in, and chastise, them, until he by whom it was to be fulfilled, should make his appearance. Gal. 3:24. But it never was given to the Jews, for the purpose of being fulfilled by them as a nation, or by any ordinary individual, or individuals, among them. This leads me at once to the real object of that law. It was ordained by angels, in the hand of a mediator. Gal. 3:19. In plain English, it was the law of God to Jesus of Nazareth, the second man, the Lord from Heaven. — The law imposed on Adam, the creature, was the most trifling; that on Jesus, the Creator, the most difficult; that can be conceived. The one, to abstain from violating a prohibition which scarcely imposed any restriction at all, the other, not only to abstain from violating every conceivable prohibition, forbidding sins of heart as well as life, but actively to fulfil the summary of divine law already quoted. The object of all this was, to bring out the complete difference subsisting between the respective natures of the two. The nature of the former, was unable to resist the slenderest of temptations; the nature of the latter, triumphed over every temptation and every obstacle. The nature of the former, could yield no obedience to divine law as such; the nature of the latter, could do nothing else than obey divine law, [178] for that law was within his heart, or constituted his very being. To Jesus, then, was the law of Moses given. He was a Jew; and, as such, by fulfilling it, he emancipated his countrymen externally from its yoke. He was a man, the man Christ Jesus; and as such, his obedience redounded internally to the advantage of the human race. — Numerous, marked, and beautiful, allusions to the Messiah, and to the obedience which he was to render to this divine law, constitute the very staple of the Old Testament Scriptures. It is almost always couched in the singular number, as addressing him; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, &c. He is set before us as the sole fulfiller of it, in the 15th, and 24th, and other psalms. — In a word, the law of Moses, was the law of the Messiah; addressed to him, understood by him, obeyed by him, as such. From violations of its prohibitions, he abstained; its injunctions, he fulfilled. In heart, no less than in life, he complied with it. In this way, did he prove himself to have been made under the law; or, as emphatically expressed by the same Apostle elsewhere, to have been the end of it. Rom. 10:4.
Second, or finishing, step.
The sacrifice, by the Messiah of the nature by which divine law had been obeyed.
The obedience rendered, by the Lord Jesus, to the divine law, while he retained his earthly life, was in every respect but one, complete. By him, all evil, external and internal, had been avoided. By him, all the types and ceremonies of the Law which referred to the Messiah, with the exception of those which prefigured his sacrifice as the pure victim, had been accomplished. Jesus, as the perfect man, had fairly entitled himself to the everlasting continuance of his earthly life. No man taketh my life from me. John 10:18. — By retaining that earthly life, however, instead of exhibiting perfect love to God and man, the Messiah would have exhibited the most intense selfishness; justice and truth having rendered necessary the forfeiture of this present life by every human being, and the continued life of the Messiah upon earth, had he chosen to retain it, implying, therefore, his own solitary existence, and the dropping off of the successive generations of the family of man around him, into the gulph of utter and irremediable destruction. Besides, had he retained his earthly life, his obedience to the law of God would have been incomplete; for the sacrifice of the pure earthly exis-[179]tence of the Messiah, constituted, in type, one of the most important features of the Mosaic economy, as well as was the express commandment which he had received of the Father. And, lastly, except by dying, he could not have fulfilled his own voluntary offer, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. Psalm 40:7, Heb. 10:7. The grand reason, however, of the sacrifice of his pure flesh and blood nature by the Son of God, was this: that as human nature or human beings, had been summed up naturally in Adam, for the purpose of sinning and dying in him; so human nature, or human beings, were summed up supernaturally, in a far closer and stricter union, in the Creator manifest in flesh; that in him that nature might be exhibited perfect, abstaining from every species of evil, and fulfilling every divine requisition; that in him, by his sacrifice of it, it might be thoroughly exhausted, be brought at once and for ever to an end; so as to render it impossible for it ever to exist again as human nature; and, lastly, that in him, it might be raised, changed, and glorified, no longer being human nature, but having been conformed by him to his own native, and original, glorious, divine nature: life everlasting, or divine life, thus, in and through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ Jesus as the second Adam, becoming the portion of those who had previously forfeited the life that now is, in and through the transgression of the first Adam. That is, the necessity and glory of the atonement consist in this: — God could compromise none of his attributes, could alter or reverse none of his threatenings; death had been denounced, as the wages of sin, against the whole family of man, and death, therefore, in one way or another, behoved to be executed upon all of them. Jesus came not into the world to interfere with a single divine threatening. He found the world condemned, justly condemned, on account of sin; and therefore, by his conduct, so far from impeaching, he confirmed the justice of the divine conduct. By the sacrifice of his pure earthly nature, even while taking sin away, he made a practical confession of sin, of the justice and propriety of the sentence denounced against it, and of the inherent worthlessness of the nature by which it had been committed. — Thus, then, human nature, as such in its purest possible form, came, by means of the sacrifice of the Messiah, to an end. — But although he could not rescue human nature from the condition righteously denounced against it, and never attempted to do so; he could, by changing human nature in himself [180] into his own divine nature, without in the slightest degree interfering with the righteous earthly forfeiture which he allows to take full effect, give it a direct right to heavenly blessings. This is, exactly, what he does. He presents human nature reconciled to God, not as such, for as such it is enmity against God and was destroyed by his atoning sacrifice, but as changed in himself into his own divine nature. He allows the sentence of death denounced against sin to take hold on every one of Adam’s descendants; and yet by his sacrifice of himself, and his resurrection from the dead to the resurrection of his own proper divine nature, he renders the execution of the sentence of death upon them as human beings, perfectly compatible with their enjoyment of life everlasting as one with him.
Through the atonement, then, God, is not, as popular religionists conceive, abating somewhat of the rigour of his righteous sentence, and saving human beings from torments which they otherwise must have endured, a scheme which represents God as changeable, and his law capable of being modified by circumstances; but, through the atonement of Christ, God can, while he executes every deserved and threatened judgment upon Adam’s descendants, to the very uttermost, thereby vindicating his justice and truth, also bestow upon them, freely, life everlasting. The atonement is that which shews God to be just, even while he is the justifier of the ungodly.
In all this, we have strikingly presented to us, the difference between Soul and Spirit. Soul, or earthly mind, as soon as it had the opportunity, with a view to the gratification of selfishness, broke the law, which had been issued to it in the shape of a single prohibition; and, when a series of divine laws were afterwards given forth from Mount Sinai, there was merely afforded an additional opportunity for the same fleshly mind, to manifest its thorough and rooted enmity to God by the abounding of the offence. — Spirit, or heavenly mind, on the contrary no sooner had the opportunity afforded to it, by the assumption of a pure flesh and blood nature, of displaying what it was, than it shewed itself disposed, and able, not merely to abstain from the violation of prohibitions merely, but to love the Lord, its God, with all, &c. O, how love I thy law; it is my study all the day. And not only so, after having thus obeyed divine law, Spirit, with a farther view to the glory of God, and the ulterior advantages thence [181] to accrue to the family of man, voluntarily sacrificed the pure fleshly nature by which that obedience had been rendered.
Few have suspected, much less observed, that the whole scheme of the atonement is to be found shadowed forth, by our blessed Lord, in his discourse with the rich young man, recorded Matt. 19:16-22. — The first question is, Good master, what good thing must I do, that I may inherit eternal life? To this, the answer is, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Thou shalt do no murder, &c. In other words, our Lord here informs his querist, that abstinence from all evil, and the observation of every divine precept, constituted the preliminary and indispensable step towards the attainment of his professed object. Strange to tell! so low was the young man’s opinion of the extent of the demands of divine law, and so high his estimate of his own attainments, that he durst say to Christ, All these things have I kept from my youth up. Well did Christ detect his ignorance of God and self, under which this poor man laboured, when, at the very outset of the conversation, he had hinted to him, that goodness was a divine, not a human attribute. Why callest thou me good? Thou who, by thy question, evincest thine ignorance of my character, as the being by whom alone divine law can be fulfilled, and exhausted; there is none good but one, that is God. To his vaunt of having perfectly obeyed divine law, in so far as abstinence from all evil, and the fulfilment of all commands, were concerned, the young man subjoins, what may be denominated his second question, What lack I yet? In answer to this comes forth the astounding injunction: — If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, &c. That is, as if our Lord had said, the perfection with which eternal life stands connected, no doubt consists, in the first place, in acquiring such a stock of merit as to entitle the performer to the continued and everlasting enjoyment of the life that now is; but more particularly, in the second place, in voluntarily parting with the whole of the earthly rights and privileges thus acquired, rendering them available thereby to the poor, and thus aspiring to a heavenly, instead of resting contented with an earthly reward. The young man understood not Christ thoroughly. All he could conceive of was, that in order to be perfect, he required to dispose of and give to others, his great earthly wealth. This he could not prevail on himself to do. He [182] went away sorrowful, for he had, &c. That is, he was made to evince his thorough ignorance of divine law, and the thorough selfishness of the motives by which in his obedience he had been actuated. But we now, in the light of the New Testament as a whole, can understand what Christ meant. We perceive that, in his answer to the second query, he was pointing to the generosity, and thereby the spirituality, of the nature, by which alone eternal life could be acquired; in other words, was pointing to the crowning act, and spiritual nature, of his own atonement. He, by his complete obedience to divine law, during the period of his abode upon earth, acquired such a stock of merit, as to enable him to set death, except by his own act, at defiance. No man taketh my life from me. But he acquired this stock, only to part with it. He sacrificed the nature by which law had been obeyed. This sacrifice was of the nature of a sale or exchange. For the joy that was set before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame. He became obedient unto death, even the accursed death of the cross; wherefore hath God highly exalted him. He sold the earthly life, and all the earthly advantages, which he had. — This sale or disposal, of his earthly life, was, that he might have to give to the poor. These are the children of men; who are poor indeed, in so much as, they have forfeited, in their earthly head, the life that now is, and have, in themselves, no right to any higher life. By parting with his earthly life, Jesus acquired a life of which he could make them partakers. And this, the Old Test. Scriptures had prophesied he should do. He hath dispersed; he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever. — And last of all, the Messiah thus had treasure in Heaven. He voluntary sacrificed his earthly life, with all its privileges and advantages, that is, all treasure on earth; and instead thereof, he received a Heavenly life at God’s right hand for evermore, where he has his redeemed ones, the travail of his soul, for his everlasting treasure and inheritance.
13. A necessary digression concerning law.
I am convinced that the preceding section, and even many other parts of this treatise, must have been in a great measure unintelligible to numbers of my readers, for want of not comprehending the principles of law, and not seeing their application to the case of Christ .
The object of all law, whether human or divine, is two-fold: —
[183] i. To define and prohibit evil; that is, to point out what is wrong, and to forbid the commission of it.
ii. To rein in, or restrain from the commission of the evil prohibited, by means of a sanction, or the threatening of punishment, annexed.
These things being premised, it may be observed farther: —
i. That laws are not required for the righteous, but for the unrighteous; not for the good, but for the bad; 1 Tim. 1:9,10; the righteous, or good, being influenced by principle and thereby constrained to the doing of what is right, needs no law; the unrighteous, or bad, being only capable of being restrained from the doing of what is wrong, by the dread of punishment, cannot dispense with law.
ii. That a man who is under law, owing obedience to it, can never, by his obedience, entitle himself to any positive reward at the hands of law. All that he is entitled to lay claim to, in the event of his being thoroughly obedient, — and this he may with the most perfect right and confidence insist on — is, that law shall let him alone, or, that he shall be exempted from punishment.
Does not every human being, gifted with common sense, who may peruse this treatise, know, that, under whatever form of government he may live, he is necessarily subjected to certain laws or prohibitions; that to the breach of these, penalties are annexed; that if righteous, or guiltless of breach of law, he can set their penalties at defiance; and yet, that if righteous or guiltless, that is, abstinent from evil, he can lay claim to no other and no higher reward, than mere exemption from punishment? — Is the principle of the last postulate any way ambiguous? The negative good, of abstinence from evil, surely can lay claim congruously to no other reward than one which is negative likewise, or corresponding to its own nature, such as is exemption from punishment: that is, it can lay claim, properly speaking, to no reward at all. Luke 17:9,10. And yet, learned theologians, forsooth, suppose the divine administration, although as they conceive an administration of law, to be conducted by means of rewards, as well as punishments! What nonsense, in matters of religion, will not the gravest, the most learned, and the most talented, of the human race, talk. 1 Corinth. 2:14.18
18 If, with a view to get rid of the absurdity which I attempt to fasten on them, they say, that they regard the divine administration as an administration of grace, and think themselves entitled to speak of rewards on that principle, — they are no way thereby, helped. For, if rewards be out of the question in a mere administration of law, still more so, in one of grace. Its blessings are not rewards, but favours gratuitously bestowed.
[184] Every lawyer, advanced no farther than the first stage of his professional studies, knows, that a law, or prohibition, unaccompanied by a sanction, or the threatening of a penalty in the event of its being transgressed, is perfectly nugatory: is, in fact so much waste paper. And no sanction, indeed, did the most learned jurisconsult, ever hear, or dream of, except the sanction of punishment. What would be thought of the wisdom of the legislature of a country, in which acts of abstinence from murder, robbery, falsehood, &c., should be declared positively rewardable in every case by money, goods, lands, and so on? You laugh at the idea? And yet, ignorant, impudent, hypocritical that you are, you can represent that as perfectly consistent for the wisdom of God to do, which you laugh to scorn when represented as emanating from the mere wisdom of man! O, the impudence of the soulical mind in spiritual matters! God rewarding with positive benefits, the mere negative avoidance of evil! Quid risum teneatis?
Now to apply the foregoing principles.
Adam, and the Lord Jesus, were both under law. The former, was put under it, as a creature. The latter voluntarily subjected himself to it, as the Creator. What has been laid down concerning law, if correct, must be found verified in the cases of both. And this, upon examination, it will be found to have been.
The law to which Adam was subjected, consisted of a single prohibition, with the sanction, or penalty, of death annexed. Of every tree of the garden, &c. Gen. 2:16,17. Applying our principles, it is obvious, that the only righteousness he ever attained to, or ever was capable of attaining to, was abstinence from the breach of this single prohibition. And also, that, as subject to law, he could deserve no positive reward; the only reward to which by any possibility, supposing him to have abstained from transgression, he could have acquired any right, having been merely, so long as the abstinence lasted, the negative one of exemption from the penalty threatened; that is, continued existence in the [185] state in which he had been originally created. And yet, Divines, as if desirous to evince the utter worthlessness of mere human speculations on the subject of religion, have imagined, that, by abstaining from transgression for a certain limited time, our natural progenitor might have acquired a positive right to a higher state of existence! Mere delirium! As well, suppose, that by abstaining from murder for a certain limited time, I acquire a positive right to a throne! What Protestant, avowing such notions, dare cast the doctrine of supererogation in the teeth of a Roman Catholic?
The law to which the Lord Jesus subjected himself, was that commonly called the Law of Moses. Gal. 4:4. That law, although in a certain sense given to the nation of the Jews, was in reality given to him the Jew, or seed of Abraham, par excellence. See Galatians, 3rd chapter, throughout. Had not the Creator intended to undertake, and had he not actually undertaken, the performance of Moses’ law himself, as it could never have been fulfilled by the creature it would have remained unfulfilled for ever; and the promise of blessings to be bestowed unconditionally on the families of the earth made to Abraham, through his seed, would have remained unfulfilled likewise. But Jesus was the end of Moses’ law for righteousness. Rom. 10:4. To him it pointed; Psalm 15, throughout; Luke 24:26,27,44; upon him it was imposed; Deut. 6:5, compared with Psalm 8, Psalm 60, 119:97, and Hebrews 10:5-10; by him it was fulfilled. John 19:30. The law which Jesus undertook to fulfil, he summed up in these words, words, indeed, addressed to himself: — Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, &c. Matt. 22:37-40. — Now, while under this law, Jesus, no more than Adam while under his one prohibition, could not merit any positive reward. All his obedience was due to the law under which he had been made; and, therefore, by rendering that obedience he could only keep up to the standard of its requirements, not go beyond it. Luke 17:9,10. If, while subject to law, he could have deserved any positive reward at its hands, law, in that case, must have altered its nature. Instead of a rigid and uncompromising exactor of obedience it would have assumed the character of the divine attribute of Grace. — But, the fact is, that while subject to law, Jesus entitled himself to no positive reward. He merely deserved, and received, the ordinary negative one; abstaining from evil, he was [186] exempted from punishment. Under such circumstances, no one, no, not even God himself, could have taken his life from him. Therefore, in so far as law was concerned, he might have set its penalties at defiance; retaining his life, and continuing upon earth for ever. He had entitled himself to the highest reward which mere law can confer, viz. a complete right of exemption from punishment. But higher right than this, while the subject of law, he neither had, nor pretended to have.
It will be obvious from all this, if understood, that there was no possibility of Jesus entitling himself to a positive reward, while he continued the subject of law. And, under such circumstances, it was equally impossible that he could become the subject of Grace; for, as the rightful subject of one Sovereign, he could not lawfully come under the jurisdiction of another. How could he withdraw himself from the authority of law?
There was but one way in which Jesus could cease to be the subject of law, and could become the subject of positive rewards. That was, his destroying, in obedience to the commands of law, the nature which had been subjected to law, and which had in other respects yielded obedience to it. The doing of this answered two most important ends or purposes. First. It withdrew the nature from law’s jurisdiction; death being the necessary termination of all authority. Rom. 7:1-4. Secondly. The very act of destruction, or sacrifice, of the nature subject to law, having been itself an act of obedience to law, and the highest possible act of obedience, John 10:18, end, Philip. 2:8, left law without the possibility of any farther requirement. Law, like the fabled venomous insect, had pointed its sting against itself. Thus, in sacrificing or destroying himself, Jesus at one and the same moment exhausted the nature subject to law, and exhausted law itself; bringing both by one and the same act to an end. What an astonishing, what a glorious, consummation!
Henceforward, the principle of positive reward, had full scope to operate. There being no longer any law to exact obedience — that law having been exhausted, and swallowed up by the Messiah in his death — Jesus became now the subject at once of positive reward, and of grace. Of positive reward, as due to an obedience so perfect as to be capable of despising the mere negative one of exemption from punishment. Phil. 2:6-11. Heb. 12:2. Of grace, as flowing from the [187] free purpose of God to one who had been originally the subject of law. Hence, the resurrection from the dead to the power of an endless life. — In a word, Jesus rose to the enjoyment of eternal life, not as the subject of law, and obedient to it while under it; for, as such, continued exemption from punishment was all he had a right to: but, by ceasing to be the subject of law, through the medium of such an obedience to it, as destroyed at once both his earthly nature and it.
14. Deductions and illustrations.
Some curious, striking, and instructive, facts, stand connected with the principles which have been just laid down and developed.
i. The very circumstance of God’s having placed Adam under law at his creation, implies, independently of every other consideration, that his nature was an unrighteous one. Knowing this, that the law, or law, is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient. 1 Tim. 1:9.
ii. Law was given to Adam, not that he might become righteous, and acquire a title to eternal life, by his obedience to it, as is commonly but erroneously supposed; but that, by his inability to abstain from violating it, his nature might be shewn to be unrighteous and deserving of punishment. Gen. 3:1-6,19. Rom. 5:20; 8:3.
iii. Christ’s human, or flesh and blood nature, which, as sinless, deserved to live for ever, having been sacrificed, or brought to an end, did not receive the exact reward which was its due. That reward was, the negative one, of exemption from death. To have been suitably, or appropriately, recompensed, the righteousness wrought out upon earth, should have stood connected with life continued upon earth. But the righteous flesh and blood nature having been sacrificed, was actually and violently deprived of its due. The just died for the unjust. 1 Peter 3:18.
iv. From the nature of law, it appears, that the Messiah could not possess two lives at one and the same time. I mean, a life upon earth; and a life in Heaven. Either, he behoved to retain the life subject to law, at the expense of never rising to the heavenly life, or he behoved to attain to the higher life, at the expense of parting with the other. It was impossible that two lives, one subject to law, and another not subject to law, could co-exist. How [188] evident from this, that, as in dying the Messiah brought completely and for ever to an end, that is, entirely destroyed, his pure earthly existence, the term sacrifice, applied to his death, is neither unmeaning, nor mere figurative, phraseology.
v. Absurd, indeed, in the light of the views just presented, appears to be the popular theory, respecting the right which Adam would have acquired to a higher state of existence, in the event of his having persevered in abstaining from evil for a time. Even the Creator manifest in flesh, we have seen, neither acquired, nor could have acquired, any such right. All that Jesus of Nazareth was entitled to as avoiding evil, was freedom from punishment. Nor claimed he more. He entered into heaven, not by mere abstinence from evil, but by sacrificing himself, which no mere creature either had a right, or would have been inclined to do. But if even the Creator, by abstaining from every species of evil, could not have earned for himself a title to eternal life, are we to be expected to swallow and digest the egregious nonsense, that the mere creature might, by abstaining for a time from the violation of a single trifling prohibition, have been able to do so?
vi. It follows that there is no possibility now of any man, or set of men, being subject to divine law, — yielding obedience to it, — or having works performed in obedience to it, being rewarded in a higher state of existence. And the reason is that divine law, as such, no longer exists. It is extinct. It found its end in the Son of God. When the Lord Jesus, in obedience to law, destroyed the nature which had been subject to law, he destroyed at the same time law itself. To pretend to be subject to divine law, then, is to pretend to be subject to that over which the Messiah triumphed in his cross, and which he swallowed up in his resurrection. Love, the principle of law, Rom. 8:4, and 13:8-10, may be implanted, and is implanted in the mind of every believer, constituting in him the first fruits of Spirit, or Spiritual mind. Law itself, however, he cannot be subjected to, it having been brought to an end by the Son of God.
vii. Law having no rewards to bestow, and merely denouncing punishment in the event of its being transgressed, how absurd the notions of such human beings as on the ground of law venture to anticipate rewards hereafter. The utmost that such persons were ever entitled to look for [189] from law, was, exemption from punishment if guiltless — punishment if guilty. But guilty they are. Therefore, forfeiture of the life that now is, as the punishment threatened by law, is what alone from it they can receive.
15. Spirit shortly defined.
Spirit is mind which sees, with absolute and infallible certainty, the truth of Christ’s death, and resurrection from the dead, in the light of, and in necessary connection with, our own death and resurrection from the dead. Likewise, to such a mind, the two things are inseparable. It sees that with the body with which Jesus appeared upon earth, which he sacrificed, and with which glorified he rose again from the dead, and not the body of Adam, to be that with which we have a vital union, and in the immortality of which we are immortal. By faith, therefore, it sees itself even raised with and seated with it, in heavenly places. Can such a mind feel conscious of being subject to law, and exposed to condemnation?
16. Were Christ’s body and mind, while he was upon earth, the same as what they are now?
All that has gone before must yield, in point of importance, to the subject which we now proceed to consider directly. I say directly, for indirectly it has already been presented in a great variety of shapes to the notice of my readers. To persons superficially acquainted with religion, what follows may appear to be more curious than useful; and, to the great majority of mankind, complicated, and difficult. But the complete understanding of it is so closely connected with the purgation of the conscience, and the removal of all its perplexities is by means of scripture, so easy, that, to the follower of the Lamb who has once thoroughly mastered it, it will be ranked among the most valuable of his religious acquisitions. Few subjects display more of the manifold wisdom of God.
To an objection urged some years since by my dear and highly respected friend, Mr. T. C. Cowan of Bristol, to my views regarding Soul and Spirit as they were brought under his notice in the vague and undefined way in which they first stood in my own mind, and which at the time I found it impossible honestly and satisfactorily to answer, I am indebted, under the teachings of God’s word, for that comparatively distinct and enlarged apprehension of the subject which I now possess.
[190] What is the answer to the question proposed at the head of this section?
There is a sense in which it may be said with perfect truth, that the body and mind of Christ now, are different from what they were, while he was upon earth. There is a sense in which it may be averred with equal truth, that they are the same. It is for want of attending at once to the differences, and the samenesses, that this subject has been involved in so much perplexity.
There is a sense in which it may be alleged with truth, that three distinct bodies, and three distinct minds, are spoken of in scripture. 1. These are the bodies and minds which ordinary human beings have. These are earthly, liable to suffering, and mortal. 2. There are the body and mind which Jesus had upon earth. These were, heavenly, and yet in the earthly form; not deserving to suffer, and yet capable of suffering; not deserving to die, and yet capable of dying. 3. There are the body and mind which Jesus now has. These are heavenly, incapable of suffering, and incapable of dying. To express the whole in few words: — we have three distinct bodies and minds set before us in Scripture. 1. Man’s body and mind. 2. Christ’s earthly body and mind. 3. Christ’s heavenly body and mind. In this sense, Christ’s body and mind now that he is exalted to glory, are different from what they were during the period of his sojourn upon earth.
There is a sense in which it may be alleged with equal truth, that there are only two bodies and two minds spoken of in Scripture. These are, 1, The bodies and minds of human beings as Adam’s descendants. And, 2, The body and mind of the Lord Jesus as now exalted to glory. What, in that case, it may be enquired, do you make of the body and mind which the Lord Jesus had, during his earthly abode? To this I answer: — 1. The body and mind of the Lord Jesus, while on earth, were not, properly speaking, a distinct body, and a distinct mind; but a body and mind compounded, and thereby partaking of the joint properties of, earthly body and earthly mind on the one hand, and heavenly body and heavenly mind on the other. With the former, it had flesh and blood, was capable of suffering, and capable of dying: with the latter, it had the qualities of purity, incorruptibility, and substantiality. 2. Upon examination, it will be found, that in every respect in which the body and mind of the Lord Jesus, while in flesh, resembled ours, they differed from his [191] present body and mind; and, on the contrary, in every respect in which they differed from our bodies and minds, they resembled his present body and mind. But a body and mind which thus possessed no qualities, but such as were common to it with one or other of two distinct bodies and minds, cannot themselves be spoken of as a distinct body and mind. Do not these facts and observations lead to the conclusion, that there is no real difference between the body and mind of Christ while on earth, and his body and mind now; the only difference being, his having dropped certain circumstances which assimilated his body and mind while formerly on earth to the bodies and minds of ordinary human beings?
Perhaps the shortest way of expressing the whole matter is: — the body and mind of the Lord Jesus now, are the same as the body and mind which he had while he was upon earth; but their state and circumstances are entirely changed.
In connection with the subject matter of this section, the following things will now be easily understood.
i. That as regards the body and mind which he had while upon earth, the Lord Jesus appears strikingly in his capacity of μετιτης mediator, or middle-man. It was neither the body and mind of Adam, nor the body and mind which Jesus now has, but stood between both, forming the connecting link between one and the other. As thus connecting earthly body and earthly mind, with heavenly body, and heavenly mind, the body and mind of the Lord Jesus in their earthly state served a most important and glorious purpose in the divine economy.
ii. That the body and mind of the Lord Jesus in their earthly state, were never intended to form the models of the body and mind of any other. They positively stand alone. Having been assumed for a temporary purpose merely, as soon as that purpose had been accomplished, they were destroyed, and destroyed for ever. Thus viewing the subject, it turns out that we were perfectly right in averring, that, properly speaking, there are only two distinct bodies and two distinct minds. 1. The earthly body and mind of Adam, after the nature and model of which all human bodies and minds are formed. And, 2, the present heavenly body and heavenly mind of the Lord Jesus, after the nature and model of which the minds and bodies of his people are new-formed or new-created. In one case, and in one case only, then, that of our blessed Lord, did pure body, and pure mind, [192] appear in the earthly form; never, when once that form had been brought to an end, to appear in it again. Such a body and such a mind, as Jesus had while upon earth, never existed before, and never can exist again.
17. Spirit in Christ, while on earth, was in the form of Soul.
We now approach to the consideration of a subject, which but for preceding observations and illustrations, would have been perfectly unintelligible; and yet which, notwithstanding all that has been said, I despair of making plain to the majority of my readers.
Spirit, or the mind of Christ, is presented to us in Scripture in two totally distinct states, and under two totally distinct aspects.
i. In the state in which it was during the period of his incarnation.
ii. In the state in which it has been since his resurrection, and in which it is destined to continue for evermore.
Of the former of these, we treat in the present; of the latter, in the immediately following, section.
i. The state in which Spirit was, and appeared, in our blessed Lord, during the period of his abode upon earth.
During the whole period of Christ’s incarnation, Spirit in him appeared in the form of Soul.— Even then, the mind of Jesus shews itself to have been spiritual not soulical, by such facts as these: It came direct from God, he having had no human father — it was connected with abstinence from all evil, from his earliest infancy — it exhibited itself in love to God, and desire to execute his high behests, even while the Messiah was to appearance a mere boy. Luke 2:46-50. — It drew down, while young, the favour of God and man, Luke 2:40,52. — It led him to submit to baptism at the hands of his forerunner, Matt. 3:15. — It resisted and overcame temptation of every kind when presented to him from without, Matt. 4:1-11. — It came out in contempt for worldly honours and advantages, disposition to do good to the bodies and minds of men, control over the elements, and ability to cure diseases as well as raise the dead — and, last of all, it led to complete fulfilment of Moses’s law, by himself as the end or object of it, and this, even to the voluntary offering up of himself, a sacrifice without spot unto God, as the anti-type of all the victims which its priesthood were continually sacrificing. — But if the mind of Jesus, even [193] while upon earth, was spirit, or spiritual, it was spirit, not in its proper form, but in the form of soul, or creature mind. It was connected with flesh and blood — it was subject to law — it was fitted for an existence upon earth alone — and it was capable of being subjected to sufferings and death. These and many others, which if necessary might have been enumerated, are all properties of soul; they all appeared in the Lord Jesus, during his incarnation; and the possession of them by him proves, that his mind, while he was upon earth, was fairly entitled to the appellation of soul.
Hence we find him saying, during the days of his flesh, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; hence it was declared by the Psalmist, speaking in his name, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; and so on.
These things being premised and understood, I observe,
That, in the Lord Jesus, during his earthly state, Soul, or earthly mind, appeared pure and substantial, having been assimilated to itself so far by heavenly mind; just as in him, during the same period, earthly body appeared pure and substantial, having been assimilated to itself so far by his heavenly body likewise.
That the soul and body of the Lord Jesus, while on earth, did not consist merely of two natures brought into juxtaposition, as the Nestorians, and even the orthodox suppose; but were a compound, if one may so speak, of the nature of the creature, and the nature of the Creator, exhibiting the form, the flesh and blood, and the limitation of the one, in combination with the heavenly attributes of the other; the assimilation to itself so far of the flesh and blood nature which the Messiah assumed, during its earthly state, shewing, that when appearing in the likeness of sinful flesh, it was neither necessary nor possible, for the Creator to put himself exactly upon a level with the creature.
And that Spirit appeared in the form of Soul, in the Lord Jesus, during his earthly state, not that it ever could or might so appear in the case of any other, but that having in its soulical form, obeyed divine law, sacrificed itself, and accomplished the other purposes for which its manifestation took place, it might thereby pave the way for, and become the means of, the appearance of Soul in the form of Spirit, for evermore.
18. Spirit in Christ, since his resurrection, has appeared in its own proper form.
[194] To form positive conceptions of what the Lord Jesus is now, and has been, since he quitted this our world, and ascended into glory, is not within the power of man, constituted and situated as he now is. Indeed, it is only by faith that the subject can in any way whatever be thought of. It doth not yet appear what we shall be: but this we know, this is the province of faith and faith alone, that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3:2. At the same time, the word of God hath furnished us with so many clear and explicit negative declarations, that is, declarations of what the state of the Lord Jesus now is not, as to enable us to think and speak at least intelligibly, concerning the subject.
Thence, we know that: —
Pure Spirit in Jesus now, is heavenly mind unconnected with flesh. Not unconnected with what had been flesh; for his fleshly body Jesus hath carried with him into heaven; but unconnected with what is now flesh; for in rising from the dead, he rose with his fleshly body, changed into spiritual and heavenly body, and thereby fitted for its ascent to glory, and everlasting residence above. Jesus is not, therefore, now both God and man in two distinct natures for ever, as certain Protestant formularies most absurdly teach; but he is the Creator who was once manifest in flesh, and who with flesh and blood, no longer such, but changed and glorified in himself, hath ascended to his throne in the heavenly mansions.
Pure Spirit in Jesus now is heavenly mind not subject to law. To the law of God the pure Soul or the Spirit of Jesus when in the form of Soul, had been subjected. But having been obedient even unto death, that is, even to the sacrifice of his pure earthly nature in obedience to divine law, he hath freed himself from law, and from all its demands, for ever. Divine law found its end, or termination, in the death of the Son of God. Jesus now appears as the source, or principle, not the subject of law. Spirit in him now is pure love; and as such it goes forth and exhibits itself, not in acts of obedience to law, but in acts of beneficence and mercy towards the guilty children of men.
Pure Spirit in Jesus now is heavenly mind not liable to sufferings and death. Our blessed Lord appeared in flesh to suffer and to die. But having died unto sin once, he now, and for ever liveth unto God. He hath swallowed up death in victory; and he now appears, therefore, as the destroyer [195] of death, and the source of life everlasting. I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Rev. 1:18, is the manner in which he describes his present, glorious, heavenly state.
If I have been successful in conveying my ideas respecting this subject, it will now be obvious
That the grand difference between the state of the Lord Jesus while on earth, and his state now, is this: — In coming down to earth, he was conforming himself to the nature, state, and circumstances, of the creature. Hence, although in reality Spirit, his appearance, while on earth, in the form of Soul. — Again in rising to heaven, he was conforming the nature, state, and circumstances, of the creature, to the nature, state, and circumstances, of himself the glorious Creator. Hence, his causing what in him had formerly been pure Soul, thenceforward to appear in its own proper form of Spirit. Thus, then, even while in flesh, in appearing to conform himself to human nature, by assuming Soul, he was in reality to a certain degree conforming human nature to himself, by rendering soul in himself pure. And, when he had sacrificed his pure fleshly nature, in rising from the dead he was merely carrying out and completing the begun process of conformity, by converting pure Soul into Spirit.
19. Christ’s two births.
Do my readers enquire for the meaning of this apparently quaint phraseology? Can none of them, from what has preceded, anticipate what I am now to place before them?
Unless the subject of the two births of the Messiah be apprehended, it is perfectly impossible to understand the scriptures, or to reconcile one part of them with another.
The Messiah, in the first place, was born into time. In the second place, he was born into eternity.
By this former birth, of the Virgin Mary, he became the son of man. He was undoubtedly even then also, in a very important sense, the Son of God, having had God not man, for his father. But it was as the son of man, that, properly speaking, he was during his earthly career revealed; and Son of man is the term that generally in his conversations with his disciples and others he applies to himself. As Son of man, he stands distinguished from Adam, his natural progenitor, who was man, but not man’s son. And as [196] son of man, he stands distinguished from himself, in his own proper and heavenly character, as Son of God. By his first birth, then, he was manifested as Son of man. In this capacity, he was forming a connection with, taking hold of, and comprehending, human nature in himself. His pure flesh and blood body was the substance of all the shadowy bodies of mere human beings. His pure soul was the substance of all their shadowy minds. God therefore, by becoming the Father of that pure and holy thing, which was born of the Virgin Mary, actually substantialized human nature in it. Jesus having thus, as it were, got hold of, or grasped, humanity in his own single person, having thus got power over all flesh, John 17:2, could dispose of it as he pleased. Ibid: And his pleasure was, after having exhibited human nature for once pure and perfect in himself, to destroy it, or bring it to an end, in himself. His pure and substantial body and mind, had a full and entire grasp of human nature; and, when he had sacrificed this pure body and mind, he got, as it were, to the very bottom of it, so completely destroying and subverting it, that after death there is no possibility of its ever again subsisting as human nature. He took away sin, and, as a matter of course likewise, the nature from which sin necessarily proceeds, by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:26. By his first birth, then, as son of man, the Messiah took hold of flesh and blood, purified and perfected it, and then, by the sacrifice of it, brought it at once and for ever in himself to an end.
By his second birth Jesus became, or rather was manifested to be, the Son of God. Having burst forth from the womb of time and the grave, he rose as the first fruits of a new and heavenly creation. In his former birth, he had appeared as the substantial, as distinguished from the shadowy, man; taking hold of human nature; and preparing for the extinction of man, and of everything connected with man’s present state and condition, in himself. In his second birth, he appeared as having shaken off, and brought to an end, whatever in him had been human and earthly; as the conqueror of law, sin, and death, and as the changer in himself of beings naturally fitted to live only in time, into beings supernaturally fitted to live throughout eternity. He was born again, in order that he might see the travail of his soul, by the communication of eternal life to his many redeemed ones, and might thereby be satisfied. Isaiah 53:11. [197] Thus was he declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Rom. 1:4. His birth into this world, was to the Creator unnatural, and, therefore, merely temporary. But his birth into the heavenly state, was the resumption of the situation and circumstances which were natural to him, and was therefore, to him the commencement of a glorious dignity destined to be everlasting. By his first birth, he appeared with pure soul; by his latter birth, with pure soul converted into spirit. By his former birth, he had been shewn to be the head of the old creation; by his latter birth, he became head of the new. Shall we, under such circumstances, wonder to find the Apostle applying to the latter birth, or to his resurrection from the dead, those remarkable words of the 2nd Psalm, addressed to the Messiah: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? Acts 13:33. Is it not, as if his Heavenly Father had said to him: — “Born into time, however miraculous thy generation, thou wert not, properly speaking, Son of God, but Son of Man. All thy obedience, nay, thy very life, then, were due to those among whom, and as one of whom, thou didst make thy appearance. But, now, by thy death, and resurrection from the dead, thy connection with time hath ceased. Rather, now thou appearest, not as thou formerly didst, the subject of time, but as the conqueror of time, and as thereby containing it, and all things besides, in thyself. Thou now appearest in thy proper character, as the undying one the everlasting Jehovah, the Son of God. Hail therefore mighty conqueror! Ascend the throne prepared for thee of old; and there sit, raising thy brethren to a footing of equality with thyself, until thou shalt have completed thy triumphs, by the subjugation of all things to thyself.” Psalm 2:7, to the end.19
19 Read, in illustration of this subject, Coloss. 1:15-21.
Jesus, thus, in his first birth, conformed himself to the old creation, that in himself he might grasp it, purify it, and bring it to an end. In his second birth, he was conforming the old creation to himself, as the first fruits, earnest, and head, of the new creation.
20. One sin of Soul, one righteousness of Spirit.
One great object at which I have all along been aiming, has been to shew, that upon one sin, the death of Adam and all his posterity depends; just as upon one righteousness, [198] the possession of eternal life by Christ and all his posterity depends. This is the scope of the argument prosecuted by the Apostle, in the 5th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans from the 12th verse to the end. So important is the due apprehension of this topic, that if not understood, all my previous statements have been absolutely thrown away; and the consideration of the nature of Spirit in believers, as distinguished from the nature of the mind which our blessed Lord had whilst he was upon earth, the next subject to be treated of, may at once be abandoned.
First. Soul was originally exhibited pure in the creature Adam. This purity of the creature, however, as has appeared from the result, was merely negative. It consisted not in the impossibility of doing evil, and the necessity of doing well, the nature of the positive purity which was afterwards displayed in Christ Jesus, but merely in the fact of the creature not having been brought into the world a transgressor and of his having for a time abstained from the only transgression of which in his then circumstances he was capable. This creature purity of soul was exhibited, as the result shewed, and as scripture informs us, for the purpose of acquainting us practically with the melancholy truth, that the creature, even in his best estate, is altogether vanity. Soul, as pure in the creature, was tried by one temptation, and that of the most trifling kind. Before that one temptation, it instantly fell; violating thereby the exceedingly slight prohibition under which it had been placed. The consequence was, the entrance of sin, and thereby of death, into our world; and the passing of death upon the whole human race. Of this the reason is, the oneness of Adam with his posterity. By generation, he transmits to each one of them a body, and thereby also a mind, springing out of, connected with, and the same as, his own. It was from his nature, a nature, consisting of mind dependent upon flesh, that the one transgression flowed; and wherever this nature of his, communicated by him to his posterity, is found, death attaches to it as the transgressing nature. Let it appear in infants, or in adults, it matters not. It is in both equally the nature of the one transgression, and consequently the nature of death. As with the one transgression of Adam, and with his nature as the guilty source of it, death stands connected, it follows, as a matter of course, that wherever that nature is found, whether in child or in [199] man of mature age, in sinner or in saint, it is obnoxious to death, and the individual possessing it must submit to the penalty whenever God, in the course of his providence, may see meet to inflict it.
It appears, then, that death is not the result of any transgression or series of transgressions, which have been committed by any person since Adam’s time. It derives its origin from the one transgression of its natural progenitor, and from it alone. All the other sins which the human race have since committed, so far from having been causes of death, have been merely effects of that same fleshly nature, from which the one sin of Adam, and consequently the deaths of himself and his posterity, originally took their rise. This the Apostle proves most conclusively, in the 5th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, by shewing, that, although, from the time of Adam to Moses there was no law in existence and consequently no possibility of any one sinning after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, death nevertheless continued to reign. But death, being a punishment, or penalty, could not with justice have been inflicted upon any except as chargeable with guilt or violation of law. To say, then, that death reigned, from Adam to Moses, during the whole of that intermediate period, without the existence of any law which mankind were capable of violating is, according to the Apostle’s argument, to trace sin and death at once to Adam’s first transgression; and to shew, that human beings die not in consequence of actual guilt committed by themselves, but in consequence of their possession of a nature from which guilt originally sprung in the case of him with whom they have a natural and necessary connection.
Pure soul appeared originally in the creature not to manifest its power of attaining to a higher state, but its want of power to retain even the state in which it was originally placed. One act of transgression was quite sufficient for this purpose. For, this one act having been perpetrated by soul while pure, what was to be expected from it after it had become impure? What, while pure, it could not retain, surely, after becoming impure, it could not recover; much less could it, under such circumstances, raise itself, by any efforts of its own, to a state higher than that in which it was originally placed. One transgression committed by soul while pure, was therefore sufficient to stamp guilt upon it thence-[200]forward and for ever; and, committed by him who is naturally one with all by whom soul is possessed, the guilt which in him it contracted, and the death which in him it thereby incurred, necessarily attach to and will continue to attach to it.
Secondly. Soul was again exhibited pure in the person of the Creator manifest in flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. But the purity now was positive, not negative; and hence the Soul of the Messiah was capable of fulfilling law in the utmost extent and intensity of its demands, and of resisting temptations, whatever their number and magnitude might be. It was the substance of the shadowy purity which had previously appeared in the creature Adam. And it had its origin in the fact, that the mind of our blessed Lord was not merely fleshly, as that of Adam was; but was Spirit, or heavenly mind, manifested in the form of Soul, a fleshly mind. This Spirituality of Soul, if I may so express myself, was what gave rise to that perfect obedience to divine law which characterized the Messiah, during his earthly career; an obedience not limited to compliance with its dictates while he continued in flesh, but extending even to the voluntary offering up of his pure body and soul, as a sacrifice for sin. By this means, soul which, in the creature, had become unrighteous; appeared, in the Creator, bringing in a perfect and everlasting righteousness. And thus, what, in the creature, had, by transgression, incurred death; in the Creator, by righteousness, became entitled to life everlasting. This righteousness of the Messiah benefits us creatures, in consequence of his oneness with us. Even the mere creature, Adam, has such a oneness with his posterity, as to be able, by means of transmitting to them his nature, to fasten guilt, and thereby death, upon them. And if so, surely much more must the Creator, Christ Jesus, as not merely partaker of flesh and blood with the creature, but as having exhibited the nature of the creature substantial in himself, have such a oneness with them, as to be capable of communicating to them his righteousness, and elevating them to the possession of his life. And the righteousness through which these blessings flow to us, is one. It is the one righteousness, of that one Soul, which appeared pure, perfect, and heavenly, in the Lord Jesus Christ. As by the one sin of Soul, committed by the creature, sin and death entered; so by the one righteousness of Spirit in the form of Soul, performed by the [201] Creator, righteousness and life everlasting entered. And as, not by our own personal transgressions, but by our possession of the nature from which Adam’s one transgression flowed, we are constituted guilty, and become obnoxious to death; so, not by our own personal obedience to divine law, but by our having conferred upon us, whether here or hereafter, the nature from which Christ’s one obedience to divine law flowed, we are constituted righteous, and become partakers of life everlasting. This complete parallelism between sin and death as entering by one transgression, and righteousness and life everlasting as entering by one act of obedience, is singularly beautiful, and forms the basis, as well as substance, of the reasoning of the Apostle Paul, in that passage of the Epistle to the Romans, to which reference has been already made.
The reason of the impossibility of more than one righteousness being performed by Spirit, is, that righteousness signifies obedience to divine law; and that Spirit, in order to be able to perform righteousness, required to be subject to divine law; which it never was, and never will be, except in the case of the Lord Jesus Christ, manifest in flesh. It was to Soul, in the case of Adam, that the one law of paradise was originally given. It was to Spirit, as manifested in the form of Soul in the person of the Messiah, that the law issued from Mount Sinai, requiring perfect love to God and man, was subsequently given. The law given to soul was violated, by the perpetration of the only crime which, while pure, it could commit. The law given to Spirit, in the form of Soul, was obeyed to the very uttermost; and this, even to the sacrifice of its pure flesh and blood nature, the grand act of obedience which was exacted from it, and the only act of righteousness by which perfection of love to God and man could be displayed. It was by Spirit, thus subjected to divine law in the form of soul in the Lord Jesus, that obedience to divine law, or righteousness, was thus performed. And Spirit, in the form of Soul, having thus completely obeyed divine law, and exhausted all its demands, in other words, having brought in a perfect and everlasting righteousness, there is no necessity for, no possibility of, spirit being ever again subjected to divine law. Spirit in whatever other form it may now appear, cannot at all events appear in subjection to law, and as requiring to obey it. As having been once subject to law in the case of the pure Soul of the Son of [202] God; and as having, by the sacrifice of that pure soul, satisfied the utmost demands of law; the law of God as such is actually no longer in existence, and consequently there is no possibility of Spirit being subjected to it. There is no possibility, therefore, of the existence of any righteousness, understanding by righteousness that perfect obedience to divine law which Spirit in the form of Soul is alone capable of rendering, except the one righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, with the completion of the righteousness of the Lord Messiah on the cross, the possibility of being righteous, in the sense of yielding obedience to divine law, came at once, and for ever, to an end. And thus, as the pure soul of the creature was never capable of committing more than one transgression; so, the pure Soul of the Creator, or Spirit in the form of Soul, was never capable of exhibiting more than one righteousness.
Anticipated I must have been by many of my readers, in the remark with which I intend closing this section. Adam, so far from having been able to attain to a higher state, was, as we have just seen, unable even to retain the state in which he was originally placed. Jesus, on the contrary, was able, not merely to retain, had he so pleased, his earthly state, but to attain to a higher and more glorious state of being. In this is displayed most strikingly the difference between Soul and Spirit. Soul, placed in the earthly paradise, was unable to keep it. Spirit, in the form of Soul, although it came into the world like other beings in the human form deprived of the earthly paradise, was nevertheless able to procure for itself and others the heavenly one. Can persons, capable of comprehending what I say, ever afterwards allow themselves to talk of God’s restoring to us, through Christ, what we lost in Adam? Why, what we lost in Adam, were merely earthly blessings. What are bestowed upon us through Christ, are heavenly ones. To render the forfeiture of the former, subservient to the bestowing upon us of the latter, is surely any thing else than to restore the former. Let us hope that Christians will, in future, become wiser than to employ a phraseology so absurd and so unjustifiable. As Soul is a principle which is incapable of retaining inferior and shadowy blessings, and Spirit is a principle which attains to and confers superior and substantial ones; and as what Soul lost by its one transgression, was totally different from what Spirit, by its one righteousness, is the [203] means of conferring; need I insist on the fact, that to speak of the divine righteousness and everlasting life of the Son of God, as a restoration of the creature righteousness and earthly life which Adam forfeited, is to be guilty of one of the grossest solecisms in language, which can by any possibility be conceived?
21. The finite, the indefinite, and the infinite.
What is contained in this section is intended solely for those who, besides being acquainted with the glorious gospel, are able and accustomed to reflect. The greater portion of my readers, if many shall have read thus far, may pass it over without much detriment to themselves.
Supposing myself to address persons, possessed of tolerably distinct views of divine truth, and desirous to have set before them in a brief and condensed form what throughout the greater part of this chapter I have been labouring to establish, I propose satisfying them in the following way.
The creature, both as to body and mind, is necessarily finite or bounded. The Creator as to both is necessarily infinite or unbounded. In regard to beings thus discordant as to their respective natures, a certain purpose is aimed at. It is proposed to change the finite nature of the creature, into the infinite nature of the Creator, or to communicate to the nature of the creature, the nature of the Creator. Now, how is this to be accomplished?
It is obvious, that the finite, and the infinite, have nothing in common with each other. Nay, that so far from this, they stand diametrically opposed to each other. A direct intercourse, then, between the one and the other, is absolutely impossible. But is there no way in which a communication between them may be opened up and established?
This, briefly expressed, is, it appears to me, the very problem which the gospel is intended to solve, the very question which it gloriously and satisfactorily answers. The connection desiderated is, scripture informs us, effected by means of the indefinite.
That is, the finite and the infinite, never have been, never can be, brought into direct and immediate contact. There is nothing in common between them; no point, no connecting link, which might afford a means of fastening the one on the other. In this apparent emergency, the Lord Jesus Christ appears, not with a finite nature, for his flesh and blood body and soul, were capable of being developed into [204] infinite existence; not with an infinite nature, for his flesh and blood body and soul; while they continued such, were necessarily confined to time; but with a nature, neither finite, nor infinite; with a nature compounded, and partaking of the properties of both; allied to, and connected with, both; capable of appearing as finite, and yet capable of being raised to the rank of infinite; in a word, with a nature, the only appropriate term to be applied to which, is the indefinite.
The object aimed at, observe, is to convert the finite into the infinite, or, in other words, to confer upon the finite, infinite existence. This, through the medium of the indefinite, is simply, beautifully, and gloriously accomplished. The Creator cannot make himself a creature, but he can appear in the form or likeness of a creature. He can appear as possessed of the finite nature. In doing so, he both shews the oneness of the creature, with himself, and the substantiality which the nature of the creature is capable of acquiring not in itself, but in him. He shews, that, although, in appearing as a creature, he cannot become like a creature finite, he can nevertheless thereby give an indefiniteness to the nature of the creature which in itself as finite it does not possess. Thereby preparing it for ulterior results. He then throws off the creature form, or indefinite nature, which he had assumed; that is he brings to an end the finite which in himself he had converted into the indefinite; manifesting, that it was not a finite, but an indefinite nature, which, during his appearance in flesh, he had possessed, and which he threw off, by converting it into the infinite. This, it is evident, the finite nature of the creature never could have done. It could never have raised itself to the level of the infinite nature of the Creator. But the Creator, himself, after having first rendered the finite nature of the creature indefinite in himself by his assumption of it, and after having thus given to what was in itself finite, a capability of infinite development, proved that he had done so, in first bringing it to an end in its indefinite form, and then by running it up into the infinite. Of a change and elevation like this, only the infinite being, himself, by a previous conversion of the finite into the indefinite, in himself, was capable.
The finite, having thus by its substantialization and sacrifice in the indefinite, been elevated to, and converted into, the infinite, in the Messiah himself, the remainder of the process is perfectly easy: Jesus as once the indefinite, now the infinite [205] being, having got an entire hold and grasp of the finite, is now engaged in changing the finite into his own infinite nature, and shall continue to do so, until time, and space, and everything else that is created, having been clothed with his own uncreated nature, the finite is, as it should be, ultimately lost and swallowed up in him the infinite.
22. Spirit in believers, not subject to law.
Having now at very great length, and to many of my readers no doubt tediously, considered what spirit was in the Messiah himself, both while he appeared in flesh, and after his resurrection, I now proceed to state what that spirit is, the first fruits of which are possessed by believers now, and the full enjoyment of which is reserved for them hereafter.
Let the difference between Spirit as it appeared in the Messiah while in flesh, and Spirit as it exists in him since his ascension to glory, be remembered. If Spirit, existing as it did under these two distinct forms, be confounded, all that I have written hitherto has been unavailing, — faint views of the gospel, if any, can at the utmost be possessed, — and the reader, unless willing to undertake the task of going over again what precedes, may just as well here close the book. As Spirit in the believer, neither is, nor can be, the mind which Jesus had during the period of his incarnation, but is the mind which since his resurrection from the dead he has possessed, he who has not yet apprehended the distinction between the one state of mind, and the other, has yet to learn the A, B, C, of Christianity.
Perhaps the simplest and most intelligible way of presenting to my readers a subject scarcely ever thought, much less treated, of, will be to consider, first, what Spirit in believers is not; and, secondly, what it is. A view, first, of the negative, and, secondly, of the positive, sides of the question, combined with the lengthy observations on Spirit as it existed in the Messiah himself which have gone before, will exhaust what I have to say respecting it.
In the first place, then, we shew what Spirit in believers is not.
It is not subject to divine law.
This, it is not, for several weighty and substantial reasons.
i. What the law of God requires, and what alone it will accept of, is perfect obedience. This the creature is not [206] capable of yielding. Rom. 8:7. This the Creator himself, manifest in flesh, has yielded. Rom. 8:3,4; 10:4. If, then, believers were subject to divine law, divine law would be continuing to require from them, what they cannot give, and what it has already received. But is it conceivable, in the first place, that God should be so chargeable, with a mockery of his creatures? And, that he should so dishonour the work of his own well beloved Son, as to continue to require from creatures an imperfect obedience, with a view to the completing of that perfect obedience which by him has already been rendered? The questions answer themselves. God’s law has been obeyed perfectly by the Creator himself, and has thereby been honoured. That law then, does not expose itself to a charge of being weak and inefficacious, nor the obedience of the Creator to a charge of being imperfect, by continuing to demand from the creature, what the creature cannot give, and what, if he could give, would pour contempt on and render superfluous, the work of the Creator.
ii. If believers were subject to divine law, required to obey it, and capable of obeying it, then, instead of one righteousness whereby scripture informs us sinners are justified, there would be many righteousnesses, interfering, and sharing the glory of salvation, with the work of the Son of God. Human beings, in that case, instead of being indebted for life everlasting to that righteousness which was wrought out by the Lord from Heaven, would owe that blessing to themselves. Glorying only in the Lord, would be impossible, in consequence of this. He who found himself able to act up to the requirements of divine law, would, as a matter of necessity, glory in himself. All these consequences, and many others of a similar kind, follow, the moment it is supposed, that believers are subject to divine law, and required to obey it. Of course, the absurdities to which the hypothesis in question conducts us, prove its best confutation. Jesus, manifest in flesh, was as the second man, subject to divine law, and obeyed it. By this obedience of his, righteousness was brought in. And as by him alone divine law has been obeyed, or can be obeyed, of necessity, there can exist no righteousness but his. That is, there is, there can be, only one righteousness. But this one righteousness being ours, on account of our oneness with him by whom it was performed, it follows, that the supposition of God’s [207] subjecting to law, with a view to their obedience to it, beings who are already righteous, and consequently already possessed of life everlasting, in their heavenly head, is not less preposterous, than would be God’s vouchsafing a chance of escaping natural death to the same beings, who are already sinful, and consequently already dead in virtue of their connection with their earthly head.
iii. Believers cannot be subjected to divine law, because divine law no longer exists. The one law given to Adam in Paradise came to an end in every respect, except as to the consequences of violating it, the moment that it was transgressed. Just so, the law, given to the second Adam from Mount Sinai came to an end in every respect, except as to the consequences of obeying it, the moment that the Lord Jesus finished the work of righteousness by the sacrifice of himself. His pure flesh and blood nature, and divine law as imposed on and fulfilled by that nature, had one and the same termination. When Jesus exclaimed, it is finished, and gave up the ghost, pure human nature, and divine law, at one and the same moment ceased to exist. He was thus the end of law for righteousness. Rom. 10:4. If so, how absurd the idea, that to divine law any individual now can become subject! Even the Jews, before the coming of the Messiah, were subjected to that law only externally and in appearance, and with a view to bring out, not their ability, but their total inability, to keep it. In regard to them, it entered, that the offence might abound. Rom. 5:20. But once fulfilled, it is obvious, that no human being could thenceforward even externally be brought under it. At the cross of Christ its very existence terminated. From that time forward it became a nonentity. In the scriptures, no doubt, it still makes its appearance. But the same scriptures which proclaim it, also proclaim the fulfilment of it. Consequently, no man but a Jew, or a Gentile labouring under Jewish notions of divine truth, can imagine that a law, not only fulfilled, but swallowed up by the Son of God eighteen hundred years since, can any longer exist, and can any longer possess the power of exacting obedience. Melancholy, indeed, is the aspect of what is commonly denominated the Christian world, with regard to this very subject. Those to whom the appellation of believers is commonly given, are persons who, in their own apprehension, and in that of others, are subject to divine law. That is, persons [208] who suppose themselves situated as the Lord Jesus Christ himself was during his abode upon earth, and as such called like him, to yield obedience to the law of God. “Dreadful infatuation! The liberty wherewith Christ maketh his followers free, ye know not, and with your present views, never can know. Into it ye never can enter, except by being given to see that law fulfilled, and, consequently, no longer existing, to which with so much slavish diligence, and self-righteous labour, ye are now striving to subject yourselves.”
So far, indeed, from believers being subject to divine law, to be subject to that law could never be predicated of any human beings whether unbelieving or believing. While ignorant of the truth as it is in Jesus, mankind, as the Apostle shews in the latter part of the seventh, and the beginning of the eighth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, are subject to the law of flesh, that is, to their fleshly nature considered as a law; the nature of every animal constituting the law to which it is subject, and man, although at the head of the animal creation, forming no exception to the general rule. When divine truth is known, or when faith enters, this truth instead of operating by means of the imposition of law, operates as a principle, or as the first fruits of the communication of the divine nature to the conscience. Thus, the only laws which human beings can know and be subject to, are, on the one hand, if ignorant of the gospel, the law of human nature; and, on the other hand, if acquainted with that gospel, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, or of the divine nature. To the law of God, as a command, or series of commands, in neither state are they, or can they be subject. Did the law of God, then, never come into contact with a nature which was subject to it, and obedient to it? Yes, it did; but once, and once only. Subjection to it, and obedience to it, it never found in a mere creature. Man is so decidedly and thoroughly enslaved by the law in his members, or the law of his fleshly nature, Rom. 7:23, that he is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be. Rom. 8:7. The law of his nature acquired by birth the ascendancy over him, and this ascendancy it retains, and must retain, until dispossessed of it by the introduction of some other and higher nature. The law of God will not overcome the law of human nature. On the contrary, that law, by resisting, irritates it, and thereby stimulates it to more powerful and incessant workings. Rom. 7:23. Law is [209] weak through the flesh. Rom. 8:3. But at last a being made his appearance of whom subjection and obedience to divine law constituted the very nature. Thy law, says that being, the glorious Messiah, is within my heart. Psalm 40:8. That is, it is not addressed in the shape of a command merely, but it finds in me a disposition and ability to comply with it. This glorious being was in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. 8:3, but, as subject to divine law by his very nature, he was without sin. Heb. 4:15. By him, divine law was obeyed, once, and for ever. Until he appeared, it neither was obeyed, nor could be obeyed, because human beings had been previously subjected to the law of flesh. Since he appeared it has not been obeyed, nor does it require to be obeyed; seeing that, having exacted obedience from him, and having received it, it has nothing more to require. Nay, as we have seen, it no longer exists. As obeyed by the Messiah, it found its end in him. The law of God, does not now come demanding obedience, but is proclaimed to us as fulfilled law; or, rather, the Messiah is proclaimed as the fulfiller of that law. The perception of this as true, is the belief of the gospel; and is the introduction into the conscience, not of the divine law, but of the first fruits of the divine nature. The gospel is thus, not the imposition of law, but the means of the communication of principle. To sum up: the mind of man, is either, as in the case of the great majority of human beings, mere soul influenced by fleshly principles, or the law of its fleshly nature. Or, it is, in the case of a few, to a certain degree, influenced by divine principle, in consequence of the introduction into it by faith, in the fulfilment of divine law by the Messiah, of the first fruits of the divine nature, and this by the manifestation to it of divine law as fulfilled by the Messiah. In neither case, however, is the mind of man subject to divine law. To have been subject to that law by his very nature, and to have fulfilled it, was peculiar to the Messiah as incarnate. And thus, as in flesh subject to divine law, does Jesus appear in the character of the mediator or middle-man, connecting the nature of soul as subject to the law of flesh, in mankind in general, with the nature of spirit, as subject to the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus in a few chosen ones in particular.
23. Spirit in believers is not a compound principle.
My meaning in this title will be understood, if it be re-[210]membered, that the nature of the Lord Jesus, while on earth, was shewn to be a compound one. His body was flesh and blood; but flesh and blood rendered pure, substantial, and incorruptible. His mind was soul; but it was soul subject to divine law, sinless and perfect. His body and mind were thus a compound of the nature of the creature, and the nature of the Creator. It was not the nature of the creature tending one way, and the nature of the Creator another, a state of things which would have rendered it improper to speak of the two natures as compounded; but it was the nature of the creature, so assimilated to that of the Creator, by the fact of the Creator having assumed it, as to have acquired one mind, and one will, with that of the Creator himself. The nature of the creature, and the nature of the Creator, thus became one in Christ Jesus incarnate.
This never happened before, this can never happen again. And the reason is that the nature of the Creator, so far from tending to form a compound with, tends to the destruction of, the nature of the creature. The nature of the Creator, in opposition to its tendencies, mixed itself up with the nature of the creature only once, and this merely temporarily, and for a particular purpose. Its object was, to form a strict and everlasting union between the nature of the creature, and its own nature. Having accomplished this, by the assumption and purification of the nature of the creature, it destroyed it, but destroyed it in such a way, as to change it into a higher nature, and elevate it to a higher state of existence. The Creator by rendering his nature one with that of the creature for a time, communicated to the nature of the creature such a worth, dignity, and elevation, as rendered it fit to become one with his nature for evermore.
By believers, spirit, or the first fruits of the divine nature, are possessed. But in them spirit, or the divine nature, is not compounded or mixed up with human nature, as it was with the Lord Jesus during his earthly career. To those who require specific reasons for this remarkable difference between the state of Christ while on earth, and that of his believing people, the following may be submitted.
1. Jesus was by nature the Son of God, as well as the Son of man; and, therefore, received by his very birth a nature compounded of the two distinct natures of his heavenly and earthly parents. Whereas believers are by nature merely the offspring of earthly parents; and, therefore, the [211] first fruits of the divine nature, when conferred on them, find them already possessed of a nature merely and entirely human. But it must be obvious, that a being, who is by his very birth a compound of soulical and spiritual principles, must be very differently situated from beings, who are by birth merely soulical, and to whom the spirituality afterwards superinduced, comes as a principle entirely foreign to their original nature.
2ndly. In Jesus while on earth, Spirit pervaded every part of his body and soul, rendering the former, pure, substantial and incorruptible, and the latter, subject to law, sinless, and heavenly. Spirit was thus compounded, or mixed up with, every part and faculty of his earthly nature. Not so with Spirit in his believing people. With their consciences, and with them only has it to do. Their bodies, and their mental principles otherwise, are totally and entirely fleshly; free from, and unable to receive, the slightest admixture of what is spiritual. Need I insist on the difference between the nature of Jesus, every part of which, even while fleshly, was spiritualized; and ordinary human beings, whose whole nature except in so far as conscience is concerned, is fleshly, and fleshly only?
3rdly. Even conscience in believers, although spiritual, is not a compound principle. It is spiritualized, not by the mixing up of the mind of the Creator with the mind of the creature, as happened in the case of the Messiah while incarnate; but in so far as the spiritualizing process extends, by the swallowing up of the soul or the mind of the creature, in spirit, or the mind of the Creator. Let me try if I can simplify this subject. The tendency of the divine nature is to the destruction of mere human nature. The burden of divine law, human nature is unable to bear; much less to throw off that burden, and rise superior to it. The pressure even of the little finger of the divine nature, on the pure human nature of Adam in paradise, was sufficient to crush it. Hence, had not the nature of God mixed itself up with the nature of man, enabling it thereby to obey, satisfy, and bring to an end, divine law, under the crushing pressure of that law originally violated, human nature must have continued for ever. But the compound nature of the creature and the Creator having fulfilled divine law, threw it off, and rose superior to it; in doing so, throwing off also its compound form, and rising, no longer the nature of God [212] mixed up with the nature of man, but the nature of God simply. The nature of God had, in the man Christ Jesus, united to itself forever the nature of man; and having effected this union, its next step was to elevate the nature of man, to the nature of God. This it accomplished by the sacrifice of the nature in its compound state; that sacrifice being the destruction of it in its compound form, and the preparation of it thereby for the change which by its elevation it was subsequently to undergo. Through faith, that divine nature is introduced into the conscience. This it finds merely human or creaturely; acquainted with nothing but law, convinced that it is subject to it, and bound to obey it, and yet conscious of having disobeyed it. With creaturely principles, the divine nature does not mix itself up. On the contrary, it destroys them. It does not, as in the case of Jesus while in flesh, inspire the conscience with love to divine law, and furnish it with ability to obey it. This would be to render the conscience in believers, what it was in Christ, a compound principle. But the operation of divine truth in so far as it extends, is to destroy natural conscience. It swallows up thus the mind, naturally prone to suppose itself subject to law, although unable to fulfil it, in the mind of Jesus as having fulfilled law. That is, the mind naturally prone to grovel at the feet of a law which condemns it, seeing divine law fulfilled by the Son of God, and seeing itself to be one with him by whom that law has been fulfilled, finds itself set free from the obligations of law at once and for ever. Peace is spoken to it by the blood of the cross; as the last and crowning act of obedience. The obligation to fulfil law is discovered to be superseded by the complete and everlasting righteousness of the Messiah. But this is the destruction of natural conscience altogether. Not the destruction of it, in the sense of annihilation; but in the sense of converting it into a higher and more glorious principle. This is, in fact, the commencement of that process in the believer which shall ultimately terminate, not in the complete compounding of his present nature with the nature of God, but in the complete swallowing up of his present nature in the nature of God. It is the first fruits of the new creation. See 2 Corinth. 5:17. When then, I allege, that conscience is spiritualized in the believer, I do not mean, that spirit appears in him in the form of natural conscience, as it did in the Messiah while in flesh, thereby [213] rendering conscience in him a compound principle; but I do mean, that, by the manifestation to the conscience of divine law as fulfilled by the Son of God, that the principle of natural conscience in them is swallowed up and destroyed altogether. Conscience in them is thenceforward divine; that is, is in them, not as it was in the Messiah, the sense of obligation to fulfil divine law, but the conviction of divine law being fulfilled and thereby superseded. In one word, the spiritualization of conscience in the believer, is not the compounding of the nature of God with the nature of man; but is the first fruits of that destruction of the nature of man by the nature of God, which consists in the change of the nature of man into the nature of God, and which shall ultimately issue in the complete conversion of human nature into the divine nature.
24. Spirit in believers, is not Spirit in the form of Soul, but Soul in the form of Spirit.
We have seen, that the Lord Jesus, during his abode upon earth, was possessed of pure soul; or, that spirit in him, during that period, appeared in the soulical form. This was rendered necessary by the nature of his character as the Messiah, and the purposes which he came into our world to accomplish. Unless he had conformed himself so far to us, as to appear in a flesh and blood body and with soul, divine law could not have been fulfilled in the likeness of the nature by which it had been transgressed, and life everlasting through man could not have been brought in. But the object of the manifestation of spirit in the form of soul having once been accomplished, by the sacrifice of the nature in which spirit had thus been manifested, the manifestation of spirit in the form of soul any more, became as unnecessary, as it was impossible.
The process which since the ascension of the Lord Jesus has been going on, and which until time shall be no more shall continue developing, is, not the conforming of spirit to soul, but the conforming of soul to spirit. That is, spiritual principles do not now appear in the form of soulical ones, but soulical principles appear in the form of spiritual ones. If any human beings could possess now what the Messiah did while in flesh, it must be by their inheriting from their very birth a compound nature as he did; by their coming into the world capable of fulfilling divine law as he was; and by their being able to save both themselves and others, which [214] was his glorious characteristic. But all this is clearly out the question. Hence, to have spirit communicated to them in such a way as not to conform itself to soul, but to conform soul to itself, is the only result which now can take place in any of the human family. Instead of spirit in believers subjecting soul to law as it did in the Lord Jesus while he was upon earth, the first effect of the entrance of spirit into their minds is to set them free from law; instead of spirit causing them to endeavour to work out righteousness, as it led the Lord Jesus while in flesh, it constrains them to rejoice in the righteousness which by his one obedience Jesus hath brought in; and, instead of exciting in them painful fears as to whether they shall be able to possess or accomplish that upon which salvation depends, by the manifestation of the work of salvation as already and gloriously accomplished by the Son of God himself, it dispels fears respecting futurity at once and for ever from their consciences. Now these are not the natural tendencies of soul, nor could these effects by any possibility follow if spirit in believers were manifested in the form of soul. The natural and necessary tendencies of soul, or fleshly mind, are to suppose itself subject to law; to try to obey law, as a foundation of hope towards God, even although law should condemn it; and to be filled with doubts, fears, and suspicions, lest the obedience rendered by it to law should not be sufficient. And if spirit in believers were manifested in the form of soul, it would be, as it was in the case of the Messiah while in flesh, the confirmation of these tendencies of fleshly mind, and the furnishing of it with ability to act up to them. But to have all tendencies of the fleshly mind undermined and destroyed, by the communication and implantation of principles of a spiritual kind, a privilege vouchsafed to every believer of the gospel, so far from being the conforming of spirit to soul, or the rendering of the fleshly mind able and disposed to act up to its own natural soulical principles, as the Messiah did while in flesh, is on the contrary the conforming of soul to spirit, or the destruction of soulical principles, as absolutely worthless and inefficacious, by the introduction into the conscience of such as are spiritual and divine.
Well do I know, that this is not the view of the subject which is commonly taken by men who make a profession of Christianity. The soulical mind, supposing itself to be natu-[215]rally subject to law, supposes the religion of Jesus to be merely a confirmation of this its natural state. Hence the gospel, which is in reality the proclamation of a privilege freely bestowed on the creature, is, by the soulical mind, regarded as a command, or series of commands, requiring to be fulfilled by the creature. In a word, the soulical mind supposes Spirit to be now, what it was in the Lord Jesus while upon earth once, the manifestation of Spirit in the form of Soul. And it is really astonishing, how much light and enlargement the soulical mind even while it continues soul, is, from spiritual things, capable of deriving. What is spiritual, or divine, in itself, understood by fleshly mind in a soulical, or creaturely, sense, is no doubt contributing to render that mind more and more averse to what is spiritual, is no doubt gradually strengthening its dislike of, and opposition to, the things of God as they exist in themselves, and as they are revealed in the divine testimony, — but what is spiritual in itself, thus erroneously understood, is, nevertheless, often wonderfully enlarging fleshly mind upon its own principles. My decided impression is, that the capabilities of the soulical mind to take hold of spiritual things in a soulical sense, to drag them down to its own level, and to become enlarged and enlightened as mere soul thereby, have never yet been thoroughly developed. Views of divine law as requiring the inmost and utmost obedience of our hearts, — natural religion, that daring and impudent plagiarism of the divine attributes as they are revealed in scripture, for the purpose of setting them forth in the form of a system excogitated by mere human reason, — and the progression and development of the human mind, and advancement of human society, of which modern times so much boast — are all dependent on one and the same principle, the enlightening and enlarging of mere soul, or creature mind, by truths in themselves spiritual, understood by it in a soulical sense, and after a soulical fashion. This, however, although favoured by the majority of serious and religious characters, is a state of things the very reverse of Christianity. That consists, not in the bringing down of spiritual principles to the level of soulical ones, but in the raising of soulical principles to the level of spiritual ones. The man whose soul, or fleshly mind, has been most enlarged by the plunder of revelation, understood in a soulical sense, and thereby degraded from its true and legitimate meaning, is likely, from that very circumstance, to be the greatest op-[216]poser of Spirit, and spiritual things, as they appear in the light of revelation itself. And the reason is, that the introduction of divine truth as it is, would stamp ignorance and inconsistency upon his present state of mind, a consequence at which of course the pride of Soul naturally revolts. But all the efforts of such a man to stretch the limit of soul beyond the bounds of time, will issue in disappointment . He will enlarge soul by his so doing, but to acquire Spirit thereby is utterly impossible. The merest babe in divine things is in a spiritual point of view, such a man’s superior. But the superiority of such a one, as it consists in having soul conformed to spirit, by the destruction of soulical principles by spiritual ones, so it will be carried on by, and will never extend further than, the swallowing up of the soulical mind in spiritual principle.
Am I understood?
If not, let me try at once to condense and simplify the subject.
Spirit in Jesus, while he was in flesh appeared in the form of Soul. Were Spirit in his people to exhibit the same form, it must be under the same circumstances. They must in that case be required and enabled to obey law; they must exhibit perfect purity of heart and life; they must be capable of sacrificing themselves; — and they must be able thus to become both their own saviours, and the saviours of others. All this was implied in Spirit appearing in the form of Soul in Christ Jesus, and the same things must be implied in Spirit appearing in the form of Soul in his followers. But it is not fact that Spirit dwells in believers after this fashion. On the contrary, as entering into their consciences, it sets them free from law, causes them to rejoice in Christ’s fulfilment of it, and enables them to see their salvation perfected, by him. Now this is exactly the reverse of the way in which spirit operated in our blessed Lord while he was upon earth. And if the one be thus the opposite of the other, what term, can we find so appropriate to express the difference, as to say, either, that in believers, instead of the mind of the Creator being conformed to the mind of the creature, the mind of the creature is conformed to the mind of the Creator; or, that, in them, instead of Spirit appearing in the form of Soul, Soul appears in the form of Spirit.
25. Spirit, in believers, the mind of the risen Jesus.
What may have appeared obscure to any of my readers in [217] the foregoing section, will, I hope, be found cleared up in the present.
Having shewn what Spirit in believers is not, we now proceed,
In the second place to point out what it is.
Two subdivisions will exhaust all the remarks which I have to offer under this head.
1. Spirit in believers is the mind of the risen Jesus; that is, of the Lord Jesus as raised from the dead.
I have endeavoured to shew in the preceding part of this chapter, that the mind of our blessed Lord, like his body is represented to us in the New Testament Scriptures as having existed in two distinct and separate states. First. In an earthly state; when he was possessed of pure flesh and blood body, and a pure soul. And, secondly, in a heavenly state; when he appears invested with his pure flesh and blood body, converted into spiritual body, and his pure Soul, converted into Spirit. These two states are perfectly distinct from one another; and if we would either acquire, or communicate a clear idea of what Spirit is, the distinction between them must never be lost sight of.
The former state of the Lord Jesus, or his state while upon earth, as possessed of pure flesh and blood body and pure soul, was peculiar to himself. It is shared with him by none other. As has been shewn already, at great length, his one grand object in appearing upon earth was, that he might become the connecting link between the earthly body and mind of the creature and the heavenly body and mind of the Creator. Having, by the assumption of earthly body and mind pure in himself, the exhibition of them as perfectly submissive to divine law, and the ultimate sacrifice of them, effected this object, his pure earthly body and mind came to an end, never afterwards in that form to be assumed by himself, or to be possessed by any other. In him, and in him alone, was the nature of the creature to be exhibited pure and perfect. Under these circumstances, the possession of Spirit in the form of Soul, that is, the possession of the mind which the Lord Jesus had while he was upon earth, by any of the human race, must be an utter impossibility.
But the Lord Jesus is also set before us in Scripture, in another state, totally distinct from, and infinitely superior to, his earthly one, namely, that to which he has been elevated by his resurrection from the dead. In it, neither his body, [218] nor his mind, preserve their earthly form. That, in dying, he threw off; that, in rising again from the dead, he did not resume. On the contrary, he rose with his pure earthly body changed into heavenly or spiritual body, and his pure earthly mind changed into heavenly or spiritual mind. With this spiritual body, and this spiritual mind, he now lives and reigns at his Father’s right hand. And to us it is interesting to know, that this body, and this mind, are not peculiar to himself. We cannot possess the mind of Christ, in the sense of having that mind which he had while he was upon earth. But we can possess the mind which he now has. He can share, nay, blessed be his name, he does share, this mind with his believing people. To them he communicates the first fruits of his present spiritual mind, even while they are upon earth; and the entire possession of this mind, as well as entire likeness to his present spiritual body, at the period of their resurrection from the dead.
Wherein, it will now be asked, does the mind of the risen Jesus consist; or, what is that Spirit in him now, as he communicates it to the members of his Church?
Our only conceptions of it, as we gather them from scripture, and as they are opened up to our minds thereby, are the following: —
The mind of Jesus as exalted to glory consists of,
i. Knowledge that by Himself, as the Messiah, the law of God has been fulfilled and honoured, and an everlasting righteousness brought in. Nay, that his righteousness, by the sacrifice of his earthly life, and body, has been rendered so complete, as to set at defiance the possibility of any addition being made to it. He is the end of the law for righteousness.
ii. Its being in a state of triumph, as distinguished from its former state of submission. While on earth, obedience to divine law, even unto death, was Christ’s nature and duty. But now triumph in his own resurrection from the dead, as evincing his conquest of law, as well as sin and death, is his unspeakably glorious privilege. Having died unto sin once, he now liveth unto God. Having been raised from the dead, he dieth no more. Nay, having once submitted to death, he now constrains death to submit to him. He swallows up death in victory. Hence he can now triumphantly say, I am alive, and was dead; and, behold, I live for evermore.
iii. Its communicative nature and tendency. Obedience [219] to divine law, in heart and life, by abstaining from evil, and the sacrifice of himself, a thing merely personal to the Messiah, was the mind and occupation of the Messiah while upon earth. Exhibition of love, by the new creation of his people, and then to the rest of the human family, of the divine nature, is his present glorious employment. The former, or obedience to divine law, although necessarily subservient to the latter, could only, so long as he remained on earth, directly benefit himself personally; the latter, is directly the source of benefits to others. The latter constitutes his present mind. Even while Spirit in the form of Soul, as it was in the Messiah while on earth, it was love; for love to his neighbour as himself, the only means of evincing love to God, dictated the Messiah’s obedience to divine law, and especially his sacrifice of himself. But it is since the Messiah rose from the dead, and has been imparting his present life to his people, that the communicative nature of love has begun to make its appearance. The employment of Jesus while on earth, was to acquire a personal right to the heavenly glory — his employment now is to communicate to others the right to which he himself already personally acquired. To obtain, then, was the earthly mind, of the Messiah. Not to obtain, but to give, is his present mind, or spirit as it now exists in him.
Such being Spirit, or the mind of the Messiah now, or Spirit as it has existed in him since his resurrection from the dead, such also is the mind of his people, or the first fruits of Spirit as they exist in them during their earthly career.
a, They all know, that divine law has been thoroughly fulfilled by the Lord Jesus; and that such a righteousness has thereby been brought in by him the Creator, as supersedes the possibility, as well as necessity of any addition being made to it by them, mere creatures. He, and he alone is to their minds the end of the law for righteousness.
b. As one with the Messiah, his people are not merely comforted by, they positively triumph in, his righteousness. Every notion of the necessity of their becoming obedient to divine law, in order to their acquiring, or establishing a title to eternal life, is, by their knowledge of the completeness of Christ’s work, at once and for ever, banished from their consciences. But this is not all. Seeing themselves one [220] with him, they enjoy by faith the conviction, that they are even already raised up with him, and seated with him in heavenly places. Reckoning themselves dead unto sin; they reckon themselves alive unto God, by Jesus Christ their Lord. Rom. 6:11. They are thus, by the anticipation of faith and hope, already seated with their Head upon his throne, and thus already sharers with him, in his triumphs. Is it remarkable if, under such circumstances, doubts, fears and anxieties, respecting a future state, can find no place in the consciences of believers?
c. Spirit in believers, like Spirit as it now exists in their head, is a communicative principle. Their Head now has no law to obey. No more have they. The work of salvation is complete. Knowing, then, that they are saved, believers have not salvation to seek for. As one with Christ, the glorious Creator, they are themselves partakers of the righteousness and life of God; and what more can they desire? There remains but one employment for them now; and that is, to give away. Christ appeared on earth to acquire for himself and us a title to the heavenly glory. This, by his obedience unto death, he has effected. Now, having nothing to acquire, his present occupation is to give. And his spirit, as risen from the dead, is now displayed in giving eternal life; that is, in imparting to others a share in that blessedness of which he himself is already in possession. Just so, is it with his people. As having acquired eternal life in him, they have nothing to obtain. Nothing now remains for them but to give. In imparting to them the knowledge of himself as their righteousness and life, Jesus necessarily destroys in them the principle of seeking to obtain these blessings. But he does more. As having secured to them eternal life, he excites in their minds a disposition to become in his hands instrumental in the communication of it to others. In other words, leaving them nothing to desire, he creates in them thereby his own disposition to give; or, makes them partakers of the divine principle of generosity. Thus it is, that as Spirit in the Messiah now, is not, as it was in him while on earth, a desire to obtain eternal life for himself and others, but a disposition to bestow it, as already obtained by him, upon those who constitute the travail of his soul; so, in his people, as partakers not of his mind while he was upon earth, but of his mind as it at present exists, Spirit consists, not in any desire to obtain eternal life, [221] but, as knowing that they themselves already possess it in him, in the desire and disposition to become the means of imparting the knowledge of the same glorious fact to others. They have the same disposition to give away, which characterises the present mind of the Messiah; and thus the first fruits of Spirit dwell in them, not as Spirit itself once did, but as it now dwells in him.
26. Spirit in believers, merely knowledge of divine truth.
Having thus ascertained, that Spirit in believers, is, not the mind which Christ possessed during the period of his incarnation, but his mind as it has existed since his resurrection from the dead: and that this mind in Christ and his people consists, in their knowledge of his divine righteousness as the sole and complete fulfilment of divine law; in triumph in this righteousness of his as that by which all his and our enemies are already overcome, and in a disposition, not to acquire eternal life for ourselves, but to be the means of imparting it to others; we now proceed,
2. To shew that Spirit in believers is neither more nor less than that knowledge of divine truth, which all of them in various degrees possess.
Let me call the attention of the reader, supposed to possess some acquaintance with divine truth, and to be capable to a certain degree of reflecting on the subject, to the following facts: —
Firstly. That the bodies of believers, while on earth, neither undergo, nor are capable of undergoing, any change whatever of a spiritual kind. They continue to be, what, before the reception of the gospel, they were. They are, what the bodies of other men are. Stories of spiritual changes of a bodily kind, effected by what is commonly denominated conversion, have, in the course of my reading, been brought under my notice. But I should deem myself guilty of trifling with my subject, were I to take the trouble of formally confuting them.
Secondly. That the tendencies of the minds of believers, in so far as they are fleshly, or constitute soul, undergo, while they are on earth, no change of a spiritual kind. Their bodily appetites are the same — their earthly affections are the same — their intellectual capabilities are the same. These, as possessed by them, of course, are it is admitted, liable to be modified by accidents, by advancing life, and by various other circumstances, just as they are in other men. [222] But spiritual as body, and spiritual as bodily affections, are, we know upon divine authority, destined at the period of the resurrection to become, — body and affections being then at once and thoroughly assimilated to those of our already risen head — this also we know, upon the same divine authority, that, while we remain in our present earthly state, change of body, and change of mind in so far as dependent upon body, or fleshly, into what is spiritual, is an utter impossibility. He who fancies that his body, or his affections as dependent on body, have already undergone any alteration of a spiritual kind, is deceiving himself, or deceiving others or perhaps both.
A large proportion of the errors prevalent respecting the changes supposed to be attendant on conversion, are clearly traceable to ignorance of these facts: — first, that the body and mind of the Lord Jesus, were, by their very origin, pure, by having been begotten of Spirit; whereas, in the case of believers, there is merely a superinduction of spiritual principle upon minds which, as begotten of flesh, are originally impure; and, secondly, that, while Spirit was amalgamated with flesh in the case of the Lord Jesus, the nature of the Creator having, by the begetting of pure and holy flesh, conformed itself for a time to the nature of the creature, in reality the tendency of Spirit is, not to mix itself up with what is fleshly but to consume it as is shewn in the sacrifice of the Son of God, and in the resurrection of what is now flesh and fleshly, no longer such, but spiritual, and thereby conformed to the glorious nature of the Creator himself.
Phrenology, with all its defects, when scripturally and spiritually understood, suggests some most valuable hints, in reference to our present subject. Man’s body is fleshly, and, upon the fleshly organization of brain, his soul, or natural mind, depends. The cerebral mass, when examined into, appears to consist of three grand and distinct divisions. The lower and posterior portion, which is connected with the animal propensities; the cerebral, with the sentiments and affections; and the upper and anterior, which is incontestably the seat of intellect. Upon brain, the natural mind, as a whole, depends. And, as being thus dependent upon brain, as a whole it is, and ever must be, fleshly. In order to it, or any part of it, becoming spiritual, that is, in order to its rising above its naturally soulical or fleshly state, there must be a [223] possibility of mind, or of some department of mind, being able to rest on some other basis or principle than brain. This, scripture informs us, the understanding, or conscience, may be made to do. Its basis originally is flesh; and consequently, with flesh and fleshly objects, it is naturally and necessarily conversant. But let Spirit, and spiritual things, the substance, of which flesh is merely the shadow, become the principle, basis, or foundation of conscience, that is, let the conscience of man be brought to rest or repose on divine testimony, and immediately, in so far as it rests upon this higher basis, a spiritual character is imparted to it; or in other words, it comes to partake of the nature of its principle. The shadowy, immediately, as it should do, gives place to the substantial. This susceptibility of being shifted even now from a shadowy to a substantial foundation, and of having shadowy views of things even now swallowed up in substantial ones, is, however, while man is on earth, peculiar to his understanding or conscience alone. No other power, faculty, or propensity, of which he is possessed, during his earthly state, shares in it. All the rest of them continue, as they were, fleshly. Hence in knowledge, and in knowledge alone, can the possession of the first fruits of life everlasting, by any of the human race, while on earth, consist. John 17:3. 1 John 5:20.
The principles already laid down are capable of being extended still farther. As, in order to God’s acting in a manner suitable to his own dignity, the faculty in man to which he appeals, in the manifestation of himself, is necessarily the highest of which man is possessed, so is the knowledge which he communicates necessarily the highest which man is capable of receiving. It cannot be knowledge which man, by dint of his own exertions, and in the exercise of his natural faculties, might attain to. Because, if so, God would do something in vain. The emergency would not, in that case, demand, or justify, his interference. Farther; it cannot be trifling or unimportant knowledge; because, to suppose God to impart such, would be to impeach his infinite wisdom, as well as his infinite love. No knowledge but such as man himself by his own efforts could not have attained to, and such as was of a supremely important kind, could God have condescended to impart. Does the knowledge of Divine Testimony deserve to be thus characterised? We shall see.
i. The knowledge of divine truth, is the knowledge of [224] God himself. This is, beyond all controversy, the highest species of knowledge which the creature is capable of receiving. And it is a science in which from the very nature of the case, the creature must be unable to instruct himself. From God alone, can the knowledge of God proceed. What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:11, is, in reference to this subject, the unanswered, and unanswerable, challenge of the inspired apostle. When, therefore, God condescends to open up views of his glorious character to the minds of any of his creatures, as he is making them acquainted with the most sublime of all subjects, and that in the only way in which information concerning it can be received by them, it must be evident, that he is not chargeable with doing that which is in vain. Is not divine knowledge then considered in this point of light, such as it is suitable for God to bestow?
ii. The knowledge of divine truth, is, to those who are possessed of it, the first fruits and earnest of life everlasting. This renders it the most valuable and important of all acquisitions. Other sciences merely respect time. The knowledge of divine truth, and it alone, has a direct bearing on eternity. Where it is, the first fruits of the divine nature are possessed. To communicate to any one then the knowledge in question, is, to communicate to him, even while on earth, the earnest of a divine and spiritual nature. But to do so is, we have just seen, the act of God. The enjoyment of the knowledge of divine truth, being thus the possession of the first fruits of an undying principle, how impossible to represent God as doing that which is in vain, when he interposes to confer upon any of his creatures a privilege so unspeakably great and glorious.
Another way of representing the same subject, and arriving at the same conclusion, is as follows: —
Divine knowledge, being superior to, and distinguished from, knowledge of every other kind, God alone is able to bestow it, and it is worthy of him to do so. The superiority, and peculiarity, of divine knowledge may be considered:
i. With reference to its subject matter. That is, the character of the glorious Creator. Need I insist on the fact, that this is, of course, superior to, and different from, every other topic with which man naturally is, or can become, acquainted?
[225] ii. With reference to the manner of its communication. This is, by the teaching, not of man, but of God. It is, not by the exertions of our natural faculties, that we attain to it; on the contrary, we possess it in consequence of the illumination of our understandings by God himself. In the reception of it, we are not active, but passive. God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinth. 4:6. The consequence of this is, that, as light, divine knowledge neither admits nor can admit, of any evidence of its existing in the mind, beyond the bare fact of its existing there. While other branches of knowledge may have light thrown upon them from a variety of quarters, divine knowledge necessarily carries all its light in itself. In this, it is superior to, and differs from, knowledge of every other kind.
iii. With reference to its effects. Divine knowledge is necessarily productive of absolute certainty, perfect peace, and unmingled joy. Being the result of the testimony of God, doubts respecting its truth cannot exist; 1 John 5:9; being the manifestation of God as love, it completely, and for ever banishes fear from the conscience; 1 John 4:18; and, consisting in the certain prospect of life everlasting, it inspires with a joy, into which it is impossible for suspicion to enter. 1 Peter 1:8. From what other species of knowledge can such effects proceed?
In the introduction of divine knowledge into the mind, it thus appears, that there is communicated, what surpasses knowledge of every other description, as to its subject matter, its manner of communication and its effects. This, surely, it is worthy of God to bestow — this, surely, it is worth while for man to possess. If the first fruits of Spirit which believers enjoy while on earth, consist merely in knowledge, as most unquestionably they do; yet surely a knowledge which embraces the character of the Creator himself, and involves in it the possession of life everlasting with him hereafter, it is obvious, cannot be ranked with, or reduced to the level of, any other species of knowledge which man during the period of his earthly career is capable of acquiring.
I cannot leave this subject without observing farther that the principle of God doing nothing in vain — of his never interfering except in circumstances which demand his inter-[226]position — being once well understood, on the one hand, sets aside what is denominated Natural Religion, and on the other hand, explains why, not by direct and immediate miraculous interference, but through such a medium as the Holy Scriptures, God sees meet now to make himself known. — Natural Religion, or a system of Theology professing to be excogitated by mere human reason, independently of revelation, is inadmissible; because were the fundamental principles of that imaginary science correct, Revelation would, in so far as Natural Religion extends, be superfluous. That is, to suppose the mind of man to be capable by itself of finding out any truth which God in his word hath seen meet to reveal, is to pay God the infidelish compliment of having put himself to a vast deal of unnecessary trouble.
Of course, every enlightened believer of the truth, rejects with abhorrence, such an idea as blasphemous; and, consigns Natural Religion to that sphere, whither, as Milton informs us,
Like aerial vapours flew
All things transitory and vain, when sin
With vanity, had filled the works of men.
Paradise Lost B. 3. 1. 445.
A course of procedure on the part of Christians still farther justified by the fact, that Natural Religion, when examined into, in so far as the system is correct, is actually found to be neither more nor less than a mass of views and principles, plundered without acknowledgement and without remorse, from the volume of inspiration. — And, as God does nothing in vain, so, whenever the revelation of his character in writing was complete, miraculous interposition becoming unnecessary, was immediately and for ever brought to an end. What the scriptures could do, it was superfluous for God by miracles to have effected. Miracles, therefore, have for more than 17 centuries ceased. And the scriptures now constitute the sole medium of conveying divine knowledge, because no other medium of doing so, is any longer required. Thus, the single and simple principle, that God does all that under any given circumstances is necessary, but does nothing in vain, enables us both to reject the vagaries and plagiarisms of Natural Religion, and to rejoice in the scriptures as the sole, because the all-sufficient, source, of acquaintance with the divine character.
[227] 27. Socinianism, Irvingism and Quakerism.
These three systems, although in many respects differing from one another, possess certain features in common. They all mistake, as to the nature of Jesus in flesh, and the principle of spirituality.
Of the Socinian theory, which, although first in the list, stands at the bottom of the scale, little need be said. Whether it appear in the form in which it was originally propounded by Socinus and his immediate followers, or in the still more unscriptural, but perhaps more self-consistent one, in which it is maintained by modern Unitarians, its essential doctrines are the same. It regards and represents Jesus of Nazareth as a mere creature, and spirituality as synonymous with the higher qualities and operations of intellect. The older Socinians, it is true, allow, that the natural powers of man are capable of being aided and stimulated by the Holy Ghost. What, however, is Spirit, in their system, when examined into, but an empty name? Modern Unitarians, more correctly, I think, discard the notion of spiritual operations altogether. The second man, the Lord from Heaven, reduced to the level of the first man, of the earth, earthy, and Spirit stripped of all that can distinguish it from Soul, constitute the main pillars of Socinianism. Such a system, it must be confessed, has considerable pretentions on the score of simplicity. But we are sadly puzzled when we try to reconcile it with the scriptures or attempt to discover with it for our guide, what is the link that connects time with eternity. It attempts to palm upon us, the appearance of a mere creature, as having satisfied the glowing language of prophecy respecting the future manifestation of the Creator; and ascribing to mere moral virtue, a spiritual origin and character, it would fain persuade us, that what cannot ensure to its possessor even the continuance of the paltry life that now is, may, nevertheless in some way or another, exercise an influence in introducing him to the heavenly mansions.
Mr. Irving, of London, during his short, but brilliantly painful, career, gave a body, and systematic form, to errors respecting the manifestation of the Creator in flesh, which had for centuries been floating in the minds of the religious, and had been exercising a strong, but unsuspected influence, over their sentiments and writings. His leading propositions may be thus condensed: — that the nature of the Lord Jesus, while in flesh, was in itself sinful, like the nature of [228] her from whom it was taken; and that only by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost was he enabled to triumph over the tendencies of this his fleshly nature, and to exhibit it in himself pure and spotless. And that, as having thus, in sinful flesh, by the indwelling of Spirit, personally overcome every temptation to evil, he hath left an example and encouragement to his believing people, how they, in sinful flesh, may be enabled to achieve a similar conquest. There is so much verbiage, so much looseness of writing, and such a redundancy of wild, ungoverned, imagination, in the productions of Mr. Irving, that I have experienced some difficulty in satisfying myself as to his meaning in many of his statements. It strikes me, however, that what is above laid down, is a fair — I am sure, that it is an intentionally fair, — abstract of his most prominent dogmas.
The founder of the sect of Quakers, or Society of friends, as they are fond of being styled, have furnished us with the following scheme of religion. In Christ, while in flesh, there dwelt the Spirit of God without measure. By means of this he combated with, and overcame, every temptation presented to him, manifesting himself, by his obedience unto death, to have been the spotless lamb of God, that should take away the sin of the world. But this Spirit of Christ was not peculiar to himself. Over and above the fleshly principles which mankind possess, there is given to every one of them a measure of this Spirit to profit withal. The heavenly inmate prompts continually to obedience to its dictates, and checks, by exciting remorse, whenever it is violated . It may, notwithstanding, be resisted and overborne. By Adam, although originally created pure and holy, it was withstood and overcome, in Paradise; and in his descendants daily it is resisted and treated with contumely, to their own wrong and aggravated condemnation. Christ, or the light within, is but too often, to use a favorite allusion of theirs, pressed down in the conscience as between two bundles of sheaves. The Spirit, if its gentle stirrings be attended to, and its motions be complied with, invariably leads to Christ; on the contrary, if withstood, its strivings become fainter and fainter, until at last when thoroughly provoked, it withdraws and leaves us to ourselves. Thus, according to the system of Quakerism, Spirit is not a principle, peculiar to Christ, but common to him with every human being; and its grand office is merely auxiliary and subservient to the enforcing divine law upon the conscience.
[229] Having thus placed before my readers a brief abstract of the sentiments of these three sects in so far as we are at present concerned with them, I observe,
In the first place, that they all mistake as to the nature of Spirit.
In the second place, that their mistaken notions respecting the nature of Spirit, have their origin in one and the same cause. None of them conceives of the nature of Jesus as a nature essentially distinguished from that of Adam.
In the third place the mistake of Socinians, Irvingites, and Quakers, is in reality and essentially the same. They all regard Christ as a creature; and all ascribe to what they denominate Spirit, the mere attributes of Soul.
Summing up the preceding animadversions, I observe, 1, that by ascribing to the Son of God the possession of principles the same as those which actuate other intelligent beings, these different sects all concur in degrading that glorious personage to the level of a mere creature; and 2, that by ascribing to Spirit the office of prompting to obedience, restraining from evil, and exciting remorse when its dictates are violated, and above all, by representing it as capable of being overcome, they shew themselves to be confounding the operations of Spirit, with those of natural conscience, and thus to be unable to rise in their conceptions above Soul or the creature mind.
In opposition to the errors thus animadverted on and exposed, the truth, as we have endeavoured to shew in the preceding part of this work, is: —
1. That the Lord Jesus, while in flesh, was like to but not the same with, ordinary human beings.
The Serpent which Moses elevated on the pole, at God’s command, was not one of the fiery serpents by which the Israelites had been bitten; but was an image of brass, exactly resembling one of those serpents. That is, it was in every respect like those serpents, but it was not the same as them.
That the Lord Jesus was the antitype of the brazen serpent, we have his own authority for asserting. John 3:14-17. From the whole allegory, viewed in the light of the Saviour’s comment, we learn that the serpents were the types of human beings, and the nature of the serpents, the type of human nature. Had Jesus, then, appeared in mere human nature, or with the same sinful nature which ordinary [230] human beings have, he would most assuredly have corresponded as antitype to the serpents which sting. But not so. He was manifested as the antitype of the serpent which cured. That is, he appeared as the antitype of the serpent of brass, not of the fiery serpents. What is this, however, except to maintain, in other words, the doctrine of the Apostle, that the Son of God was sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh; Rom. 8:3.
According to the different sects just spoken of, Jesus appeared with the same flesh and blood which human beings have.
Socinians, by making him a mere man, expressly say so.
Mr. Irving and his followers, who glory in maintaining that his human nature was sinful like ours, of course say so likewise.
And Quakers, by regarding Adam’s nature as having been originally spiritual, and Christ as having come to restore that nature, as a matter of necessity, represent the fleshly nature of Christ, to have been the same fleshly nature which Adam himself originally possessed.
Now, according to the scriptures, it is not true, that Jesus appeared with flesh and blood, either in the same state which Adam originally possessed it, or the same state in which it is possessed by his posterity.
He had a body of flesh and blood. In this he was like to Adam, and is like to us.
He had a soul. In this respect likewise he resembled both.
He had this body and soul imparted to him, by his conception and birth of a human female. Here also the parallel or analogy holds.
But as a set off against these resemblances, there are also most marked differences; for,
1st. He was not begotten as we are. If a woman was his mother, God himself was directly his father. Who sees not, in a moment, that this circumstance of itself precludes the possibility of his nature having been the same as ours?
2ndly. His body we learn, as a matter of fact, was pure, substantial, and incorruptible. Whereas our bodies are impure, shadowy and corruptible. Again. His soul was pure, holy and thoroughly obedient to divine law. Whereas our [231] souls are impure, unholy, and totally incapable of being subjected to divine law. Rom. 7:12 to end, summed up in 8:7. — Is any thing more required to draw attention to the difference between a fleshly body and mind such as those of the Son of God, and fleshly bodies and minds such as ours are?
The conclusion from the whole is, that Jesus, although a man, and, therefore in every respect like to Adam, was nevertheless a man who was in no respect whatever the same as Adam. Adam was a typical or shadowy man; Jesus an antitypical or substantial man. Adam was an earthly man; Jesus a heavenly man. Adam was a mere creature; Jesus was the Creator. — Who can with truth say of beings whose natures were thus essentially different, that, however like they might be to each other, the one could be the same as the other?
In a word, Adam, as having been the figure of him that was to come, Rom. 5:14, must in all respects have corresponded to, or been like to Jesus, but as a mere figure it was impossible for him in any one respect to have been the same with the Lord of Glory.
In the second place. In Christ, while in flesh, Spirit condescended to appear in the form of Soul; in Christ’s people, while in flesh, Soul is made to appear in the form of Spirit.
This opposition between the state in which Spirit dwelt in Christ, and that in which it dwells in believers, is a subject concerning which the sects in question, and not only they but almost every religious body in existence, shew themselves to be entirely ignorant. And as the result of this ignorance, they necessarily confound the state and circumstances of the Creator while in flesh, with those of his creatures.
i. Jesus’ mind, while he was in flesh, was Spirit in the form of Soul; that is, was the mind of the Creator in the form of the mind of the creature.
It was Soul. Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin. Isaiah 53:10. He hath poured out his soul unto death. Ibid. 12. My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death. Mark 14:34.
It was a principle superior to ordinary Soul. This it must have been, because, 1st, He was the Son of God, as well as the Son of man. 2ndly. When temptation was [232] presented to him, instead of having been overcome by it as Adam was, and as all Adam’s posterity are, he on the contrary overcame it. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. 1 Peter 2:22. And, 3rdly, altho’ as Soul it could die, it could do, what ordinary Soul is not capable of, raise itself from the dead. — Besides Spirit is expressly ascribed to him. Upon the cross he exclaimed, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit; Luke 23:46; and with a reference to his essential character, a character which he could not part with even when manifest in flesh, he is denominated in contradistinction to Adam, a quickening Spirit. 1 Cor. 15:45.
To express myself otherwise: as possessed of Soul, Jesus capable of being subjected to divine law, and of dying; and as possessed of Spirit in the form of Soul, his subjection to divine law implied his complete fulfilment of it, and his dying, implied his rising again by his own native power from the dead.
As possessed of Soul, he was man; as possessed of Spirit in the form of Soul, he was the substantial, as distinguished from the shadowy man.
As possessed of Soul, he was one with the human family; as possessed of Spirit in the20 form of Soul, his union was a real and substantial, not a shadowy one.
20 If so, however, who can overlook the fact that the nature of the Creator appeared in Jesus, while he was in flesh, in union with the nature of the creature.
As possessed of Soul, he could die like others; as possessed of Spirit in the form of Soul, not only was his dying his own voluntary act, but he could do, what others could not, — raise himself from the dead; and thereby turn to account his necessary and inseparable union with others, by raising them also.
i. That Spirit in Christ while he was upon earth, was descending; whereas Spirit in his people is ascending. Spirit in Christ appeared in the form of Soul or fleshly mind, in order to grasp, or take hold of, the creature. Spirit in Christ’s people appears in its own proper form, in token of their head having, by his resurrection from the dead and ascension to glory, succeeded in his having grasped the creature, and in his now drawing that, which, while in flesh, he took hold of, upward to himself.
[233] ii. Spirit in Christ, while in flesh, was conforming itself to the nature of the creature. Spirit in believers now is conforming the nature of the creature to its own proper nature. Union of Spirit with Soul, in the Messiah himself, was the result of the former. Consumption of Soul by Spirit, implying the conversion of Soul into Spirit, or the elevation of the mind of the creature, to the possession of the first fruits of the mind of the Creator, in the Messiah’s people, is the result of the latter.
Of these principles, and of the conclusions to which they lead, plain and satisfactory as they are to every enlightened Christian, none of the sects in question possess the shadow of an idea.
Socinians, even those of the better class, shew themselves to be destitute of it, by professing to regard the minds of Christians as being, except in degree of excellence and purity, situated exactly as the mind of Christ himself was.
So also do the followers of Mr Irving. For, as, according to them, Jesus, in sinful flesh, was enabled to overcome evil, so also are his people, in sinful flesh, enabled by the same heavenly agent, influencing them after the same manner, to overcome it likewise.
And so also do the Society of friends although after a sort of inverse fashion. The Spirit which, according to them, in Jesus himself overcame sin, was merely a larger measure of the same principle which in various measures dwells in every one that cometh into the world, and in every one is more or less overcome by sin.
Christianity rejects with abhorrence all such perversions of its doctrines: shewing us,
1 . That not more different was Jesus while in flesh, from Adam his prototype; than is Jesus now, from what he was while in flesh. While in flesh, Jesus was the substantial, as opposed to the shadowy man; now that he is elevated to glory, he is the triumphant Lord, as opposed to the suffering servant. In other words: Adam’s shadowy nature, was to Christ’s relatively substantial nature upon earth, what Christ’s relatively substantial nature while upon earth, is to his absolutely substantial nature now.
2. Jesus appeared upon earth, to take substantial flesh and blood nature alone. According to Irvingites, whatever nature and privileges Jesus had while he was upon earth, he [234] shares with those who believe in his name. According to Socinians and Quakers, he shares his earthly nature with every human being. Scripture repudiates both ideas. Christ’s earthly nature was, according to the word of God, so peculiar and confined to himself, that of it, no human being, whether believer or unbeliever, can by any possibility partake.
3. The nature which Jesus now possesses, and not the nature which he possessed while upon earth, is that which he communicates to his people. He gives them hereafter, neither the pure shadowy flesh and blood body, which Adam had originally in Paradise, nor the pure substantial flesh and blood body, with which he himself appeared while upon earth. They have their present vile bodies, fashioned hereafter like unto, not his pure earthly, but his present glorious, heavenly, body. — He gives not to believers either here the first fruits, or hereafter the full enjoyment, of the pure fleshly mind of Adam previous to his transgression; or the pure fleshly mind subject to divine law, which was the substance of the other, and which he himself during his earthly abode possessed. But he confers on us, by faith now, the first fruits of his present heavenly mind as Love; and thereby paves the way for the full enjoyment of that same mind, in his own immediate presence hereafter.
In plain English: Christ gives us the first fruits of his present nature, not of the nature which he had while on earth. This excludes, union of his present nature with our fleshly natures, subjection of our nature to divine law, and the slightest degree of purification of it. It implies, elevation of our minds to where Christ now is, and this implies not union with our nature, but the consumption of our nature in so far as it extends. He is divine; our minds, in so far as enlightened from above, are rendered divine likewise. Not, divine-human.
We see then that the divine nature, and not a divine-human nature, being what the Lord Jesus rose with from the dead, and now possesses; the divine nature, and not a divine-human nature, is the principle, the first fruits of which he imparts to the minds of his people. That is, the revolution which takes place in the mind when the knowledge of the truth is communicated, is the exact counterpart of what took place in the resurrection of our Lord from the dead. In connection with our Lord’s rising again there occurred, first, the destruction [235] of his divine-human nature; and, secondly, his leaving the grave with his previously compound nature, changed and elevated into the divine nature. Just so, in believing the gospel, although in the inverse order, there takes place, first, the communication of the first fruits of the divine nature, and, secondly in the very instant of these being communicated, the destruction, in so far as they extend of the principles of mere human nature. The sameness between Christ’s resurrection, and the communication of faith, consists in this, that both are the communication of the divine nature; the difference is this, that, whereas in the case of our blessed Lord, the descent of Spirit into union with flesh, behoved to be followed by the descent of the united nature to the regions of the dead, before a resurrection could take place; on the contrary, in the case of mere human beings, the ascent of Spirit having already taken place, all that is requisite is to communicate to them the principle of Spirit as ascended, which implies on their part not as in Christ the previous, but the subsequent destruction of Soul. But except that, in Christ’s case, the destruction of divine-human nature, preceded the imparting of the divine nature; and that, in our case, the imparting of the first fruits of the divine nature precedes the destruction in so far of human nature; the analogy between Christ’s resurrection, and our belief of the gospel, is complete. See the resemblance brought out by the Apostle, in his epistle to the Ephesians, chapter first, verse 19. — Now, ordinary religious characters, instead of perceiving the inseparable connection which subsists between Christ’s resurrection and what took place at the period of the communication to us of the principle of faith, fancy to themselves an analogy between the communication to us of faith, and what took place at the period of Christ’s birth. They have a vague notion of what is true, that Jesus when he appeared on earth, was uniting himself to flesh; and that his object in effecting this union was, that he might thereby improve and purify flesh. That Spirit still unites itself in some mysterious way to flesh, by imparting the principle of faith; and that, by this union, flesh still is improved and purified; seems to be the import of the notions ordinarily current. Alas! for the grievous blindness and ignorance of such. Little are they aware, that the purification of human nature, by its union with the divine nature, in the Son of God manifest in flesh, was preparatory, not to this purification becoming the model [236] of God’s procedure in the case of ordinary human beings but to his shewing, by the sacrifice of the nature so purified, and resurrection under another and higher form, that, except in himself, and in consequence of its union with the divine, purification of human nature was an utter impossibility; and that the purification of it in himself was merely subservient to his personally possessing, and imparting to others, the divine nature.
28. Spirit supersedes, by swallowing up, Soul.
Although the principles to be laid down in the present section, have already been referred to in a former part of this work, their importance is such as to justify a more ample consideration.
Soul, or creature mind, is the subject in which all our thoughts, feelings, and volitions, inhere. It constitutes to every one of us, the I, or individual. To it, as to a common centre, in which it meets, and around which it turns, every thing else converges. Of it, as their common substance, all other things are necessarily regarded as so many attributes. That is, the various objects which exist around us, and with which we are daily conversant, have nothing to do with us, have indeed to us no existence, except in proportion as they become to us subjective or a part of ourselves. Mankind are practically disciples of Berkeley in their sentiments. To the great majority of them, even the name of that celebrated metaphysician may not be known; but, even without being formally acquainted with his philosophy, like Moliere’s fictitious personage who talked prose without knowing it, they all act on his leading principle. Their own minds, that is, they themselves, are conceived of by themselves, as so many real substances. To their own minds, in consequence of this, immateriality and immortality, free will and independence of character, and other attributes of real substance, are as a matter of course ascribed. In their own minds, as so many real substances, all other things appear to exist, and come to be regarded. Surrounding objects are seen by them only in connection with themselves, and as deriving all their importance from that connection. Hence it is, that self is to every one of us naturally the highest being whom we know, the principal being in whom we take concern, and the only being from their greater or less connection with whom, other beings and objects inspire us with any interest.
[237] With Spirit, or the mind of the Creator, on the contrary our natural feelings and cogitations have nothing whatever to do. When spoken of, or presented to us, it is merely as an object; but an object altogether foreign to our apprehensions. It is the mind of God. As such, it cannot be taken in or apprehended, by the mind of man. If it should come to have any connection with us, it must be not by us as the inferior, comprehending it; but by it, as the superior, comprehending us. — Natural objects, we have seen, are the mere satellites of soul, or natural mind. They move around it as their common centre. Nay, they have no existence to it, except as existing in it. — This, however, by the very necessity of the case, can never happen to Spirit, or divine mind. Spirit may be itself a centre; in it other things may exist; (I use hypothetical language; but I mean not, that what I say, is hypothetical: it is certain;) but it is impossible for it as Spirit, that is, as what it is, the mind of God, to become the dependant of Soul, or to exist in Soul. When spirit, and spiritual things, become objects of Soul, it is never as what they are; on the contrary, being looked at through the medium of the deceptive atmosphere of Soul, or creature mind, they are necessarily regarded as belonging to the class of soulical things. In order to our having the knowledge of Spirit, and spiritual things, communicated to us, our minds themselves, must, in the very act of communication, be rendered spiritual; that is, Soul, or the mind of flesh, must, in so far as spiritual views are imparted, be swallowed up in Spirit, or the mind of God; this new mind, becoming in us the light in which spiritual things are apprehended, the substance in which they cohere, and the centre around which they turn.
If I have been understood in these statements, then it will be apparent,
1 . That Soul, or creature mind, is at once the subject of all human ideas, and the object of all human beings, naturally. They, as such, possess nothing more than Soul. In soul, therefore, as their only subject, all the ideas of mankind naturally must inhere. And as our own ideas are, properly speaking, the only objects with which naturally our minds are conversant, it follows, that towards Soul, as containing in itself all our ideas, our thoughts and reflections must naturally and exclusively be directed. Under such circumstances, it is impossible that Soul can have anything what-[238]ever to do with Spirit, either subjectively, or objectively. Not the former; for Soul is by the terms of the supposition the subject, which it would cease to be the moment that Spirit became so; Spirit, or the mind of God, as the superior, becoming subjective in our minds only by supplanting Soul, or the mind of man, as the inferior, and substituting itself in its place. Not the latter; for Spirit as such can never become an object of Soul, it being impossible for the limited to apprehend the unlimited; and thus Spirit, when stripped of its distinctive character, as it necessarily is when contemplated by Soul, ceases to deserve the appellation of Spirit. — Thus, although, in popular phraseology, we may speak of spiritual things being presented objectively to Soul, or natural mind, the language is necessarily inaccurate; what are in reality presented to Soul, while it continues such, being merely at the utmost new combinations of the soulical or natural, ideas which it already possesses.
2. That Spirit or divine mind, is at once the subject, and object, of all spiritual ideas. It is their subject; for in mere natural mind, it is impossible for what is supernatural to inhere. It is their object; for they alone are worthy of occupying it, and to it alone can they be presented, and by it alone can they be apprehended. The fact is, that the resurrection of Christ, if attended to and understood, furnishes us with the only correct views which we are qualified to take of this extremely interesting and important subject. Jesus, in rising again from the dead, and appearing as the divine being, swallowed up in himself the inferior nature which while on earth he had possessed. His mind is now Spirit. As such, He is the substance and centre of all spiritual as well as natural things. And as he who is one with us, and in whom we live, move, and have our being, he merely requires to swallow up our soulical minds, in his own spiritual mind, to give us to see, think and feel, as he himself does. Now this is exactly what happens, when to any one of us there are imparted the first fruits of Spirit. Jesus entering our minds as Spirit by the manifestation to us of his character, renders Spirit, as far as it enters, our mind; and as divine, it swallows up in itself, in the degree to which it enters, our former creature mind. That is, the very same effect takes place in us to a certain degree when the truth is manifested to our consciences, which took place in Christ himself when he rose from the dead. In both cases, the [239] inferior nature is swallowed up in the superior. Soul, whether pure as in Christ, or impure as in us, is exchanged for Spirit. And his divine mind having once become ours, or dwelling in us subjectively, divine things presented to this mind as objects are apprehended by us accordingly. If these divine things be contained in, and appear as conclusions from spiritual views already possessed by us, they are apprehended by the degree of spiritual understanding which had been previously conferred on us. But if new discoveries of divine truth, and consequently, exceeding the measure of our present spiritual views are presented, then they are not apprehended by the degree of spiritual mind which we already possess, for the inferior cannot take in the superior, but themselves form, when bestowed, an addition to, an enlargement of, our present measure of spiritual understanding. The very same resurrection, or swallowing up, process, being observable in the subsequent communication of every superior degree of spiritual truth, which was observable in the communication of the very lowest degree of it at first. Spirit is never apprehended by Soul, but Soul is always apprehended, and thereby absorbed, by Spirit. Thus does Spirit progress in us. As existing subjectively to a certain degree in each one of us upon whom the knowledge of God has been bestowed, it is enabling us continually to apprehend such spiritual objects as fall within its present range; and as existing subjectively in the Lord Jesus, in an infinitely higher degree than it exists in any one of us, yet is it made from time to time, to have a higher subjective existence in each one of us, according as he is pleased in the exercise of his good pleasure to communicate it to us in larger degrees out of his inexhaustible fulness.
The preceding observations and reasonings tend to shew the utter incompatibility of Soul and Spirit. Where the one is, the other is not. — Where Soul alone dwells, spiritual principle, even in the minutest proportion, cannot occupy a place. Soul, under such circumstances, constituting the subject or basis, of mind, and the point in which all our ideas, feelings, and interests, centre, it is only as partaking of the nature of Soul, that any object whatever can be apprehended. A shadow herself, soul can only be conversant with shadows. Hence it is, that Spirit, as substantial mind, necessarily eludes her grasp. Spiritual things may, popularly speaking, be presented to her as objects; but subjects, that is, parts and [240] portions of herself, while she continues soul merely, it is absolutely impossible for them to become. On the other hand, in exact proportion as Spirit occupies any mind, Soul is thence superseded. The moment that Spirit becomes the subject, and basis, of our minds and the central point of our thoughts and feelings, it enables, nay, constrains, us, to conceive of objects in a manner suitable to its own superior nature. As substantial, it cannot rest on, nor can it be content with, mere shadows. Hence, while all truly spiritual ideas are found to be perfectly adjusted to, and strictly consistent with, the shadowy outlines sketched by Soul, it is not as shadowy that the spiritual mind apprehends them. Spirit, as substantial, necessarily swallows up, and supersedes, even in time, Soul, and all its ideas, as shadowy; thereby preparing the way for that ultimate and complete absorption of Soul, in Spirit, that is, of shadow in substance, which shall distinguish another and a higher state of being.
In a word, Soul and Spirit cannot co-exist. — We all naturally possess Soul, and to it, while left to the operations of our own minds, we cling, bringing down all our ideas and interests to its level. It is shadowy, but it is nevertheless the fitting centre of the shadowy beings in which it dwells, and the shadowy beings by which it is surrounded. We neither can rise above it naturally, nor are we desirous of rising above it. — The entrance of Spirit is the effecting of a complete mental revolution. It is, in so far as it extends, the substitution of the substantial, for the shadowy. It is the mind of the Creator, asserting its native supremacy by superseding the mind of the creature. — Thus is the co-existence of the two minds shewn to be impossible. The shadowy, soul, implies the absence of the substantial, Spirit. The substantial, Spirit, must, if it enters, and in proportion to the degree in which it enters, supersede, by absorbing it, the shadowy, soul. — If yourself possessed of Spirit, reader, you know that this very revolution has taken place in your own mind.
29. Emmanuel Kant.
There is nothing which is so much calculated to strike a mind enlightened from above, as to observe acute and original understandings becoming, without being aware of it, the auxiliaries of divine truth. Philosophers have seldom, or never had any intention to promote its success. Indeed, sometimes avowedly the very reverse. Their purpose has been to undermine the authority of the Scriptures; and to set [241] up the reign of nature, or human intellect, in their place. Perhaps, to advance the cause of scepticism in general is all they aim at. How delightful, as well as astonishing, to perceive the researches of such men overruled by him in whose hands are the hearts of all flesh, to be the means of clearing away the rubbish of human inventions, and preparing matters for a brighter display of his glory, than had ever previously been vouchsafed.
David Hume, and Emanuel Kant, rank high among the number of those to whose labours the enlightened followers of Jesus must ever consider themselves as lying under no common obligations. They were sceptics, but they were rational ones. Unlike the members of the scoffing French school of infidelity, they went seriously to work. The former, not only made an open avowal of his scepticism, but has furnished us with the grounds upon which that scepticism rested; thereby, not only bringing under our notice many interesting facts in psychology with which we were previously unacquainted, but, what is of far more importance, exposing the hollowness of all those principles upon which, independently of revelation, men pretend to found their convictions of the existence of God and divine things. The latter, without having been so avowed a sceptic as his predecessor, belongs obviously to the same school. But he has accomplished what Hume did not. Hume’s mind was better fitted to destroy than to build up. Hence while the acuteness of his analysis must ever delight, as well as surprise, all who are qualified and disposed to prosecute metaphysical researches, in his attempts to construct he is far from being successful. In this last respect, he is surpassed by his disciple. With at least equal power of analysis, Kant has not only gone to the bottom of the human mind, which Hume did not, but has shewn likewise under the form of a most profound, and yet most luminous, synthesis, what its structure and functions actually are. The philosophy of this eminent foreigner may be developed and followed out. Kindred minds, like that of Cousin in France, may devote themselves to the elucidation of its obscurities — but in its leading features, and main discoveries, the system of Kant appears to me to possess all the constituents and essential elements of durability.
When Hume evinced, that all important truth, the absolute impossibility of any experience however enlarged and [242] protracted, becoming the basis of necessary deduction, thereby sapping the foundations of the puerile, common sense, philosophy, although, certainly, at the same time, reducing everything connected with mind to a state the most debasing and deplorable, he was merely acting as the pioneer of Kant. This remarkable man, taking up matters where Hume had left them, succeeded in discovering and establishing a distinction in the human mind, which, if suspected, at all events had never been presented in a light so masterly and philosophical before. He shewed, that mind21 consists of two parts, understanding and reason; the former, inferior, the latter superior; the former, conversant with objects of experience merely, the latter having, in his apprehension, for its appropriate objects its own ideas. It is of his discovery, not of the objects to which he applies it, that I now speak. It is enough for me, that he has proved the existence, in the human mind, of a capacity to indulge in speculations which transcend the limits of bare experience; and that he has brought to light the various functions of which it consists. These are three in number. Reason, as distinguished from understanding, has, according to him, a capacity to form conceptions of — first, substance, secondly, liberty, and thirdly, necessity; the three classes of conceptions or ideas, so formed being denominated by him, respectively, psychological, cosmological, and theological. That is, in the three logical forms of the human mind, or in the capacity of the mind to construct syllogisms, as categorical, hypothetical, or disjunctive, does Kant discover the origin of the ideas of Reason, as distinguished from the mere conceptions of the understanding. And these three forms, or functions, take in and exhaust all the metaphysical or transcendental capacities of the human mind. In plain English, they embrace all the faculties of man which go beyond the bounds of the objects and results of experience.
21 Soul or the natural mind, I mean, for of it I am now speaking.
I cannot convey to my readers any adequate idea of the pleasure which the perusal of Kant’s “Prolegomena to Metaphysic” has afforded me. An article which appeared in Tait’s Magazine first induced me to look into the work. Its author, the opium eater, speaking of the Kantian system, expresses his regret, that “all its doctrines are negative — teaching, in no case what we are, but simply what we are [243] not to believe, — and that all its truths are barren.” This very circumstance was what stimulated me to farther enquiry. Divine tuition, derived from the scriptures, had long before satisfied me, that every thing connected with man as such, is of necessity negative — particularly his understanding and his morality, and I felt anxious to see what so celebrated an author, with no particular bias that I was aware of in favour of revelation, could have to say on the same side of the question. The result has not disappointed me. Without adopting every one of Kant’s conclusions, I have been struck with the general truth of his premises. And I now cannot help regarding him as having been specially raised up, in the course of God’s adorable providence, to go to the bottom of the human mind itself upon its own principles, (which as nearly as mere man can, he has done,) and thereby to shew, how worthless in itself mere Soul is, and how completely unfitted for any other, than its present state of existence.
For many years, I now perceive, that I had been in a course of training for the reception of some of the leading principles of the Kantian philosophy. The word of God had convinced me in general of the distinction subsisting between Soul and Spirit. Soul in itself, I had observed, was a mere animal principle; and yet I had observed, also, that it was a principle which was capable of having superinduced upon it, or rather of being superseded by, Spirit, a principle of a superior because heavenly nature. In this very capability of the reception of Spirit, not in anything possessed or existing in itself, had I observed the grand superiority of Soul, or the mind of man, over the minds of the inferior animals. It had, therefore, for some time, been a settled point with me, taught by the word of God, that man possessed a capacity for the reception of divine truth, though in what that capacity consisted, I was unable to satisfy myself. Let the reader observe what I say. A capacity for the reception of Spirit, not a power to confer Spirit upon himself. I am particular as to this distinction; because, unless I succeed in conveying it to the mind of the reader, he will as a matter of necessity fail of comprehending my meaning. In respect to the capacity of which I speak, I never regarded the mind of man as being more than passive; that is, not as able to confer, or to take any step towards conferring, the knowledge of divine truth upon itself, but as being so constituted, as to [244] be able to receive divine truth, whenever it might please God to bestow it upon him. Now, what in general I had held previously, the philosophy of Kant has been the means of opening up to me in detail. In the logical forms of the human mind or the functions of reason as distinguished from those of understanding, it has shewn me that upon which Spirit takes hold, and through which it is manifested. In them, I saw that passive capacity (I use the terms conjointly, to obviate my being misunderstood,) of which I had so long been in search. Indeed the real science of metaphysics, I now perceive clearly, is theology, or divine revelation itself; what is commonly called metaphysics being merely at best a system of shadows, with which the human mind may amuse itself, but with which it never can be satisfied. The logical forms of the human mind are evidently so many moulds existing in man ready prepared for the reception of divine truth; and until divine truth be cast into them, they must remain destitute of that which by their very nature they are adapted to receive.
What, in so far as our present subject is concerned the philosophy of Kant has done, and wherein it has failed, may be brought out in a very few sentences. The point where the word of God steps in and imparts what philosophy cannot, may then be briefly elucidated.
Philosophical investigations had enabled the Königsberg professor to ascertain what many had seen before him, that the mind of man, besides possessing an ability to observe, compare, and judge of, external phenomena, possesses likewise the power of observing and judging of what is passing within itself. The things observed, however, being in both cases equally phenomena or appearances, whether these be external or internal, there is in reality no difference between the powers which the mind in the two different cases exerts. It is with matters of experience that in both cases the mind is conversant. But the mind, in addition to its ability to observe what is passing within, has likewise the power of making its own structure and constitution the subject matter of its reflections. This is a power different from that of merely observing phenomena; and in order to its successful cultivation requires the possession of intellect of a very superior description. If prosecuted successfully it leads to the most valuable discoveries. The ultimate powers of the human mind are thereby discovered to be three in number: — [245] first, a power of observing what is; secondly, a power of observing the relations which things bear to one another; and, thirdly, a power of combining the various objects which it has observed, in one whole.
Considered subjectively, these powers, faculties, or capacities, may be easily ascertained to exist in the human mind. But when we come to examine them objectively, or with a reference to the topics with which they are conversant, the food if one may so express oneself, with which they are supplied, it is then that our difficulties begin. In so far as mere phenomena or appearances are concerned, there is not one of these three powers which therewith can be satisfied. To begin with the first of them, or that which has substance for its object. Whether the objects with which this is conversant be external or internal, they are to it mere phenomena, or appearances concerning which, although it may pronounce that they seem to be, it dare not say positively that they actually are. And this, because its own existence, which is to itself the most certain of any, and that in connection with which alone other things have to it any existence at all, is a matter concerning which it cannot pronounce with absolute certainty. Itself a being of yesterday and destined to pass away to-morrow, how dare it assert positively its own being? May not that after all be a dream? And if its own real existence be questionable, is not the real existence of other things thereby rendered questionable likewise? Similar observations fall to be made with regard to that power of the mind which considers relations. These are, not the necessary connections of realities, but merely the occurrence of phenomena in certain series; some preceding, some following; some constant, some occasional; some independently of others, some in dependence upon others. But if it be impossible to be certain, concerning the existence of the phenomena themselves, equally impossible must it be to speak with confidence respecting the existence of their relations. Take, for instance, the relation to other things which the consciousness of liberty, or the power of spontaneous motion, seems to confer upon us. To it we are indebted unquestionably for the only idea which we have of the relation of cause and effect. Now, will any one presume to say, that this very phenomenon, — for phenomenon it is, — may not after all be deceptive? In our volitions, we appear to ourselves to be free. But in supposing ourselves to be so, may we not be [246] dupes, and be in reality the slaves of the very nature which we possess? and the circumstances in which we are placed? And if thus liable to be deceived in regard to one relation, and this too the least likely to impose on us, as being that with which we are the most likely to be acquainted, how can we rely upon the information conveyed to us, by our senses and otherwise, as to the relations subsisting among other things themselves? — In the third and last place, we are able, to combine the phenomena which we have observed, in one whole. Even this leaves us dissatisfied. As the parts combined are mere phenomena, that is, are supplied to us by experience merely, the whole can be no more than a combination of phenomena. And if when the phenomena themselves are presented in detail, they cannot inspire with confidence, can any combination of them whatever do so? — And, besides, what is the whole which is thus combined? The collection into one, of the objects which we have observed, and the relation subsisting among these objects, with which we have made ourselves acquainted. This, it is evident, has no existence, as a whole, except in our own minds. It is a mere idea. And an idea, too, which as susceptible of increase, is necessarily imperfect. Is it to be wondered at, that no combination of mere natural phenomena, however accurately and extensively made, can satisfy our minds?
But are these three ultimate powers, or functions, of the human mind conversant with nothing more than mere phenomena, or appearances? According to Kant, they are conversant with something farther. Their appropriate objects are the pure conceptions of Reason, or the transcendental ideas. Viewing the human mind as consisting of two distinct parts, Understanding, the inferior, and Reason, the superior, he represents phenomena, or appearances, as the objects of the latter. The conceptions of Reason contain, in the first place, the idea of the complete subject, or the substantial; 2ndly, the idea of the complete series of conditions; and 3rdly, the determination of all conceptions in the idea of a complete complex of the possible. That is, the ideas of substance, relation, and perfection. Such ideas, he maintains, exist, and as transcendental go beyond any with which experience supplies us; but they are of no use, indeed, rather detrimental, in so far as experience is concerned, are barren of all practical results, and are in themselves perfectly unsatisfactory.
Thus Kant exhibits to us the human mind as consisting [247] of ultimate faculties, which, neither in phenomena, or appearances, nor in noumena, or mere ideas, find anything to satisfy them. The phenomena do not come up to, or exhaust, their requirements. The noumena are mere barren and fugitive abstractions. And the result of the whole is, a discovery of the inability of the human mind to be satisfied from any class of objects which may be presented to it: that is, a discovery of its thoroughly negative character.
Having followed this surpassingly acute metaphysician to the utmost verge of his alleged discoveries, and shewn the unsatisfactory result in which they terminate, I now observe, that by the scriptures we are enabled to appreciate their value, and to pronounce positively upon their truth or falsehood.
In maintaining, that there exist in the human mind capacities which cannot be satisfied by mere experience, Kant seems to be completely borne out by Revelation. And that these are the identical powers, or faculties, which are conversant with the ideas, denominated by him pure conceptions of reason, or transcendental, there is nothing in the word of God to contradict. But at this point any confirmation which his theory is capable of receiving from scripture terminates.
For, first, abstract and barren as the transcendental ideas are admitted by him to be, even they, have not the mind of man, but divine revelation, for their original. Observed subjectively, they are mere human ideas, I admit. And, as commonly cherished and maintained, there is nothing more required, in order to the consideration of them, than the exercise of mere human faculties. But they are human ideas originally suggested by revelation. That is, viewed objectively, they were originally communicated by God himself. Whence the possibility of any ideas of substance, dependency, and perfection, unless God had been pleased to furnish mankind with the first hints of them? From no objects of experience could they have been derived. A transient world, could never have supplied us with views of permanency; a scene of apparent confusion, with the notion of complete system; and imperfection of every kind, with the idea of perfection. Once suggested, the mind of man is capable, by its own powers, to a certain extent, of following out these ideas. But unless suggested by revelation, whence could they have arisen? In the absence of revelation, experience [248] must have been the only source of all human conceptions; and experience, it has been shewn by the acutest minds does not of itself furnish as with the ideas of substance, causation, and perfection. — “There is no danger,” says Kant, “of the understanding spontaneously making an excursion wantonly beyond its own bounds into the field of the mere creatures of thought, without being impelled by foreign laws.” True. What, then, are those foreign laws? Not any thing in the mind itself; for to prove, that “Reason cannot be fully satisfied with the use of the experience of the rules of the understanding,” is a very different thing from proving, that reason of herself is able to know the source whence the dissatisfaction of which she is conscious, is to be removed. And if not reason, there is nothing else within the mind of man capable of giving impulse to the understanding. Where, then, are we to look for “laws” foreign to the human mind, and at the same time capable of impelling it “to make an excursion into the field of the mere creatures of thought,” except in Revelation itself?
Secondly. There exists a complete difference, not merely in degree, but also in kind, between the abstract, or transcendental, ideas, the acquisition of which Kant represents as the effect of the highest exercise of the functions of Reason, and views which accord with revelation itself. It will have been noticed, that although objectively I have traced the origin of these ideas to divine Revelation, I have admitted that subjectively they are in themselves merely human. Whatever be the origin of the transcendental ideas however, they are by Kant’s own statement, mere creatures of thought, having no existence except in the mind of him by whom they are conceived, and, consequently, finding nothing to confirm them within the limits of human experience. At this point, the difference and superiority of the views with which we are furnished by the word of God, make their appearance. They are not mere ideas, for they are the result of objects presented to us; and objects, too, which, although not connected with human experience, of themselves lay the foundation of, and constitute a higher, that is, a divine experience. These objects satisfy, by filling up, the functions of Reason, which objects of ordinary experience never can; and having a real substantive existence, they take our views out of the category of mere ideas. This may [249] be easily shewn. If the highest empirical notion of substance, be the ego, or the mind of the individual himself, that is, the mind of a being whose existence began yesterday, and will end to morrow, and if what is transcendental in our notions respecting this subject, be a mere noumenon, or creature of thought, on the other hand, there is presented by Revelation in the person of the Son of God, that which completely satisfies the logical function which is conversant with substance, his existence being from everlasting to everlasting, and he being the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. — If the highest notion of the relation of cause and effect with which experience furnishes us, be the consciousness of our volitions as spontaneous, and of the effects which flow from them, and if all beyond be a mere idea, — scripture again, in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as the author both of the Old and the New Creation, as he who is before all things, and by whom all things consist, and above all as that being who stands in every conceivable relation to his creatures, gives to the second syllogistic function of Reason an object so appropriate as to meet and exhaust all its requirements. — And, in the third and last place, if, by the highest stretch of our minds in attempting to combine the objects of our knowledge in a whole, we are merely combining phenomena, or giving a species of unity to the objects of our experience, and if all beyond be an idea of mere existence as barren and valueless as either of the two others, Revelation, again, when it interposes to make us acquainted with the character of God, as manifested in the face of his well-beloved Son, introduces into our minds views of him as the great and unchangeable I am, by whom every attribute is possessed in the highest perfection, and of whom all the objects which surround us are merely so many manifestations. Thus, instead of mere human experience, and ordinary phenomena, which necessarily leave the logical functions of Reason unsatisfied, and mere ideas which are confessedly barren and negative, Revelation confers views of God, through the medium of his manifestation in flesh, which, as phenomena, present the mind with adequate objects leaving it no longer barren as the mere ideas of Reason do, and, as divine phenomena, satisfy its largest and most extravagant requirements. Under these circumstances, I am surely justified in saying, that there must be a complete difference, not merely in degree, but also in kind, between the barren, transcendental, ideas of Kant, the [250] uttermost which he can ascribe to human Reason, and these views of God, as the substantial being, as the cause of all things, and as the infinitely perfect one, for which Christians are indebted to the volume of inspiration.
But, thirdly and lastly, the transcendental ideas of Reason, differ from the views introduced into the mind by Revelation, not only objectively, but also subjectively; that is, they not only differ in themselves, but they differ also in the effects and consequences which they respectively produce in the human mind. The ideas of pure Reason, although originating in Revelation, when received, are attended with no alteration in the mental powers. It is the mind as soul, or fleshly mind, which conceives of them. The logical functions are put forth in the grasping of such ideas, just as they are in the acquisition of any of our other mental creations. In a word, the human mind, in seizing on the transcendental ideas, or pure conceptions of Reason, is active. But if active in so doing, the activity of soul ends here. It can reach no higher. Subjectively we have got to the logical forms or functions of Reason, that is, to the utmost limits of the mere human mind; Objectively we have got to the barren ideas of Substance, Relation, and Completeness in a whole, the highest objects, within the range of its conception, which human reason is able to take in. Here we are at a stand still. But these ultimate functions of the human mind, although incapable of putting forth any higher efforts, that is, of actively exerting themselves to any greater extent, are nevertheless capable of being still farther acted upon passively. This is what Revelation does. It introduces itself into the mind through the instrumentality of these very functions. They are the opening afforded by Soul to the entrance of divine light; and through it, when God pleases, that light penetrates into the inmost recesses of natural darkness. But although the functions of Reason, or ultimate faculties of man, are, in one sense, capacities for the passive reception of divine truth, in another sense they are not. Through them alone Revelation can enter; and into them alone, as so many moulds fitted and prepared for its reception, Revelation can be cast; but by them, as they naturally exist, Revelation cannot be contained. The barren metaphysical ideas of Substance, Relation, and Perfection, are the highest which the mere human mind receives, or can receive. To receive real substance, to become possessed of the principle of real freedom [251] and power, and to know him in whom all things stand complete, transcends the utmost reach of the mere human faculties. But Revelation accomplishes what in these respects is necessary. Not merely is it objectively presented to the mind of him who is enlightened by it, but subjectively it takes up its abode in him. It actually, in the very moment of its reception, and in the degree to which it is received, new creates his rational faculties. Entering into a mind which by nature is fitted only for the reception of mere human ideas, and which at the utmost can only grasp ideas of truth merely under a transcendental or metaphysical form, that is, as mere barren speculations, revelation actually qualifies it for the reception of truths which are divine. The moment in which revelation is apprehended objectively, is the very moment in which the faculties which apprehend it, are new created subjectively. And the degree in which objectively it is apprehended, is the exact degree in which subjectively it new creates the mind by which it is apprehended. There are at one and the same moment new objects presented to the mind, and a new mind is created capable of understanding these objects. If Christ as true substance, as the cause of, and related to all things, and as the being in whom all things as a whole consist, be the object which spiritual, as distinguished from soulical, mind, apprehends, real objects, being embraced by the former, and mere barren ideas, by the latter — the first fruits of substantial principle, of divine freedom, and of certainty of oneness with God himself, are by spiritual mind, as the subject, possessed likewise. And thus to know God to any extent objectively, is to have the nature of God to the same extent formed in our minds subjectively.
Such are some of the leading views of that original ingenious, and profound, writer, Kant; and such, when rightly understood, is the wonderful congruity of his system with scripture. The forms or functions of reason, find nothing in human experience corresponding to them, or capable of satisfying them; and, when they attempt to go beyond experience, they grasp nothing but barren ideas. But over and above the notions of experience, and the pure conceptions of Reason, we are capable of becoming acquainted with views of which Revelation is the source, which, entering the mind by the opening afforded by the functions of Reason, new create it, or render it divine, in the very act [252] of their entering, and thereby fashion it, so as to qualify it for receiving and entertaining them. The divine objects, thus subjectively introduced into the mind, lay the foundation of a divine experience, which, on account of these being realities, or not mere ideas, exactly satisfies its new-created capacities; and which, as being true, are continually astonishing and delighting the mind by the new and harmonious relations which they involve and disclose. To explain myself: — objects of a divine nature, introduced into the mind, at one and the same time supply it with a divine experience, which, as certain and necessary, is distinguished from, and the substance of, mere human experience; and also, with relations subsisting among the various objects presented to it, and between these objects and itself as the subject, which as certain, and necessary, and of every conceivable description, shew themselves to be the substance and reality of those mathematical relations, which have no existence except subjectively, or in the human mind itself. Scripture presents to us in the Lord Jesus, 1, true substance, and thereby the reality of all the shadows with which naturally we are conversant; 2, true liberty, as himself the uncaused cause of all phenomena, whether natural or spiritual; and 3, true divinity, as he in whom all things are summed up, and by whom all things consist. And these views of the Lord Jesus, entering into the mind, instead of mere faculties or functions of Reason, which are fitted only for the reception of shadowy notions, which with all their deceptive feelings of liberty are naturally the slaves of their fleshly nature, and which are naturally self-worshipping, or self-idolatrous, are the means of conferring upon us faculties, or functions, subjectively adapted to the reception of their own objective realities, viz. substantial capacity, — a consciousness of freedom from law, sin, and death, — and the first fruits of love, or divine nature.
30. Spirit alone can apprehend Spiritual things.
This is merely to assert in other words the principle which has been stated and developed in the preceding section.
Soul, or the mind of the creature, is, considered subjectively, or in itself, earthly; and, therefore, considered objectively, or with a reference to the ideas which are presented to it, it is only capable of apprehending earthly things. Under these circumstances, to suppose that earthly mind should [253] be capable of apprehending heavenly things, is to imagine to ourselves a flat contradiction. It is to suppose the lesser, capable of taking in, and containing, the greater. Spirit, or heavenly mind, is alone fitted to apprehend heavenly things; and, therefore, unless the mind of man can, somehow or other, be rendered spiritual, the idea of spiritual things being apprehended by it, must be abandoned, as involving in itself an utter impossibility. Now the purpose of the immediately preceding section was to shew, that as, in conformity with the results of the soundest and most profound philosophical analysis, the mind of man, subjectively considered, has been found to possess for its highest or ultimate faculties, the forms of Reason, and, objectively considered, has for its highest or ultimate conceptions, the pure but barren ideas of Reason; so, without contradicting this, and in conformity with the declarations of the word of God, when higher views than those of Reason, even the discoveries of Revelation, are presented to the mind objectively, they are the means, when they enter into the mind, and in proportion to the degree in which they do so, of conforming that mind subjectively to themselves. That is, in the very act of entering into the mind, they render its faculties fit for their reception. They do not introduce themselves into the mind as it exists naturally, that is, as it is Soul, for as such, it is incapable of receiving and entertaining them. As Soul it is adapted only for the reception of earthly ideas. And of these, the very highest which it can take in, are the pure conceptions of Reason. But spiritual things entering into the mind as objects, new create that mind as a subject, rendering it fit thereby for their reception; and this new-creation they effect, just in proportion to the degree in which they themselves enter. Spiritual things are not one whit farther conceived of by any mind as a subject, than they exist in that mind as objects of conception; the reason of this being, that as the spiritual and renovating process, is begun, not by the humanly subjective mind, conforming the divinely objective things to itself, but by the divinely objective truths, conforming the mind subjectively to them, so it is carried on in the same way. We do not at first conceive of spiritual things as possessed of Soul, but on the contrary, as possessed of Spirit which they themselves entering with power are the means of forming within us; and just so, we never afterwards conceive of higher views of spiritual things, by means of the lower [254] degree of spiritual mind already formed within us, and possessed by us, but always have a more enlarged portion of spiritual mind subjectively formed within us, by means of the very entrance of the more enlarged spiritual views themselves. In other words, Soul is too confined a subject or principle, to admit of spiritual things; and, therefore, the mind must be enlarged, or new-created, in order to the admission of them in the smallest degree: and just so an inferior degree of spiritual mind, can never as a subject, admit superior spiritual views; but must, in the very act of their entrance, become enlarged subjectively to their own dimensions. In this way there is brought out a striking contrast between Soul and Spirit. Although in the case of Soul, or creature mind, the subjective conceives of the objective, the subjective, or the forms or functions of Reason, constituting the ultimates of creature mind; in the case of Spirit or divine mind, it is the objective, which imparts to the subjective the power of apprehending it; the objective thus, as it should do, running up into infinity itself, and it being impossible to point out, or prescribe, any bounds within which, as divine mind, it is capable of conforming the subjective to itself.
Thus does it appear, from the very nature and necessity of the case, that, so far from Soul being able to apprehend Spirit, it is by Spirit, or spiritual mind, alone, that spiritual things can be apprehended.
But is not fact at variance with this theory? Are we not continually brought into contact with individuals, who, although possessed merely of Soul and soulical principles, appear nevertheless to have acquired notions of spiritual subjects?
Not at all. On the contrary, the views of the individuals in question when examined into, confirm in the most striking and conclusive manner, the accuracy of the statements which have just been made.
Upon this subject I observe in general, that the ideas which are commonly conceived to be and denominated spiritual, are in reality mere ideas of Soul; and that by those who are themselves possessed of any enlarged measure of spiritual principle, those spurious spiritual ideas, may with the utmost ease be traced to their source.
Considered subjectively, no ideas ever deserve to be denominated spiritual, which proceed from soul as their origin. [255] Now Soul, or the mind of man constituted as it naturally is, is of itself fully competent to the right discharge of the two following functions. First, in all men, more or less, it can observe phenomena, or appearances; and, secondly, in a few, who are gifted with faculties of a reflective and philosophic kind, it is capable of generalizing its conceptions, and forming abstract ideas. All these views, then, which owe their origin to actual observations, and the reasonings founded thereon, as in the exact sciences; and all systems which are the result of the exercise of those powers of abstraction wherewith the human mind naturally is endowed, as is the case with Mathematics, Metaphysics, and so on; as they sprung obviously from the exercise of the mere human faculties, so most absurd would it be to trace them up to any other and higher source. Are the faculties of man sufficient to account for his possession of any notions which he has? Never, in that case, let us travel out of the human mind in search of their origin. Nothing can justify us in ascribing to any ideas of man, a supernatural origin, but the fact of our inability to explain their existence upon natural principles.
But it is only when we come to consider the matter objectively, that the value of the caution suggested in the preceding paragraph can be duly appreciated. To these powers of observation and reflection wherewith the mind of man is endowed, the ideas of religion with which he is ordinarily conversant in the world, are easily traceable. He lives from his earliest infancy, in circumstances in which it is next to impossible for him not to hear the subject spoken of. The perusal of the scriptures is prescribed to him as a task, psalms and hymns are committed to memory; catechisms are learned; religious observances are practised; sermons are listened to; conversations respecting divine things take place in his hearing; and thus, his powers of observation, however slender and feeble, are from his earliest years stimulated. And, if possessed of abstract and reasoning faculties of a superior description, he is almost necessarily systematizing, in his own mind, the multifarious religious views and observances which for so long and interesting a period of his life have been obtruded on his notice. Thus, in order to be religious on ordinary principles, the possession of no faculties, superior to those which are human, is required. If a man have any intellect at all, he must observe the practises of those around him, and become himself acquainted with their [256] sentiment; and, if endowed with even a very slender modicum of the reasoning faculty, he cannot help drawing conclusions from what he sees and hears. But in all this, there is nothing spiritual. His observations and reasonings are such as the faculties of mere Soul qualify him to make and indulge in. On the very same principles, he would have been a Heathen if born in China, and a Mahometan if born in Turkey. Indeed, some of what are commonly regarded as the profoundest reasonings on the subject of religion which the world has produced, such as those of a Clarke, a Butler, and a Warburton, it might be shewn with the utmost ease, can lay claim to no higher origin than the exercise of the mere natural faculties of the human mind. Such reasonings may, by those who know no better, be denominated spiritual; but, as implying the exercise of no higher powers than those of Soul, or natural mind, it is perfectly ridiculous to ascribe them to any higher source.
Taking the observations last made, along with the scope of the foregoing part of this work, it will be obvious, that as ideas, to the acquisition of which the ordinary faculties of Soul are competent, and which can be shewn actually to have been acquired by the exercise of such faculties, forbid our ascribing to them a spiritual origin, so views which surpass those with which we are furnished by observation and experience, are not only traceable objectively to a higher source than mere human nature, but in order to their apprehension require subjectively the possession of higher faculties than those with which man is naturally endowed. That Soul, or natural mind, of which every man is possessed, is fully competent to conceive of soulical, or animal, things. But Spirit, or supernatural mind, as it does not exist in any man at the period of his birth, so it requires to be brought into existence subsequently by spiritual things themselves, and this in the very moment of, and in proportion to the entrance of such things into the mind. Soul is properly the creator of soulical things; but spiritual things create Spirit.
When we proceed to review the whole subject, the two following propositions may be regarded as exhibiting a faithful summary of my views respecting it: —
First. That spiritual things as such, never yet have been, and by the very necessity of the case never can be, conceived of by Soul, or natural mind. Spiritual things may be, nay [257] constantly are, obtruded in words on the notice of Soul. It hears of them, it reads of them, it can even converse respecting them. But as what they are, that is, as spiritual things it cannot apprehend them. The soulical man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God because they are foolishness unto him; neither can he understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinth. 2:14. Although he may think and speak of things which are in themselves spiritual, it is as soulical that, by the man possessed of Soul merely, they are conceived of. That is, Soul, when it thinks of topics in themselves spiritual, necessarily strips them of all that constitutes their spirituality or superiority, in order to bring them down to the level of its own apprehensions. The nature of God and man united in Christ manifest in flesh, it either represents as mere human nature directly, or does what is the same thing indirectly by separating the human nature from the divine. The Salvation of the gospel which was finished on Calvary by the Lord Jesus himself, and the benefits of which flow unconditionally to the creature, it represents as a blessing the enjoyment of which is in some way or another dependent on a condition, or on conditions, to be fulfilled by the creature. The law of God which was brought to an end by that last grand act of obedience to it on the part of the Lord Messiah, the sacrifice of himself, it represents as still existing, and as still obligatory on the mere creature. In a word, the soulical mind cannot rise to the conception of the nature of Christ as he appeared in flesh, when it was the union of flesh and spirit; much less to a conception of the nature of Christ as now elevated to his throne, when it consists of pure Spirit. All the religion of such a mind, is, like the source from which it flows, merely soulical: consisting in the substitution of a creature as Saviour, for the glorious Creator; of a Salvation requiring in one form or another to be wrought out by the creature, for that which the Creator himself has completed; and of an obedience to divine law which the creature is by his very nature unable to render, for that fulfilment of divine law by the Son of God, which brought law, sin, and death, in himself to an end, at once and for ever.
Secondly. Seeing that spiritual things, although never received by mere Soul as what they are, are nevertheless capable of being conceived of by soul upon its own principles, and according to its own natural modes of conception, we have suggested to us thereby, an explanation of a fact, otherwise quite [258] inexplicable, viz. the comparatively enlightened notions respecting morals, politics, and religion, which are prevalent in countries, and among communities, where a profession of Christianity is made. The number of those who possess any real understanding of divine things is exceedingly small, and the number of those whose understanding of such subjects is particularly profound, is of course much smaller. But the persons who thus know divine truth, that is, those in whom spiritual things have created spiritual capacities adapted to their reception, are surrounded by multitudes of individuals who, without understanding divine things as what they are, nevertheless understand these things as what they appear to them to be. — Such persons, it is true, are only understanding divine things upon natural principles; or by means of the soulical capacities which they naturally possess. But still, it cannot be denied, that they are the subjects of a certain kind and degree of illumination. Their natural faculties have presented to them in the statements and reasonings of scripture, a class of topics with which otherwise they could not have been conversant; and topics too, which, even to the natural mind, appear to involve in themselves considerations of the utmost magnitude and importance. The scriptures do not, in such cases, become the means of opening up to the mind those true and spiritual views of God, which constitute their real signification; but they are nevertheless made the means of suggesting even natural ideas which otherwise could never have occurred to the mind, and thereby of enlarging and enlightening it upon its own principles. They raise the standard of natural conscience; they give precision and effect to the demands of natural equity; they suggest ideas respecting the divine attributes, and a future state; and they tend to the amelioration of the earthly state and condition of man. How paltry, but for the law of Moses, and the sermon on the Mount, would have been the notions of divine law, possessed by the natural conscience! But for the disclosures made in divine Revelation, and the examples which it proposes even to the natural mind, how could that astonishing progress have been made by society, which all around us is so visible? Whence that knowledge of the natural equality of mankind, of the rights of man, and of the protection due to all from law; whence the abolition of slavery, the improvement of the criminal code, the rapid advancement of commerce, the institution [259] of hospitals, infirmaries, and workhouses, and the existence of public establishments for education; whence the conception of constitutional Governments; and whence that mitigation even of the evils of despotism which so obviously and gloriously characterise modern times? When we contrast Christian communities with the state of heathen countries, whether ancient or modern, is it possible to refer each and all of these phenomena to any other source, than the power of Christianity to enlarge and illuminate, even upon its own principles, the natural mind of man? It cannot be denied that even the arts and sciences, have not been without their share in the advantages attendant upon Christianity, as a means of cultivating and improving even the earthly faculties of man. Have not painting and statuary borrowed from the scriptures some of their most striking and effective subjects? Without the materials which Revelation affords, by what possibility could such a poem as the Paradise Lost of Milton have been composed? And whence, except from the statements of the inspired record, respecting the divine attributes, could powerful, natural reasoning minds, have plundered materials for the construction of their various discordant systems of Theism and Natural Religion? The fact is, that by means of the topics presented to their notice in the Holy Scriptures, the mere Souls, or natural minds, of men, have acquired an expansion, have attained to a strength, and have become possessed of an illumination, which, although connected with, and implying, no change in the nature and constitution of their natural faculties, would by any other and inferior methods have been entirely out of the question. This illumination of mere Soul, or enlargement of the natural faculties as they are, shews itself, to be sure, to be essentially different from that which consists in the new-creation of the mental powers, by spiritual truth, and this by its tendency, not to diminish, but on the contrary, to increase that enmity to God, and the things of God, which is the natural and necessary characteristic of Soul. Rom. 8:7. That is, the mere illumination of mere Soul, so far from leading to God, or preparing for the reception of spiritual things, seems merely to be a means of furnishing it with more ample and enlarged opportunities of testifying and indulging its hostility to the God of Revelation. Still, there is a kind of mental illumination effected, by spiritual things, even where no spiritual faculties, and, consequently, no spiritual understand-[260]ing, are communicated. Without it the mind of man never could have displayed that grasp of thought, and never could have made those wonderful discoveries, which as mere matters of fact are continually forcing themselves on our notice.
[261]
CHAPTER II.
THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRIT.
DIVISION FIRST.
THE PHENOMENA OF SPIRIT CONSIDERED DIRECTLY.
SECTION I.
FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE.
Nothing can be conceived more simple in itself and yet nothing has by the ignorance and perversity of professing Christians been rendered more complicated and unintelligible, than the relation in which the three spiritual graces of faith, hope, and love, stand to one another.
According to the general run of writers on the subject, love is regarded and treated of merely as one of the fruits and effects of spiritual principle. Such writers when remonstrated with, endeavour to shelter themselves under the declaration of the Apostle, Galat. 5:22. But in restricting themselves to this view of matters, they are obliged to shut their eyes to, and put aside passages of scripture equally explicit, in which love is declared to be the source from which all spiritual and heavenly graces flow. It is asserted, by the Apostle, in 1 Corinth. 13:7, that love believeth all things, and hopeth all things. In other words, that love, so far from being an effect, is actually the root and cause of every spiritual grace. Finding ourselves thus situated between apparently conflicting authorities, are we not forced to the conclusion, that there is something erroneous, — something at all events narrow and contracted, — in the popular system respecting the nature of divine love; and that to the scriptures themselves we should repair for farther elucidation of this otherwise obscure and intricate subject?
[262] Nor need the elucidation sought for lie long concealed from the spiritually enlightened mind. All difficulty is removed by the discovery, that love is at one and the same time the root and the offspring of faith. — That love is at one and the same time the cause and the consequence of Spirit. Should I not rather say love is Spirit itself? God is love, 1 John 4:8,16. God is likewise Spirit. John 4:24. But love and Spirit being thus both of them terms expressive of the divine nature, of course in the existence in the believer of love or Spirit, the possession of divine principle by every real follower of Christ must consist. And as where 1ove or spiritual principle is, the effects of love or spiritual principle must follow, — as whatsoever is born of the Spirit, must be Spirit, — shall we be surprised to find love spoken of, as not merely the root of all that is spiritual, but as likewise fitly designating the effects and consequences which from that heavenly principle derive their origin?
To me, therefore, the subject appears to present no difficulty whatever; understanding as I do love to denote, sometimes, the cause, and sometimes the effects, of the existence of spiritual principle.
Here let me try to guard myself against misapprehension. In a preceding part of this Essay we have seen, that the mind of a Christian is one into which a divine and spiritual nature has been introduced; this nature in him being susceptible of indefinite growth and increase, according to that measure of spiritual illumination of which he is the subject; and yet never in him, while he is an inhabitant of this present world, going beyond the mere enlightening of the understanding, and consequently the possession by him, of the mere earnest and first fruits of heavenly principle. But this is not the view of matters to which we are commonly treated. Mankind ever prone to extremes in other respects, manifest that tendency here likewise. To judge by the representations of some writers, it would appear that the mind of every believer must be thoroughly spiritualized. Taking for our guides the representations of others, equally acute and talented, we should be apt to conclude, that there neither is nor can be, on the part of a believer, any possession of spiritual principle at all. The one class speak, as if from the moment of conversion the fleshly mind were entirely annihilated by being absorbed in the spiritual. The other class, as if mere fleshly principle, improved and stimu-[263]lated, were amply sufficient to account for what are commonly regarded as spiritual phenomena. Neither of these extreme opinions is correct, and, therefore, neither of them can by an enlightened believer be acquiesced in. The mind of a believer is at the utmost only partially spiritualized; and yet the beginning of a spiritual creation has in him been effected. Hence it is, that no phenomena of spiritual mind can be regarded by us as correctly observed, but such as correspond with, this partial, and yet real transformation.
This last paragraph I have introduced, that I may set myself right with my readers, and, as far as possible, preclude every chance of misrepresentation. The principle of love, or the divine nature, dwells in the Christian, and without the possession of it, his pretentions to the Christian character were vain; but love dwells in him only after a measure, that measure being greater or less according to the degree of divine illumination of which he is the subject, and, to whatever extent it may reach, being always susceptible of a still farther indefinite increase. Can I express myself more decidedly? But to resume.
Love, I have stated, is, in the Christian, the cause or root of all spiritual phenomena. A very few remarks will suffice to shew why it must be so.
Love is the nature of God himself. God is Love. 1 John 4:8,16. From love, then, as their cause, all the acts of Jehovah himself, must, as so many effects and consequences, proceed. His dealings towards the children of men in particular, must be developments of that heavenly principle. And so in scripture, they are declared to be. The glorious work of salvation, is there expressly stated to be the effect and manifestation of what God is. God is Love; and in this was manifest the love of God, &c. 1 John 4:8,9.
Now as from love, or the divine nature, all the acts of the Creator himself proceed, so from the same principle of love all that is truly divine in the acts of the creature must proceed likewise. To the production of divine effects, there is requisite in the creature, as well as in the Creator, the existence of a divine cause; otherwise, from two opposite and self contradictory causes, the same effects would flow; which were absurd. Love, and love alone, therefore, must in the Christian be the root and source of all really spiritual phenomena. But love in him originally is not. On the contrary, hatred to God and man, the offspring of selfishness, is the [264] exclusive principle of his fleshly nature. Rom. 8:7. Matt. 15:22, (See Greek) 23. Titus 3:3. Until, then, that enmity to God which constitutes the very essence of soul, or fleshly mind, be slain, the possession of love, and consequently the bringing forth of the fruits of love, must be entirely out of the question. And this slaying of the natural enmity of the human mind towards himself, is what God, in the case of every individual belonging to the number of his specially redeemed ones, effects. They, like others, naturally regard God with suspicion; because conscious of opposition to him, they cannot help conceiving of him as opposed to them; thereby ascribing to him their own nature and character. Psalm 50:21. Hating him, they fancy that he hates them. But God is in reality Love. Hatred, therefore, dwells not in him. This fact he makes known, when and where it pleaseth him, by revealing himself to the conscience as what he is. In such cases he shews himself to be love; satisfies the mind upon that head; and this, through the medium of the work of his well beloved Son. God being henceforward apprehended as Love, that is, as what he is, there is slain thereby that enmity of the creature to him, which consisted in the creature’s ignorance of his character; and, apprehended as Love, or, as what he is, his nature being thereby necessarily communicated to the creature, love to him is drawn forth from the creature in return. We love him, because he first loved us. 1 John 4:19. Love, or the divine nature, which, previous to this manifestation never had more than an objective existence to the creature, has now a subjective existence in the creature, to the degree to which the manifestation of the character of the Creator has extended; or, in other words, there has been a conversion of the mind of the creature so far into the mind of the Creator. The individual has been so far transformed by the renewing of his mind. Rom. 12:2. His own mind, in so far as it has been made new, and the mind of God, as being both love, are now and henceforward identified. And having in him the principle of love, or the divine nature, he is not merely capable of bringing forth the fruits of the divine nature, but is sweetly and yet efficaciously constrained to do so. 2 Corinth. 5:14,15.
The principle of Love, or a spiritual nature, being thus implanted in the mind of a child of God, its existence there, is indicated by corresponding spiritual phenomena. Among [265] these, the two which first and chiefly arrest our attention are the graces of faith and hope. Although by many regarded, and treated of, as the source of love, they are in reality its offspring. They are the necessary result of love entering into, taking possession of, and quickening, the understanding.
Few, comparatively speaking, have observed the nature of the statements and arguments to which the Apostle Paul has recourse in the 13th chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians. Let me call attention to a brief abstract of these. Love, or the divine nature, has there a preference given to it above every thing besides, and that for the three following substantial reasons: — 1st. Apart from love as the root, conduct, however excellent and praiseworthy otherwise it may be, is absolutely worthless; and this, because, under such circumstances, it can only have Soul, or fleshly principle, for its origin: verses 1-3: — 2ndly. From love as their source all spiritual phenomena proceed: verses 4-7: — and 3rdly. Love alone, involves in it a principle of permanency, everything else passing away as being merely connected with this present world. Verses 8 to the end. Perhaps, in fewer words: —
Faith and hope are neither more nor less than outgoing of divine principle in accommodation to the time state of the people of God. Love, as being the divine nature, is itself necessarily permanent — is necessarily identified with unchangeable and everlasting existence. God lives neither in the past, nor in the future; his grand characteristic being, that he lives in the present. His life is essentially present life. His name gloriously expressive of his nature, is the I am. Hence before time began, while time is, and when time shall be no more, it holds true in regard to him, that, as Love, he is without variableness, or the least shadow of turning. But, supposing him to introduce his own nature into man, it cannot be as it exists in himself, but must, from the necessity of the case, be in accommodation to the state and circumstances of man, as a being who has no existence except in the past, and the future. Man, as has been already seen, lives not in the present. His whole being consists of recollections and anticipations. Faith and hope are thus modes in which of necessity the divine nature must make its appearance in him. That is, as faith, the divine nature in him deals with the past, looking back on the testimony which God hath given [266] concerning himself; while as hope, it has to do with the future, looking forward to the fulfilment of the promises which God hath caused to be put upon record. Faith and hope, it thus appears, do not themselves, properly speaking, constitute spiritual principle; but are spiritual phenomena, or appearances, springing from and indicating the existence of, spiritual principle. They are spiritual principle making its appearance in a way of accommodation to the time state of the Christian. And in exact proportion to the degree in which spiritual principle dwells in the Christian, will be the degree in which the spiritual phenomena of faith and hope make themselves manifest.
When all this is understood, how simple and luminous does the 13th chapter of 1 Corinth., already adverted to, appear. To love, or spiritual principle, do faith and hope owe their origin; for it is love which believeth all things, and hopeth all things. 6, 7. — Love, however, is not merely the source of faith and hope, but, as constituting the nature of God himself, it is also a permanent principle, which faith and hope as mere effects of love are not. They are merely the adaptation of heavenly and divine principle to beings situated in this present world, and, consequently, are destined to pass away with it. Now, or in this time state, abide these three, faith, hope, and love; but, as even now the source of the two former, and as destined hereafter to swallow them up in itself, the greatest of these is love. ver. 13.
If I shall have succeeded in making myself intelligible, such of my readers as are conversant with theological controversy will have observed, that, without formally discussing it, I have been pretty clearly indicating my views respecting that much agitated question, Does Regeneration precede faith? Or, does Faith precede regeneration? Bearing in mind the principles just laid down, the solution of any difficulties which may be connected with the subject is extremely easy. The regeneration of the child of God is, while he remains in flesh, confined to the understanding. The eyes of his understanding, and they only, are opened. It is the understanding, then, that Love, or the divine nature, enters; and it enters, through the medium of giving birth to faith and hope. The moment that love, or spiritual principle, has taken possession of the mind, its existence there is indicated by the necessary and cotemporaneous existence, of these other graces. Thus faith and hope are the necessary effects [267] of spiritual principle; the phenomena by which it necessarily manifests itself: but they are more; they in a sense constitute the very essence of the principle of love, as it exists in the Christian during his time state. They are love or the divine nature, in so far as it exists, or can exist, in a human being while he is in flesh. As much faith, and as much hope, as a Christian possesses, just so much love does he possess: and not one particle more. Thus faith and hope, are unquestionably the results of regeneration, or of the individual being born from above; but they are the results of regeneration in such a sense, as also to constitute regeneration itself; or they are the effects of love in such a sense, as to be also the principle of love itself as accommodated to the time state of the Christian.
Robert Sandeman, and his followers, alas! but too numerous, including many adherents, both of the Establishment and amongst dissenters, have committed two grievous mistakes in connection with this subject: — first; in supposing hope, to be the principle of faith, with the super-addition of the idea of our own personal interest in the blessings testified of and promised. And, secondly, in supposing, that while faith may be perfectly confident in looking at the divine testimony itself, hope will always be attended with more or less of doubt, on account of the very notion of personal interest which it involves. Never was a theory more baseless. Not even can a plausible array of scripture texts be adduced in its support. It is thoroughly vicious in both respects: — 1. It is not true, that hope implies a conviction of personal interest in the divine testimony, while faith does not; for both do so, as is plain by innumerable passages of the sacred volume. The distinction between faith and hope is the simple one just stated, viz. that faith looks backwards to what God testifies concerning Christ as having already accomplished in our behalf, while hope looks forwards to what he is yet to accomplish on our behalf, agreeably to his promises. 2. It is not true, that faith implies certainty while hope implies doubt; for both, in him who is enlightened from above, are equally strong. We admit that, the word hope, as used among men, implies a certain mixture of doubt; but so likewise does faith: and, therefore, if human usage were to determine the divine application of these two terms we could predicate certainty of neither. But if the testimony believed in, be divine; so also [268] are the promises, the fulfilment of which we anticipate. And, consequently, if the faith and hope be divine, with not more certainty does the Christian believe in the glad tidings concerning the work which Jesus finished upon Calvary, than he rejoices in hope of the glory of God. How many ingenious, and fine-spun, but cobweb-like, theories of divine truth, are, by these simple facts, thoroughly dissipated.
SECTION II.
FAITH TENDS TO DESTRUCTION, LOVE TO CONSUMMATION.
“He must increase, I must decrease,” said John the Baptist, when contrasting the future fortunes of his Divine Master with his own. A similar observation may be made as to the respective tendencies of faith and love. While love in the believer is receiving constant augmentations, and tends towards its consummation in glory, faith and hope are undergoing an incessant and remarkable process of diminution, and are destined ultimately to be swallowed up in the immediate vision of Jesus, and the full enjoyment of the heavenly state. The reason of this diversity of events is obvious.
The diminution of faith and hope arises from the incessant tendency of these graces to beget, and thereby to be absorbed in spiritual knowledge or understanding. Nothing is more puzzling to the mere soulical mind, than the inverted genealogy of faith and understanding spiritually considered; and yet nothing is more true. By the natural mind it is conceived to be necessary that understanding should precede belief; and in natural things it is most certain that this is the case. To a mind possessed of nothing higher than natural principles, it appears that the same process must obtain in regard to spiritual subjects. And yet such an idea is completely erroneous. Until, God become [269] the direct and immediate witness of the existence and truth of his own testimony to the conscience, that is, until the principle of divine faith be introduced, there is no possibility of the existence in the mind, of the smallest portion of divine understanding. It is only by doing God’s will, that is, as our blessed Lord has explained it, by believing in God’s revealed testimony, that any man can know of the doctrine, whether it be of God. John 7:17. Hence that remarkable axiom in divine things, that it is not by understanding, we believe, but by believing, we understand. By faith, says the Apostle, we understand, not by understanding we believe, that the worlds were made by the word of God. Heb. 11:3. That is, the moment that divine testimony enters my conscience as such, or the moment that I believe it, that moment only do I acquire the first understanding which I have, or can have, of divine things. But if so, is it not evident, that the more divine truth enters my conscience in the shape of faith and hope, or through the medium of divine testimony and promises, the more must I understand it; and the more I understand it, the less must it appear in my conscience in the forms of faith and hope, and the more must it assume the higher form of knowledge. Instead of being merely believed in, or hoped for, divine things must be becoming to me daily more and more matters of understanding, knowledge, or self-evidence. I must, according to Christ’s declaration already adverted to, be not merely believing, but actually knowing, that the doctrine is of God. That is, the very increase of faith and hope, must be tending to the destruction of faith and hope, by their being the means, while he is on earth, of the increase in the Christian of the higher principle of sight or knowledge; and by this very increase tending ultimately to their being superseded by, and swallowed up in, that higher principle. Still, however, spiritually considered, the faith must be in the mind, before the understanding can be there; and the increase of the faith, must while the Christian is on earth, be the means of the increase of the understanding. But increase of understanding, is increase of a principle superior to faith, and which as such, is necessarily superseding and supplementing it. Faith and hope, therefore, paradoxical as the expression may appear, are in their very increase, actually diminishing; every advance in divine faith, being an advance in divine understanding; and understanding being a principle which gradually superseding faith and hope [270] here, is thereby paving the way for their ultimate and complete extinction hereafter. Now we walk by faith; but then by sight. 2 Corinth. 5:7.
Not so however, with the spiritual phenomenon of love. It, in the Christian is constantly on the increase. And this, from the very necessity of the case. Love, we have seen, is the basis of spiritual principle. Love also constitutes the very essence of faith and hope, these, considered in one point of view, being the manner in which Spirit dwells in Christ’s people during their time state, just as, considered in another, they are the primary and essential phenomena of Spirit. And to the exhibition of love in outward act, the indwelling of spiritual principle in the Christian, and its operation through the medium of faith and hope, constantly tend. But if so, love, it thus appears, is the all and in all of spiritual principle. It constitutes its beginning, its mode of operation, its end. And what is this but in other words to say, that the more spiritual principle there is in the Christian, the more love? That the more spiritual understanding enlarges in him, through the medium of the enlargement of faith and hope, the more must the principle and operation of love be enlarged likewise? Thus love, as it is the source, so is it also the end, of all spiritual operations in the people of God. They are by means of it, made partakers, even while on earth, of the divine nature. 2 Peter 1:4. Towards the increase of the possession of this heavenly principle by them on earth, and the full enjoyment of it by them in glory, all God’s dispensations are tending. And, therefore, although it is most true, that the enlargement of faith and hope, by the consequent and necessary enlargement of understanding, tends to the ultimate destruction of the former principles by their absorption in the latter, it is equally true, on the other hand, that the enlargement of love upon earth so far from tending to the introduction of any other and higher principle, is, from its first faint dawnings, to its brightest displays, in time, merely contributing towards its own full and blessed consummation, throughout eternity.
[271]
SECTION III.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAITH IN CHRIST, AND FAITH IN US.
That the Lord Jesus was during his earthly career a believer in the divine testimony, indeed, that it was by faith in the divine origin of the Old Testament scriptures as speaking of him, and as addressed to him, he achieved his mediatorial triumphs, is probably known already by many of my readers, and when stated will with equal probability be acquiesced in by the great majority of those who have never yet reflected on the subject. In order, however, that I may not have the appearance of assuming as a fact, what the sacred volume abundantly demonstrates, I observe: —
1. That our blessed Lord is, in the New Testament Scriptures, by means of an express allusion to the Old, enumerated among believers. We having the same Spirit of faith, as it is written,22 I believed and therefore have 1 spoken, we also believe, and therefore speak.
22 Psalm 116; 2 Cor. 4:13.
2. After a striking and splendid allusion, by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his 11th chapter, to the conquests effected by faith, on the part of the Old Testament saints, Jesus, as the author and finisher of faith, is, at the beginning of the 12th chapter, placed at their head; and a declaration is subjoined, that, not by what he saw, but under the influence of what he believed, for the joy set before him, he endured the cross, despising the shame.
3, and lastly. The righteousness which Jesus brought in is expressly denominated, the righteousness of faith. And this, not on account of its being received by faith, on the part of Christians, although that is most true, but on account of faith on the part of the Messiah himself having been the principle from which this righteousness derived its origin. Hence both in Romans 3rd, and Galatians 2nd, that righteousness of God, whereby his people are justified, is distinctly declared to have been through the faith of Jesus Christ; not through our faith in Jesus Christ, as is by the majority of readers thoughtlessly supposed; but through the personal faith of Jesus Christ himself, as, by carefully perusing the [272] passages themselves, and observing the marked contrast there set down between Christ’s faith as the source of the divine righteousness, and our faith as that whereby we perceive our interest in that righteousness, will be most evident. For the righteousness of God being from faith to faith, it was wrought out by the personal faith of the Messiah himself, and is introduced into the conscience by the personal faith of each one of his disciples.
But although we are thus, on scriptural grounds, warranted in regarding the Lord Jesus as a believer, nay, as occupying the most distinguished rank among believers, there are differences subsisting between his faith and ours, which, unless adverted to and understood, leave us under the influence of grievous mistakes. An acquaintance with the views which were given in the former chapter, respecting Christ’s nature while on earth, will be found to be indispensable to an understanding of the present subject.
Let me call attention, then, to the following marked differences between the faith of Jesus, and the faith of his followers.
First. Faith in Jesus sprung from Spirit in the form of Soul, that is, from the combination of Soul and Spirit; faith on our part is the offspring of pure Spirit merely. This may by a few remarks be rendered obvious. As by man, divine law had been broken, so by man, divine law was to be fulfilled. And as by man, death, had been introduced, so by man, death was to be swallowed up in victory. But the appearance of a second man, shadowy and figurative like the first, was altogether out of the question. Such a man, it was evident from what had already taken place, was totally unfit for the glorious purposes intended. It was requisite, if righteousness and life everlasting were to be brought in, and the consequences of transgression and death to be got rid of, that the second man should be the superior of the first one, which could only happen by his being the substance and antitype, of the former. And yet, he behoved to be a man; for as by a man, the dishonour to the divine law had been offered, so by a man, that law required to be magnified and made honourable. How were elements apparently so discordant to be reconciled? Here lay the difficulty. And gloriously has it been surmounted. A soul, or mind of flesh, had broken law; a soul or mind of flesh, required to obey it. But the soul, which obeyed law, while fleshly, also required to be [273] something more; for from faith alone the divine obedience required could proceed, and faith is a principle which in the mere fleshly mind has no existence. Matt. 16:15-17. The Lord Jesus then appeared with this fleshly mind, and yet appeared with it invested with qualities which the fleshly mind of Adam did not possess. As the child of God and man, and as thus possessing the divine and human natures united in himself, he was exactly the person which the exigency required. His mind was neither mere soul, nor mere Spirit; but it was the compound of both. It was Spirit in the form of Soul. As spiritual, there was in his mind the only principle from which faith could proceed; and as soulical, the faith produced was that of creature mind, the very thing required. In Jesus, therefore, soul, or the mind of the creature, exhibited what it had not done in the case of Adam, the existence and influence of faith; and exhibited it, too, in perfect exercise. But the divine-human nature of Jesus, by which faith had been displayed, having been sacrificed, and the nature, the earnest of which he communicates to his people, being the divine nature, or that with which he rose from the dead and now possesses, of course, not as in himself while on earth from the divine and human natures combined, but from the divine nature only, does faith in Christ’s people proceed. From the divine and human natures, as forming one nature, in Jesus, did his faith proceed; but the human nature in Christians, does not form one nature with the divine in them, and, therefore, so far from the human co-operating in them with the divine nature, in the production of faith, the human is the deadliest foe of the divine nature. Every step in advance made by the believer, that is, every new measure of Spirit conferred, upon him, and every new view of divine truth disclosed, so far from producing any inclination on the part of his fleshly nature to yield and coalesce, causes, on the contrary, its increased, and increasing opposition. Faith being opposed to sense, as tending to its destruction, sense is, therefore, the enemy of faith. The flesh in Christians lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these two are contrary the one to the other. Rom. 7. Thus from Spirit, or the divine nature alone, in believers, not only without any assistance from, but in direct opposition to, their fleshly natures, does faith proceed. Have I been successful in making myself understood? Can my readers perceive the difference between faith as proceeding in [274] the Messiah, and in the Messiah only, from the united natures of God and man; and faith, in us, as an effect of the nature of God only? If so, then they may be able to form some conception of the absurdity of those who fancy, that, in the mere creature, flesh may be prevailed on to become the auxiliary of spirit.
Secondly. The faith of Jesus sprung from the principle of faith dwelling subjectively in him from his very origin; whereas faith in us takes its rise objectively, or in consequence of being introduced into our minds from without. To comprehend this distinction, the understanding of the following facts is all that is required. In Jesus, the divine nature was united with the human, from his very conception. In us, there is nothing, as we come into the world, but human nature; and, therefore, that earnest of the divine nature, of which all the family of God become while on earth partakers, is something, not native to them, but superinduced upon the nature which they solely and originally possess. From this it evidently follows, that whatever divine principles our blessed Lord had, he had by birth; as having been by nature the Son, the only begotten Son, of God. Whereas, whatever divine principle his people possess, they acquire subsequent to birth; it being, not by nature, but by adoption, that they are the Sons of God. Is it not clear from all this, that faith, as springing from divine principle, must have been natural to Jesus, and must be unnatural to us? — By another method of stating this matter, we may be able to render it still more obvious. Jesus was the embodied word, that is, the embodied sense of the Old Testament Scriptures. In him the word was made flesh. But in our minds, as fleshly, the word of God has naturally no place, whatever. We are fit only to be the receptacles of the word, testimony, or reasonings, of man. When, therefore, Jesus is presented and opened up to our minds as the embodied word, or sense of the Old Testament Scriptures, which he is through the medium of the writings of the New Testament, we have introduced into our minds a word, or testimony, to which all their natural forms and conceptions are thoroughly alien. Thus, again, as having been by his very origin the embodied word of God, faith was natural to Jesus; as made the recipients of the word of God, in opposition to the capacities and tendencies of our fleshly minds, which are fitted only to take in the word of man, faith is unnatural to us. — Still farther in illustration of [275] this subject, I may observe, that on the part of Jesus faith respected himself as the fulfiller of the divine word; whereas faith in us respects, not ourselves but Jesus, as the fulfiller of that word. It was because the word of God dwelt in the Lord Jesus subjectively as the very principle of his nature, that faith towards it objectively was exhibited by him. The very reverse of this obtains in our case, for it is through the medium of the word of God being presented to us objectively, that it is made to dwell in us subjectively, or that faith is made to spring up in us. Jesus, as the embodied word, and as thus having the sense of the Old Testament Scriptures dwelling by nature in him, by means of this, and not in consequence of any communication from without, believed himself to be the person towards whom these Old Testament Scriptures pointed, and by whom they were to be fulfilled. We, on the contrary not having the word of God at all in us by nature, and, consequently not understanding by nature anything of its sense or meaning, can only, by means of the New Testament Scriptures externally presented to us, and of their signification from without imparted to us, be brought to believe that Jesus was the subject of Old Testament Prophecy, and be able to recognize him as its fulfiller. — In a word, faith, in Jesus, sprung from his own nature; faith, in us, springs not from our nature, but from his: — faith, in Jesus, respected himself as the destined fulfiller of divine law; faith, in us, respects not ourselves, but another, (even Jesus himself,) as having fulfilled that law.
Thirdly and lastly. Faith on the part of Jesus was a conditional principle, faith on our part is an unconditional one. When I say, that faith on the part of the Lord Jesus was conditional, I desire to draw attention to the following circumstances. In Jesus during his earthly state, there existed in combination the natures of God and man. These two natures, in regard to salvation, as in regard to every thing else, tended to two distinct and totally opposite results. The nature of man, can only view divine favours as bestowed conditionally; the nature of God, can only bestow them unconditionally. What was the consequence of those two natures meeting, and constituting one nature, in the Son of God? I can scarcely find terms to express myself intelligibly; and yet, if I were to characterize the faith of Jesus in regard to salvation as having been conditionally unconditional, strange and incongruous as the union of the [276] two terms may appear to be, I should not be very far from the mark. The conditionality was connected with the human nature; the unconditionality with the divine; and the conditional-unconditionality was the result of those two natures having been united in himself. It was by the fulfilment of conditions on his part — by his acting up to the requirements of the divine law or testimony, in every respect, and by his exhausting these requirements by the sacrifice of himself— that salvation was to be effected. And yet, the fulfilment of these conditions being on his part certain and necessary, it turned out that the whole plan was in reality, merely the method adopted by God for the purpose of displaying the absolute unconditionality of the blessings which he sees meet to bestow on the children of men. God being the prescriber of the conditions — and God in flesh the fulfiller of them — is not God thereby clearly made known as favouring us, in so far as we ourselves are concerned, unconditionally? What, thus, to our fleshly minds, appear to be conditions of salvation, are, in reality means of making known, and conveying, to us, salvation unconditionally. Now faith, in Jesus, was, we have already seen, the union of the principles of conditionality, and unconditionality. He believed that he himself was appointed to fulfil, and that he required to fulfil, the conditions of salvation; but he believed also that he should certainly fulfil them, and that by means of fulfilling them he should become the means of manifesting the necessary unconditionality, in so far as mere creatures are concerned, of the enjoyment of divine and spiritual blessings. In him, therefore, faith respected the necessity of his fulfilling the conditions of salvation, in the first place; and the certainty of the display of the divine character thereby as unconditionally bestowing salvation, in the second place. What, on the other hand, is faith in us? So far from its being a belief that we require to fulfil or possess and conditions of salvation, nay, so far from its permitting the idea of the possibility of such conditions being fulfilled by us, it is the belief that eternal life is unconditionally bestowed upon us, and this through the medium, and in the light, of seeing all its conditions already and gloriously fulfilled by Christ Jesus. And the reason of this is, that faith, in the Christian, is not the result of the mixture of the divine and human natures, as it was in Christ while he abode upon earth; but is in them the offspring of the [277] divine nature only. If the divine nature could mix up with the human, in the Christian, then unquestionably, his faith would, like the faith of his divine head while he was upon earth, be conditional. But as the faith of the Christian springs from the divine or spiritual nature only, that is, not from the mind of Jesus while on earth, but from the mind of Jesus as having fulfilled every condition and as having thereby risen to his Father’s right hand, it, like the mind of him from whom it is derived, sees eternal life in present possession, and, consequently, requires not to fulfil conditions for obtaining that which it already possesses. Instead of looking upon eternal life, therefore, as Christ himself did while he was upon earth, viz. as that which by means of conditions to be fulfilled by himself was to be procured, — the Christian looks upon it as a blessing already procured, nay, as a blessing of the earnest of which, he is already in possession. To the faith of the Christian, salvation is not, as it was to the faith of Christ himself, a prize to be contended for, but is a gift freely bestowed; it is not, as it was to Jesus, a privilege to be looked forward to hereafter, but a blessing which is already enjoyed. This is to the Christian the record that God hath given, freely and unconditionally given, to him eternal life, and that this life is in his Son. 1 John 5:11. Thus, while the faith, of Jesus, looked up, through conditions to be fulfilled by himself, to the certain enjoyment of life everlasting by himself and his people; faith, in his people, looks upon life everlasting as unconditionally bestowed; having made the discovery, that the fulfilment of every condition by the Son of God, was merely the appointed and necessary means of disclosing to our minds this all-important fact. Faith, in Jesus, was, that he himself was the fulfiller of conditions; faith, in us, is, that, every condition having been fulfilled by Jesus, eternal life is to us necessarily, certainly and unconditionally the gift of God. Rom. 6:21.
[278]
SECTION IV.
THE ASSURANCE OF FAITH.
I now proceed to speak of a subject at once the most important and the least understood, of those which occupy the attention of private Christians, and theologians by profession. I mean, the personal certainty of salvation.
This is not merely a fruit of Spirit; one among the numerous other effects which flow from that heavenly principle: but it is emphatically the fruit of Spirit; that which, where Spirit is, ever will be found, and, where Spirit is not, ever will be wanting.
Personal certainty of salvation may, without any hesitation be assumed, nay, will by every enlightened disciple of Jesus be assumed, as the possession of Christian principle. Is the mind merely soulical? Does it meddle with religion as a mere human system, to be learned like any other? Or is it religious upon pharisaical principles? There, the personal certainty of salvation is not and cannot be. On the contrary, doubts, fears, and anxieties, respecting futurity, are the necessary and unavoidable portion of such a mind. And the more conscientious it is on natural principles, the stronger and the more disquieting will such feelings be found by it to be. But is the mind really spiritual? Have views of the truth as it is in Jesus been opened up to it by God himself; and, in consequence of this, is the individual who was formerly darkness, now light in the Lord? Then as the first, the necessary, result of such divine communications, and of such a change having been undergone, doubts and fears respecting futurity are at an end. The individual, being justified by faith, has peace with God. Seeing sin taken away by the sacrifice of the Son of God, and life everlasting bestowed freely through his resurrection, the person thus privileged, finds that sense of condemnation which naturally stands connected with his possession of the Adamic nature, swallowed up in that sense of justification which supernaturally results from the discovery made to him, that he is one, eternally and necessarily one, with his righteous, living, and glorified, Lord.
That the assurance of faith, is personal certainty of salva-[279]tion, is necessarily involved in, and an indispensable consequence of, the divine testimony being believed, is a point which has been held by many in different ages. Even in remote periods we catch glimpses of it in the sentences pronounced by the Apostate Church of Rome upon those whom she has been pleased to stigmatize as heretics. Luther held and gloried in it. By dint of proclaiming it, and thereby assailing in its strong-hold “the doubtsome faith” of the papists, the earlier reformers appear to have achieved their triumphs. With that tacit, and, afterwards more open, abandonment of this blessed doctrine which characterized the progress of the Reformation, it came to a stand-still. But for the upholding of it by a few obscure sectaries, a re-union of the Reformed Communions with the Church of Rome might have taken place. And it is by the prominence given to the assurance of faith within the last century, by some of whom the world was not worthy, that we are indebted for the whole profession of religion not having become one entire sink of deadness and pollution. By urging often upon unwilling ears, the necessary connection subsisting between faith and certainty of salvation, the waters of professing Christianity have from time to time been stirred up, and a healing influence has thereby been imparted to them.
It must be acknowledged that the doctrine of the assurance of faith has not been always judiciously and scripturally maintained. The absurd doctrine of the appropriating act, so strenuously insisted on by the Marrow-men, and Scottish Seceders, about a century since, gave occasion for the castigations of Sandeman; and the still greater absurdities of the Row and Irving schools of divinity, have laid the foundation of the apparent triumphs of men ignorant of the gospel in our own times. But all who have treated of this subject have not been equally erroneous. John Barclay of Edinburgh, the founder of the sect of the Bereans, and such of his followers as comprehend his views, express themselves, on the whole, with scriptural accuracy in regard to it. The Assurance of faith vindicated, of Barclay, brief and in many respects imperfect as it is, will as long as the English language lasts, and vigorous, masterly, scriptural, logic is capable of being appreciated, continue to be a bulwark against religious scepticism, and a source of edification to the people of God.
[280] Having written on the assurance of faith at great length in a work which bears these words for its title, I am unwilling to travel again over the same ground, and embark in details which may fairly be dispensed with. Suffice it to say, that in the 3rd, 4th and 5th chapters of the treatise alluded to, especially in the last of them, the rationalia of the doctrine will be found to be developed.
What I have to observe at present with respect to the doctrine of the assurance of faith, may be comprised in three or four paragraphs.
Assurance of personal salvation is not, as many calling themselves divines have contended, a mere adjunct or accident of faith; it is, on the contrary, faith itself. When divine testimony is externally presented to the mind, one of two effects must follow: — Either the mind puts a soulical or natural construction upon that testimony; or that testimony becomes the means of introducing its own real and spiritual meaning into the mind. In the former case, assurance is not to be expected, for human views and reasonings being the only basis upon which what is denominated divine testimony is received, the confidence can never be stronger than the human views and reasonings themselves, directly considered warrant, and are calculated to inspire; and as, in regard to God and a future state, the mere fleshly mind actually knows nothing, a belief of divine testimony, which has for its source human suggestions and reasonings, only, must, like all other pretences to conviction which have their origin in ignorance, be worthless and unavailing. In the latter case, nothing but assurance can be the result: for, by the very terms of the supposition, it is as divine testimony that what we believe in, enters into the mind; and, if we admit, that, in a great number of cases, the mere testimony of man is capable of producing a conviction scarcely distinguishable from absolute certainty, surely absolute certainty itself is the very least effect of which the testimony of God can be productive. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. 1 John 5:9.
Still farther; this certainty of personal salvation flows directly from the nature of the means by which divine truth is introduced into the mind. God does not tell us abstractly that he is love; nor does he proclaim abstractly his intention to save us. Still less, does he call upon us to make out his gracious purposes towards us through the medium of promi-[281]ses laid down, and conclusions drawn by our own minds. So far from this, God’s character as love, is embodied in a series of facts; and these facts, as having taken place on our behalf, and our interest in them as already existing, merely require to be communicated to our minds in order to produce their due effects upon them. The Son of God appeared in flesh, as one with us; bearing our sin, although himself sinless, and dying to take sin away, although himself deserving to live; and he rose from the dead to a glorious and heavenly life, in which, as one with him, it is our privilege to share. Thus as sin and death came upon us by the act of another, even our natural progenitor, Adam, so do righteousness and life everlasting flow to us by the act of another, even our spiritual progenitor, Christ Jesus. And it is not by any reasonings of mine, that I discover this oneness as subsisting between Christ and me. It is matter of fact, proclaimed to me on divine authority, that I am one with a being denominated Adam, whose one transgression brought condemnation and death on himself and me; it is equally matter of fact, proclaimed to me on the same authority, that I am one with a more glorious being, Christ Jesus, whose one righteousness is to himself and me the source of justification and life everlasting. I am passive in the reception of the guilt, and of the justification; of the death, and of the everlasting life: and I am equally passive in having these matters of fact opened up to my conscience by the Holy Ghost. Concerning God as love, I know nothing either naturally, or by my own reasonings: but, in the light of certain facts made known to me, seeing myself saved with an everlasting salvation, and made an heir according to the hope of eternal life, in Christ Jesus, I have, at one and the same moment, my own certain and everlasting salvation, God’s character as love, and the truth of his testimony, disclosed to me. These three things are inseparable. God becomes a witness to my conscience, by shewing himself to me as what he is; and he shews himself to me as what he is, viz., Love, in the light of the blessings which he hath conferred on me through his well beloved Son. Thus certainty of personal salvation is of the very essence of faith; because, so far from independently of, it is through the very medium of, seeing our own personal salvation accomplished, that we are enabled to see and believe in God as he is. God is love. But how do I know that he is so? In this, says, the Apostle, as if antici-[282]pating the very question, in this was manifest the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 1 John 4:8,9.
Personal certainty of salvation thus springs from the character of the testifier, apprehended in the light of the subject matter of his testimony. The testifier being God, his testimony is infallibly certain; and it being the grand topic of the testimony, that I am certainly the subject and recipient of blessings, the nature of which implies the existence and operations of a being superior to man, it is through the testimony, as speaking peace to my own conscience, and filling me with joy that is unspeakable and full of glory, that I become acquainted with the character of the infallible testifier. Rather, divine testimony is, by the very necessity of the case, of the nature of light or self-evidence; the divine testifier being no more believed in, than his testimony is understood; and the apprehension of the testimony being also necessarily the apprehension of the character of the testifier. Thus is the grand objection urged by the ingenious author of the Essays on the formation and publication of opinions, in the last of another series of Essays since published by him, an objection originally broached by Hume — entirely got rid of. There is not, according to the system now advocated, any attempt to push human testimony, and human experience, beyond their legitimate bounds. For, it is admitted cheerfully, that upon ordinary experience our conviction of the truth of human testimony must ultimately rest. And farther, that as human testimony, has human experience for its basis, it can never be employed legitimately to prove a testimony professing to be divine, unless at the same time it be admitted that divine testimony may depend ultimately for its support upon human experience. — Therefore, instead of coming under the lash of Mr. Hume and Mr. Bailey, I assume, that a divine testimony requires as its basis, and in order to its being believed as what it is, divine facts or a divine experience. In other words, God in the character of a witness never was received and never can be received through the medium of human facts and human testimony. It is only by condescending to impart the knowledge of facts of a divine and supernatural description to our minds, that the idea of God as the witness to the truth of these facts can be suggested to us.
And such a divine witness, even God himself has, to the [283] minds of all of us by whom the truth as it is in Jesus is believed in, been suggested. He is love. Not changeably, but unchangeably, so. It is his revealed character that he is the I AM, the being who is from everlasting to everlasting, the same, — without variableness or the least shadow of turning. Hence a hope which is founded on, not what we are, but what he is, must resemble his own nature in being unchangeable also. I see myself safe for eternity, because God is love; not because he may be, or will be, so, but because he is so: and as this is God’s real character; as he can never change, and can never reveal himself except as what he is; and as a view which has really truth for its basis can never be expelled by one which is erroneous; of course this certain knowledge of personal salvation must abide with me for ever.
SECTION V.
PEACE, JOY, AND THE OTHER DIRECT PHENOMENA OF SPIRIT.
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” Gal. 5:22.
Such is the language employed by the inspired apostle when contrasting the fruit, or results, of Spirit, with what he had previously enumerated as the works of flesh, or results of fleshly principle. My intention is not to go over and examine each one of these in succession. More time and room would be required for that purpose than I can well spare. Besides the scope of my work does not demand such particularity. Suffice it for me to confine myself to a few general observations on the phenomena of Spirit, or spiritual principle, viewed as a whole.
Properly speaking the only direct phenomena of Spirit are faith, hope, and love. All the other effects of that heavenly principle, some of which are enumerated in the above catalogue, are secondary and intermediate; that is, [284] it is through the production of faith, hope, and love, as the primary results of Spirit, that the others start into existence and are exhibited. For instance, peace exists through faith; both looking backwards; faith as crediting the divine testimony respecting the taking away of sin by the sacrifice of the Son of God, and peace as the result of believing that sin has been taken away, and the enmity thereby slain. Again joy has existence through hope; both looking forwards; — hope as anticipating the certain fulfilment of the divine promises concerning life everlasting, and joy, (in the prospect of the glory thus to be revealed,) as being the feeling which such an anticipation is necessarily calculated to produce. But although derivative, and, viewed in this light, not direct effects of Spirit, peace and joy are nevertheless direct, in so far as they are not of the nature of those reflex actings or operations of Spirit of which it is our intention to speak in the immediately subsequent division of this chapter. They proceed from Spirit, or divine principle, viewed as what it is in itself, and are not to be classed under the head of the effects to which Spirit gives birth when brought into contact and collision with fleshly principle. Therefore it is that I have introduced them under the present division.
Peace, joy, and the other phenomena of Spirit, are expressly distinguished from all those phenomena of Soul which in ordinary language bear the same appellations. The following remarks will, it is hoped, contribute towards rendering apparent the difference between the two classes of phenomena.
First. All spiritual phenomena have their origin in faith. They are all the result of manifestation to the conscience from above. While natural affections exist and operate independently of the understanding, there is no possibility of the existence of a spiritual affection except through the medium of the enlightening of the understanding. Through the understanding, spiritual affections must enter; through the understanding, they must operate. Indeed, properly speaking, there is nothing spiritual or divine in a Christian, except faith or knowledge. Therefore, whatever emotion obtains an entrance into, exists in, and is displayed by, the mind, which is not capable of being traced directly, and unequivocally, to the manifestation of God’s loving character, through his well-beloved Son, as its cause, may without any hesitation [285] be set down as merely one of the results of soulical principles.
Secondly. As a corollary from the foregoing it may be stated, that the measure of the extent of spiritual phenomena, will always be the degree to which the eyes of the understanding have been opened from above. The effects of Spirit in the believer may not come up to this standard; but beyond it they cannot go. No more can weakness in any case exhibit the qualities of strength, than can weak spiritual understanding be productive of enlarged, vigorous and effective spiritual emotion. Hence we have no occasion to put ourselves to any trouble, with a view to ascertain the truth or falsehood of those pretensions to high toned spirituality, which neophytes, or new converts to Christianity, are so ready to set up on behalf of themselves and their feelings. We know that spiritual such feelings cannot be. The glowing, fiery, impetuous, zeal which they exhibit; their self-confidence; their overlooking of obstacles; their proneness to condemn those who are in reality their superiors; make it manifest to the enlightened, and, if the principle of spirituality exists in them at all, will in due time make it manifest even to themselves, that the fire with which they are glowing is strange fire; lighted, not from the altar of Jehovah, but from the devilish burnings of mere fleshly principles. Of the wisdom that cometh down from above, it is expressly declared, that it is first pure, then peaceful, gentle and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy; but an enlarged measure of such wisdom, and of the affections necessarily implied in, and resulting from, it, a small measure of spiritual principle never yet produced, and never can produce.
In the third and last place, so far from spiritual phenomena or affections being consistent, and capable of mixing with such as are soulical, the two classes of affections are completely opposed to and irreconcileable with each other. This being a subject scarcely, if at all understood, I may be permitted to dwell at some length upon it. There are two notions prevalent respecting spiritual affections, both of which betray the most complete ignorance of the facts of the case. The one is, that spiritual affections tend to enlarge, strengthen, and mature, what are considered to be the more praiseworthy class of soulical or natural affections. The [286] other is, that all natural affections being in themselves sinful, there is no possibility of their being indulged in by a Christian. The latter of these views, the majority of my readers may at once be inclined to stigmatize as extravagant, and, therefore, untenable; but the fact is, that, although apparently contradictory to each other, they are both equally false. 1. It is not true, although very commonly maintained, that soulical or natural affections are improved and ameliorated by the introduction of spiritual principle into the conscience. And the reason is, that the two classes of affections are absolutely incompatible. The one springs from earth, and the fleshly nature of man; the other, from heaven, being the manifestation of the character of God, through Christ Jesus. Distinct as the two classes of affections, the spiritual and the soulical, thus are in their origin and nature, they are kept equally distinct in their phenomena. They never mix. They exist in the same individual; but their distinct operations are observable in the same individual. The fact is as was shewn in the foregoing chapter, it is not with a view to the advance and improvement of Soul or fleshly mind, but at the expense of fleshly mind, and thereby of fleshly affections, that spiritual mind in its earnest is communicated. As long and as far as Soul and Spirit continue flowing in two distinct channels, that is as long as soulical affections continue going out in connection with natural objects, and spiritual affections in connection with spiritual objects, the incongruity and incompatibility subsisting between the two classes of principles and affections may not very decidedly make its appearance. But let natural affections as pointing earthwards, be brought into contrast and collision with the views and tendencies of the spiritually enlightened mind as pointing heavenwards, and then it is that, instead of being allies, we discover them to be deadly foes. Then it is that the flesh, or fleshly mind, is found to lust against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and that these are contrary the one to the other. Gal. 5:17. Love to natural relations, a fleshly principle, is then found to be at variance with love to God, as having first loved us; peace with God, to be at variance with peace with the world; joy in hope of the glory of God, to be at variance with rejoicing in earthly advantages; and so on. Then is it that we discover experimentally the truth of our blessed Lord’s words: — except a man hate father, mother, &c., he cannot be my dis-[287]ciple. In other words, when brought into collision with each other, affections springing from flesh, and affections springing from Spirit, so far from incorporating, and so far from tending to mutual increase, nay, so far even from being compatible, actually tend to the destruction of each other. Flesh, and fleshly affections, hate Spirit as their destroyer; and Spirit hates flesh, and fleshly affections, as naturally and necessarily opposed to God. 2. It is not true that a Christian is prohibited the indulgence of the praiseworthy class of soulical affections. Although they are fleshly, and like the principle from which they spring perishing, they are nevertheless useful, when kept in their own place, and when rendered subservient to their own purposes. They qualify for the enjoyment of the things of time and sense; and, let it be borne in mind, that Christians are permitted to use this world, although not to abuse it, knowing that the fashion thereof fast passeth away. Christians, then, are not forbidden the indulgence of all fleshly affections, or of all affections which have their origin in mere Soul, when such indulgence is proper, necessary, and becoming; but they are forbidden to indulge them in opposition to the dictates and tendencies of Spirit. This opposition of fleshly to spiritual affections may appear in a great variety of ways: — 1st, when love to the creature would dictate a line of conduct inconsistent with love to the Creator; 2ndly, when, from the strength of natural affections, the indulgence of which is deemed praiseworthy by the world, we are induced to draw a conclusion as to the corresponding strength of spiritual principle; and 3rdly, when, from the strength of praiseworthy natural affections, and that external correctness of conduct of which it is the cause, we are tempted to advance a claim upon the divine approbation, and to suppose the acquisition of a title, more or less imperfect, to eternal life. In all such cases, a “get thee behind me, Satan, for thou savourest not the things that be of God,” may well be addressed by us to such stirrings of fleshly affection, however amiable and praiseworthy in the estimation of the world they may appear to be. Natural affections have nothing whatever to do except with the things of time; they can only be indulged in, with a view to the advancement of earthly objects, and they can never, by all the refinements of which they are susceptible be taken out of the category of the fleshly, and rise to the dignity of being classed among, the spiritual affections. Born of the flesh, they are flesh, and continue to be so.
[288] Love, peace, joy, and those other affections which have their origin in Soul, are thus seen to be essentially distinguished from love, peace, joy, and those other affections which constitute the phenomena of Spirit. The former are but the shadows of the latter. The latter as connected with substantial principle, tend to the destruction of the former; and this, as always happens where there is increasing and advancing light, by the swallowing up of the shadowy in the substantial.
SECTION VI.
COUNTERFEIT SPIRITUAL PHENOMENA.
Whatever phenomenon has for its origin the knowledge of Christ and him crucified, and the knowledge of God thereby revealed as love, that is, whatever phenomenon springs from the manifestation of God to our consciences as having loved us from everlasting, and as loving us to everlasting, in and through his Son Christ Jesus, ranks unquestionably among the phenomena of Spirit. Whatever arises not from this knowledge of God as its source, is fleshly or soulical. There is in fact no intermediate point between the two principles of Soul and Spirit. Certain effects have Spirit, or spiritual principles for their origin. All besides flow from Soul. For, as whatsoever is born of Spirit, is Spirit; so whatsoever is not born of Spirit is born of flesh.
Abundantly simple and scriptural is the distinction which has been just stated. Had it been generally understood, and had the consequences which it implies been uniformly attended to, what volumes of controversies, on the New Birth, and kindred topics, might have been spared.
But mankind in general, ignorant of divine truth, and yet fond of meddling with it, not having attained to scrip-[289]tural apprehensions of the subject, have substituted for it the coinage of their own imaginations. The term Spirit, and spiritual things, have been familiar to them as household words. From their earliest infancy, in conversation, from the pulpit, in books, they have been habituated to the use of them. Never, having had the real meaning of such phrases opened up to them, however, they have necessarily put upon them meanings of their own; these meanings being almost as various as have been the minds of those who have had their attention drawn towards the subject. And such visionaries have never wanted followers. For there is scarcely any view of this subject, however baseless, which, when propounded, will not be found to touch a responsive chord in the breasts of thousands.
The common practice of the supporters of all those false and heterogeneous theories has been to ascribe spirituality to persons and things which are utterly undeserving of the name. And, as a necessary result of this, either to overlook, or positively to deny, the existence of spiritual principle, where alone it is to be found.
There are two principal ways in which the native ignorance of the human mind with regard to what spirituality is, betrays itself: —
1. By representing the object of the gospel to be the control and right direction of the views, sentiments, and conduct of individuals, with reference to this present world; and, consequently by representing well regulated desires, correct conduct, and general respectability of deportment, as the attainment of this object. Strictly moral behaviour, and the results of spiritual principle, are thus identified. To be observant of all the decencies and proprieties of human life; to avoid whatever might compromise character, and transgress the limits of conventional decorum; and, by the constant exhibition of good sense and correct feelings, to set the assaults of calumny at defiance; constitute the acmé of religious and spiritual attainments on such principles. A good respectable man, a virtuous man, a spiritual man, must, in the vocabulary of the persons now spoken of, have precisely the same signification.
The representation of the kingdom of heaven, as thus consisting in the control of depraved propensities, the cultivation of domestic and social morality, and the amelioration of human character, is what distinguishes the productions of [290] the very ingenious and plausible author of The true plan of a living Temple, My old house, or the doctrine of changes, &c., &c. Flattering as his system is to the natural pride of the human heart, and occasioning no sacrifices which are inconsistent with our temporal comfort and respectability, it must ever be a favourite with mankind, especially with that portion of them who move in refined society, and are in comfortable worldly circumstances. The works in question are, indeed, a beautiful and luminous exposé or methode raisainée of the light in which religion among the worldly and respectable has been regarded in every age. They embody, indeed, more fully and more perspicuously than heretofore, the code of worldly religion and morality. It would be a waste of time to set about formally proving that such a system is, neither in its principles nor in its results spiritual. Although spirituality may among themselves occasionally be predicated of its votaries, and although a vague notion that the term is rightly applied in such cases may float in the minds of many, no idea of their conduct springing from principles superior to those of mere human nature, is ever for a single moment entertained. A well regulated self-love is capable of explaining the whole. And as self-love is the leading principle of soul — generosity being that of Spirit — why trouble myself farther to shew, that certain effects are not spiritual, which, by admitting that they have their origin in selfishness, the principle of Soul, is sufficiently proved already?
I cannot quit this branch of the subject, without expressing my earnest wish, that those who are really spiritual, would, in so far as external conduct is concerned, scruple not to take a leaf out of the book of the worldly respectable. Higher authority than that of man has said whatsoever things are pure, &c. Phil. 4:8. By a course of conduct corresponding to these injunctions, to what an extent might not believers of the truth be enabled to adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things!
2. Those who identify the obvious results of mere natural principle with spiritual phenomena, may with comparative ease be guarded against. The grossness of their ignorance lies on the very surface. But there is a more refined class of perverters of the truth, who, by their high pretensions, and noisy zeal for the divine word, have in every age disturbed the spiritual Israel; and who, for the sake of those who have been, or may be, their dupes, require to be exposed. I [291] allude to those who, admitting in words, the existence of a distinction between natural and spiritual phenomena, contrive nevertheless in fact to nullify completely, that all important distinction.
This is done, by representing phenomena which are in reality merely soulical, as having a spiritual origin. Into this mistake persons entirely ignorant of the gospel, and consequently themselves unpossessed of spiritual principle, as a matter of necessity fall. They have heard of Spirit and spiritual operations, and they have perhaps even thought of, spoken on, and written concerning them; but having only soul, or the mind of the creature, themselves, soulical operations are all that in reality they can conceive and treat of. Nor is the mistake confined to them. Even men, endowed with a certain measure of spiritual knowledge and attainments, have been found sometimes countenancing the delusion. Knowledge of Christ, particularly in its earlier stages, does not imply the possession of much spiritual discrimination; and it frequently happens to persons so situated, as it did to the Galatians of old, to be brought for a time under the bewitching influence of fleshly statements and fleshly reasonings.
Let it be remembered, that it is not of soul, as conversant with topics which are merely and avowedly soulical, we are now treating. It is of Soul, as pretending to meddle with Spirit, and spiritual operations, and to be able to discriminate between them and such as are soulical. The folly and presumption of the mere fleshly mind, here thoroughly expose themselves. That the mind of man, even when operating within its own sphere, is liable to err, is known to every one; that it should mistake when it ventures to intrude into a sphere which does not belong to it, is a matter of absolute necessity.
Every genuine spiritual phenomenon has its soulical counterpart. It has been stated in the former part of this work, that Soul is the shadow of Spirit; and that every soulical principle is the shadow of some corresponding spiritual one. The views then presented, however, had reference principally to those soulical phenomena, which make their appearance in man, in his ordinary intercourse with society. What we now direct attention to, are soulical phenomena connected with the subject of religion, and assuming the rank and appellation of phenomena which are spiritual. Now concerning these, we observe, that there are phenomena [292] of Soul, falsely regarded as spiritual, which are analogous to those which are truly and genuinely so. And this, to such an extent, that every real effect of Spirit, has its soulical counterfeit. Under these circumstances, need we be surprised at the blunders into which the most acute and practiced fleshly understandings have fallen respecting this subject?
To instance what I mean: —
1st. Faith as a spiritual phenomenon, has an analogous soulical one. The former, rests on, and springs from, divine testimony alone, having Jehovah himself, as manifested in the conscience through his word, witness to the truth of what is believed; and is unsusceptible of either increase or diminution, from the testimony of man. The latter is produced by and is always in proportion to, the strength and weight of human testimony alone. It has the authority of parents and guardians, the influence of customary associations, the power of conscience, or in some rare cases, the perusal of works written in defence of Christianity; delighting itself especially in the productions of Grotius, Lardner, Paley, Watson, and others. In minds of a peculiarly strong and enlarged intellectual calibre, such as those of Paley, and Brougham, this counterfeit faith gives rise to systems of Natural Religion; that is, to systems which ascribe to the mere Soul or reason of man, discoveries which the merest tyro in the school of Christ, sees to be due to the Spirit of God. In minds of a naturally serious and religious cast, the counterfeit faith rests on, and is the result of, certain supposed internal experiences. In many, particularly among those commonly denominated Evangelical, this spurious faith is the spawn of natural conscience engendering with natural religion, coming out, and making its appearance, in much external seriousness of deportment, combined with attempts to prop up the testimony of God, by external evidences or the testimony of man. — Faith, when a spiritual grace, scorns all alliance or intercourse with the soulical counterfeit; having to do with the testimony of Jehovah, and with it alone; and receiving a conviction and satisfaction from the manifestation of God as Love, in the light of his own word, that is, from the manifestation of God, as at once the subject matter of his own testimony,23 and the sole testifier to [293] its truth, which, as it cannot be impaired by, so it can receive no addition from, the testimony of man.
23 The subject matter of his own testimony, as alone deserving to be so; the testifier to its truth, as alone capable of being so.
2ndly. The principle of Hope is similarly circumstanced. As a spiritual phenomenon, it has no other cause, and can be referred to no other origin, than the divine promise. God who cannot lie, being its author, it is a principle of absolute certainty; and the promise which he hath promised, even eternal life, being declared to be a gift, it is as a gift, or as being unconditionally bestowed, that it is viewed and rejoiced in. But the soulical, or counterfeit, hope is essentially different. It rests on the supposition of some change or improvement having taken place in ourselves, by which we are warranted in entertaining it; and, therefore, it is both conditional and uncertain. The mind, before such a hope can be cherished, must suppose itself to be possessed of, or to have performed, some good thing, which renders it conditional, and as it can never be absolutely certain that the supposed condition has been fulfilled, of course a doubtful and hesitating anticipation of futurity, is all the hope, that under such circumstances, can be attained to. How different this, from that good hope which is through grace, let every Christian judge!
3rdly. Again, the love of the truth, or love viewed as a spiritual phenomenon, differs vitally and essentially from the soulical counterfeit which, among the natural and the undiscerning, usurps the name. Love, as consisting in sentiment, and the strong stirrings of affection, is a mere fleshly principle. And it proves it to be so, by the consequences to which it leads. It shuns suffering, it courts worldly enjoyment and consideration, it delights in excitement, it exhibits itself in the strength of the domestic and social attachments, and, in its most refined form, it takes a deep interest in alleviating the miseries and promoting the comforts of the family of man. But all this may exist in connexion with intense, deep-rooted, and unmitigable, hatred to the truth. Natural, or fleshly, love, is, indeed, at bottom a murderous principle; for, to the preservation, prolongation, and amelioration, of a life that is already forfeited, it would at any time, sacrifice the possession and enjoyment of life everlasting. Now love, as a divine principle, and spiritual phenomenon, is distinguished by properties exactly the opposite of all this. It enters through, and in inseparable connection with, the enlightening of the understanding from above. It is love to God; and is the result of our knowing that God hath first loved us. [294] 1 John 4:19. While soulical love pretends to cherish attachment to the Creator, through the medium of the creature, spiritual love, on the contrary, goes out to the creature, through the medium of the Creator. Soulical love would, for the promotion of the apparent good of the creature, sacrifice at any time the truth of the Creator; spiritual love rejoices to know that, through the truth of the Creator, the real good of the creature is secured and promoted. Spiritual love is, indeed, emphatically, love to the truth; and love to others, for the truth’s sake. In a word, soulical love, pretending to be spiritual, may be detected to be what it is by this test, that the truth of God is always and necessarily in its estimation secondary; whereas the essential feature of spiritual love is, its supreme and exclusive attachment to the truth of God. The soulical nature of the love professed often betrays itself, in a great anxiety to reconcile the word of God with well-established human facts, and cogent human reasonings founded thereon; and this, even at the expense of the divine veracity being compromised and encroached on. The language of love which is, indeed, divine and spiritual, is, Let God be true, although every man should prove to be a liar. Rom. 3:4.
4thly. The spiritual graces of peace, joy, &c. have likewise their soulical imitations. Peace, when spiritual, is derived solely and exclusively from the blood of the cross; having no other source, and knowing no other foundation, than the slaying of the enmity thereby. In like manner, spiritual joy is solely the product of our knowing, upon divine authority, that Jesus hath risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that slept, that in his resurrection, we are raised — and that in his life, we live. Because I live, ye shall live also, is one of those precious declarations to which this joy is indebted for its birth, and by which, during our abode upon earth, it is maintained. And so, of the other phenomena of Spirit. They all spring directly and exclusively from the manifestation to the conscience of the character of God, through the work of Christ Jesus. Not so, however, with the counterfeits of those graces. They all have their origin, under one form or another, in self. A peace which is soulical, depends on our supposing ourselves to have undergone the change, to be possessed of the qualifications, or to have performed the conditions, by which alone we conceive that it can become ours. Soulical joy is derived from the good opinion [295] of others, abstinence from gross vices, calmness and moderation of character, the supposed orthodoxy of our doctrinal sentiments, confirmed habits of natural piety, long perseverance in a religious profession, and, above all, from supposing ourselves at some one period or another to have been the subjects of spiritual operations. To which spurious graces, a resemblance is borne by the rest of the sisterhood. Need we be surprised to find mere soulical phenomena failing their possessors in the hour of extremity? A peace which is spoken by the finished work of Christ, can undergo no alteration; and a joy which springs from the knowledge, that as Jesus is our head, when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is, sets all the assaults of men and devils at defiance. But of what value are the peace and the joy which have no other foundation than an idea of my own superiority to my neighbours? Let temptations assail, let conscience be violated, or let the near prospect of eternity be obtruded on the mind, and where are those comfortable, self-complacent feelings, wherewith, under ordinary circumstances, natural religious characters continue to delude themselves? Alas! in the hour of extremity when support is most needed, they are found to fail. — True it is, that the peace and the joy which the Creator himself imparts, not being in our own keeping, nay, not being in any respect whatever dependent on ourselves, can neither by ourselves, nor by any other creatures be taken away. But the peace and the joy which have only a creaturely origin, may by the creature itself, or by creature circumstances, at any time be brought to an end.
May not the difference between genuine and counterfeit spiritual phenomena be summed up in the following words? — Phenomena of Spirit, which are really such, are the effects of the manifestation of the character of God, in Christ, by the Spirit, to the conscience and of that alone. A spiritual man is one to whom, in a greater or less degree, Christ has been made known as his wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and spiritual phenomena are the genuine and necessary results of this knowledge. On the other hand counterfeit spiritual phenomena are the productions of the mere Soul, or fleshly mind. They have for their basis the supposition that the individual either may become, or has become, better than he formerly was; that he has thereby acquired a somewhat better claim than he formerly [296] possessed to the divine favour; and that by persevering in the course which he has adopted and so happily begun, he may in due time attain to the enjoyment of everlasting felicity. The notions of spirituality entertained by such a man, are thus notions of some good thing or good dispositions, — to which he pays the compliment of having been implanted by grace, which are possessed by, and existing in himself; and a review of these good dispositions, as the only means which he has of ascertaining his spiritual advancements, and the safety of his state, he is from time to time instituting. He delights to dwell on what he imagines to be the evidences of his being a changed, and thereby a spiritual man. Need I add, that the growing spiritual phenomena of such a man, that is, his counterfeit spiritual, because really soulical, phenomena, his faith, his hope, his love, his peace, his joy, and so on, are all the result not of his good opinion of Christ, but of the good opinion of himself, and of his state, which he has been enabled to form, and that they grow with the growth of the delusion under which he is labouring. Where the mind, and its phenomena, are really spiritual, Christ alone is looked to and rejoiced in. Where the mind is merely soulical, and its pretensions to the display of spiritual phenomena are false and counterfeit, self, changed and ameliorated perhaps, but still self — self under one or other of its almost infinitely diversified forms — is, whatever compliments in words may be paid to Christ, in reality the ground of hope, and source of rejoicing.
Have any of my readers ever perused that exceedingly popular work, Edwards on Religious Affections? If so, will they allow me to ask them, whether the tendency of the book be to commend Christ, or to commend themselves? Should they, as if honest and enlightened believers they must do, answer that the latter is decidedly its tendency, it being a systematic attempt at the withdrawal of the eyes of the creature from the glory and finished work of the Creator, in order to fasten its regards upon self — what shall be said or thought of men, calling themselves preachers of the gospel, by whom such works, and the doctrines which they advocate, are regularly enforced on the attention of their hearers? By substituting the mere operations of Soul, for the genuine phenomena of Spirit, surely such men, and the works which they countenance, can be regarded in no other light than as the efficient and devoted agents of the Prince of this world.
[297]
SECTION VII.
RATIONALE OF RELIGIOUS SOULICAL PHENOMENA.
Passing by altogether those soulical phenomena which have to do obviously and directly with the present world only, and confining our attention to the phenomena which result from Soul being brought into contact with Spirit and spiritual things, I observe, that
There are only three conceivable ways in which Soul can have to do with Spirit.
1. Soul, continuing such, may be conceived of as trying to operate on Spirit: that is, when subjects which are in themselves spiritual are presented to it, it may make an attempt to conceive of them; but as being and continuing to be, Soul, it cannot conceive of such subjects as spiritual, or as what they are, but must conceive of them as soulical, or after a fashion corresponding to its own nature.
2. Soul may be conceived of as united to, and mixed up with, Spirit: the result of which will be, that phenomena, neither such as the mere Soul of man can exhibit, nor such as are purely spiritual, will be the result. Soulical-spiritual notions will, if I may be allowed the expression, be conceived, and soulical-spiritual phenomena be exhibited, by a being who is so situated.
3. Soul may be conceived of as operated on by Spirit: in which case, in exact proportion to the degree in which Spirit operates, the ideas, and consequently the phenomena, will be purely spiritual. Spirit, in those on whom it operates, does not unite itself to, or mix itself up with soul; but destroys it. The reason being, that Soul is a shadowy principle; and that whenever Spirit, which is its substance, comes to be realized in any mind, the shadow is always, as a matter of necessity, so far from being mixed up with, actually swallowed up in, the substance.
The second case I dismiss with a very few observations. It was that of our blessed Lord while he was in flesh; and it was peculiar to himself. In none, except in him during his earthly state, were Soul and Spirit mixed, or did these otherwise discordant principles unite. In the case of all others bearing the human form, either Soul vainly attempts [298] to conceive of Spirit, the shadow, notwithstanding all its efforts, merely grasping shadows like itself; or Spirit in reality conceives of Spirit and spiritual things, and thereby also of soul; the substance, Spirit, as the light of truth advances, absorbing in itself the various soulical shadows. In our blessed Lord himself, while on earth, by the union of Soul and Spirit — of the mind of the creature, and the mind of the Creator — the shadowy was actually substantialized. Hence, all the phenomena exhibited by him, were those, not of a shadowy, but of a substantial, man. Of the substantial, as distinguished from the shadowy, man, I should rather say. Rom. 5:14. But this union of the shadow, and the substance, in himself-— this substantializing of the shadow, rather, — took place, not for perpetuity, but that, when the purposes of it had been accomplished, it might be dissolved. And this dissolution was effected by the death of the Lord Jesus. Thenceforward the shadow no longer appeared united to, and thereby substantialized by, the substance; but, as it should be, swallowed up in the substance. Jesus rose from the dead, not with Soul mixed up with, and united to Spirit, but with soul swallowed up in Spirit. And he who, while on earth, had exhibited the phenomena of a mixed nature, — of Spirit in the form of Soul, — now that he is exalted to glory, exhibits personally, and enables his people to exhibit, the phenomena of pure Spirit merely.
It is important to remember that this second of the cases above mentioned in which Soul has to do with Spirit, or the state of the Lord Jesus, while on earth, as an exhibition of soulical and spiritual principles united in himself, was not only the sole medium through which salvation and life everlasting could be enjoyed by the guilty children of men, but is also the medium through which God’s character can be understood, and spirituality can be possessed, by any human beings while on earth; in other words, remembering that the union of soul and spirit in Christ, and in him alone, during his earthly state, is the line of demarcation which separates between the possession of mere Soul, by all men naturally, and the possession of Spirit, by a few men supernaturally; the rationale of such phenomena of Soul as are of a religious kind, on the one hand, and the rationale of spiritual phenomena, on the other, respectively, become abundantly manifest: —
1. The religious phenomena of Soul, do not come up to [299] the line of demarcation. Soul in vain attempts to conceive of Spirit, and spiritual things; and this, among other reasons, because it attempts to conceive of them as they are in themselves, and not as they were temporarily united, and brought to an end, in Christ.
2. The phenomena of Spirit, rise above the line of demarcation. This happens, through there having been made known to the mind by divine testimony, the temporary union of Soul and Spirit in Christ Jesus, the disruption of that union by his sacrifice, and the swallowing up of Soul in Spirit by his resurrection. To apprehend all these facts, especially the last, in the light of divine truth, is to have Soul, so far, swallowed up in Spirit, in ourselves; and is thereby, not to stand on the level of the state which Christ occupied while on earth, — a state peculiar to himself, — but to be elevated to the level of the state which he now occupies.
We consider, then, the first, and third, of the cases, above mentioned in which Soul has to do with Spirit, namely, 1st, that in which Soul, continuing such, attempts to operate on Spirit; and, 2ndly, that in which Spirit operates on Soul. The consideration of the former, will occupy the present; of the latter, the following, sections.
1. Soul, continuing such, attempts to operate on Spirit.
This case is realised in every man who, although merely soulical, meddles with, and attempts to conceive of, spiritual things. It may appear under an almost infinite variety of forms. Men may, from education and custom, concern themselves with, and fancy that they have attained, to correct conceptions of, religious topics. Anxiety of mind, whether occasioned by violations of conscience, or by temporal losses, may also result in soulical apprehensions, of what can only in reality be spiritually, that is, in their own light, apprehended. The urgency, eloquence, and influence, of popular preachers, may also contribute towards the same result. Added to which, the subject being one which, in a country like this, is constantly obtruded on our notice, in conversation, from the press, and by means of political discussions, need we wonder at the number of discordant, because soulical notions, regarding it, which are afloat? Such notions must be as diversified as are the minds of those by which they are entertained.
But the case is realized not merely in those who are altogether soulical. Believers of the truth themselves, likewise, [300] furnish us with examples of it. By such persons, spiritual things are apprehended but partially. They see them in part, and they know them in part. Hence it is, that, although their spiritual apprehensions are in so far as they go, correct, yet, having in them, also, from the partial extent of their illumination, soulical apprehensions of divine things, these soulical apprehensions of them are, just like the soulical apprehensions of others, necessarily erroneous. Soul, or fleshly mind, in the believer, no more than in the unbelieving portion of mankind, is capable of apprehending Spirit.
Soulical apprehensions of spiritual things, whether in believers, or unbelievers, give rise to those counterfeit phenomena of Spirit, of which we have already spoken. They produce the spurious faith, the spurious hope, the spurious love, the spurious peace, the spurious joy. Do I fancy myself to be a believer in Christianity, because my conscience has been fearfully agitated — a law-work has passed upon me — a certain kind and degree of religious experience has been gone through — a certain profession has been made — and certain external observances have been attended to by me? or because I have studied to my own satisfaction Grotius, and Lardner, and Paley, and Watson, and the host of others, who, having written on what are called the evidences of Christianity, are supposed to have silenced their adversaries for ever? or because my fellow men are pleased to think highly of me? Such a faith, however diversified in different individuals, or even in the same individual, is in all these different cases spurious, because soulical; true faith being a spiritual principle, and as such having the divine testimony concerning Christ Jesus, and nothing else, for its cause; and being produced and strengthened, not by any exertions, or reasonings, or applauses, on the part of the creature, but solely by the manifestation of the truth of his testimony to the conscience by the Creator. A similar difference, too, obtains between soulical and spiritual hope, love, and so on. Every religious manifestation which has Soul or the mind of the creature, for its origin, is spurious; none are genuine which spring not from, and which are not manifested through the creation of Spirit, or the mind of God himself.
Perhaps my readers are by this time prepared for my stating briefly, that the rationale of religious soulical pheno-[301]mena, is Soul, presuming on its capability of being active in spiritual matters. It is shadow attempting to grasp substance. It is the finite conceiving itself to be able to conceive of the infinite. It is the mind of the creature fancying itself able to comprehend, nay even to have comprehended, by dint of its own native energies, the mind of the Creator. Hence the supposition of our ability to ascend by means of our own understandings from the works of nature, to nature’s God; and of our being able through attachment to the creature, to manifest attachment to the Creator. We are, spiritually considered, so many Titans, who by heaping up our natural reasonings, and our natural affections, anticipate our being able ultimately to scale the throne of Jehovah. And all this in marked and diametrical opposition to the declarations of Holy Writ, that the soulical man, or man with a soul, receiveth not, &c. 1 Cor. 2:14; and that if any man love the world, or the things that are in the world, the love of the father is not in him. 1 John 2:15. The natural, or fleshly mind, perceives not that as no number or accumulation of finite beings, can amount to an infinite one, so no conceptions of creatures, however accurate, extensive, or sublime, can afford the slightest approximation to a conception of the Creator; and that as no creatures can possess qualities in common with the Creator; so no love to creatures, however intense and apparently well directed, can have anything in common with love to the Creator. Nay, it perceives not, that to assume creatures as our standard of the Creator, and creatures as deserving to be the objects of our love, is necessarily to beguile ourselves in the most important of all matters; or, in the expressive language of the Apostle, To sport ourselves with our own deceivings. Creature thoughts, and creature affections, of a religious kind, being thus necessarily imaginations of, and attachments to, mere limited beings like ourselves, it is abundantly manifest, that to expect from the mere mind of man, either ideas of God, or love to God, is to convict ourselves of the most egregious stupidity. If the Glorious Creator, be in reality one and the same being with the mere creature, and may be identified as such in the human mind, then may those ideas of, and affections towards, the creature, which man is confessedly capable of acquiring, be identified with ideas of, and love to, God. But if the creature, be in reality but the shadow of the Creator, as taught by scripture we know he is, then, surely, upon [302] every principle not merely of Revelation but even of common sense, knowledge of and love of creatures, can, at the utmost, amount to no more than conceptions of shadows, and affections cherished towards shadows. No; the mere creature, notwithstanding all his boasts to the contrary, has never yet ascended, by all his efforts, either in his thoughts or affections, from the creature to the Creator; and he never will. Revelation, not creature efforts, is the ladder by which we mount to Deity. Necessary failure characterises every effort on the part of Soul to operate on Spirit. And this, because the part of Soul, when brought into contact with Spirit, is not to be active, but passive. In the case of the redeemer, when in flesh, it was not Soul that conformed Spirit to itself, but Spirit which for a time voluntarily conformed itself to Soul. And, the purposes for which this temporary conformity of Spirit to Soul had taken place, having been accomplished, Spirit swallowed up Soul in itself, or the shadow was absorbed in the substance, the only way in which, in the creature, any union between Soul and Spirit can be effected. Not such, however, are the views of mere Soul. In ignorance of that necessary law of Revelation, that soul in being united to Spirit, is passive; that the only union which can obtain between Soul and Spirit in the creature, is through the destruction of Soul by its absorption in Spirit; and that Soul never was united to Spirit after any other fashion except in the Creator himself, and this by his own voluntary act; I say, in ignorance of this law, Soul proceeds upon the foolish principle of attempting to unite Spirit to itself, that is, upon the principle of attempting to bring down the superior to the level of the inferior; thereby realizing in itself the fable of the frog and the ox; and with the same success too; for as the frog burst in its attempts to swell itself to the dimensions of the ox, so does Soul, or fleshly mind, destroy itself, in its vain attempts to lay hold of, and comprehend Spirit, or the mind of the infinite Jehovah.
In few words; the rationale of soulical religious phenomena is Soul’s attempting to rise out of its own sphere, and to be active in a matter in which, by the very necessity of the case, it must be passive; and its mistaking the mere soulical apprehensions of spiritual things which result from such attempts, for phenomena which are really spiritual. The manifestation of Christ in flesh, and of the purposes for [303] which this manifestation took place, must be opened up to the mind, before the slenderest measure of spirituality can be possessed by it; and to become acquainted with this subject, is not in consequence of Soul operating on Spirit, but of Spirit operating on Soul. Ignorant therefore, is Soul, even in its most religious moods, of the utter incompatibility of Soul with Spirit in the creature, and of the utter impossibility of any union between the two being effected, except in the person of the Creator himself; and ignorant farther is it, that this union having been once effected in the Lord Jesus while in flesh, and subsequently dissolved, the only fate which Soul now can look forward to — and, O! how blessed and glorious a Euthanasia — is to be by Spirit, swallowed up for evermore in itself.
I do not wish to leave this branch of my subject, without making another effort to be understood. For this purpose, let me try in somewhat varied language, to express the substance of what has gone before. In the manifestation of the Son of God in flesh, such of us as are divinely enlightened, and have been rendered spiritually attentive, behold two discordant principles, Soul and Spirit, the mind of the creature, and the mind of the Creator, temporarily conjoined or united; and we further behold, in his sacrifice, a disruption, of the union thus formed, as we behold in his resurrection, a swallowing up of Soul or the mind of the creature, in Spirit, or the mind of the Creator. Now the discovery thus made to us upon whom the earnest of Spirit is conferred, is not made to others. And as destitute of the knowledge implied in this discovery, they necessarily think and act as if Soul, or creature mind, were the all in all. Hence neither Pharisees, nor Sadducees, form, or can form, any conception of the difference subsisting between Soul and Spirit. To both of them, Soul and Spirit necessarily appear to be one and the same principle. To both of them, Soul necessarily appears to be substantial, and, therefore immortal. To both of them, the preservation of Soul as what it is, or, to use their own language, the preservation of its identity, necessarily appears to be the all and in all of salvation. As shadows, themselves, they are attached to their shadowy existence, and anxious to retain it. Next to retaining it, the prospect of recovering it, either as it is, or as restored to its pristine purity, is the loftiest of their religious aspirations. Now all this, to the mind of him who has been spiritually enlightened by the [304] manifestation of Christ, is sheer nonsense. Such an one perceives, that those who entertain such absurd notions, although possessed merely of Soul, and consequently unable by means of that principle to conceive of more than soulical things, and of these, too, merely after a soulical fashion, are nevertheless attempting to conceive of Spirit and spiritual things, and are expressing themselves as if they had actually done so! They use language, which might have suited the lips of Martha under the former dispensation; and they fancy, forsooth! that they speak like those to whom Jesus has been made known as the resurrection and the life! Alas, for their ignorance! Soul is mere shadow; and the shadow of Spirit. As shadow, Soul neither can be preserved, nor is it worth the preserving. As a fleshly principle it is fitted only for time, and the things of time, and for nothing besides. But these facts, simple and obvious as they are to the believing mind, Soul, under no form, and in no circumstances, ever yet understood, or even can understand. Hence the religious soulical phenomena common to the Pharisee with the Sadducee. Differing from each other as they do, you may to be sure, by a few well pointed observations, throw in the apple of discord between them. Tell them, for instance, that Soul or fleshly mind, is not now essentially different from what it originally was, it never having been, even when it came pure from God’s hands, other than fleshly — and you are commended by the Sadducee, but condemned by the Pharisee. Tell them, however, that such a change did come over human nature, and the human mind especially, by Adam’s one transgression, and that man now is not what he was originally, and the Pharisee applauds, while the Sadducee condemns. Hitherto, you have not been taking the fleshly mind out of its depths; or, rather, out of its shallows. You have been merely playing off one form of it against another. But advance a step farther, and tell them both that there exists an essential difference between Soul and Spirit — that Soul purified, in the creature, never was, and never can become, Spirit — that it is an utter impossibility to unite the one principle with the other in the creature — that a temporary union between them was effected in the Creator himself, Soul by means of that union having been once and for ever purified — that this united principle was destroyed by the sacrifice of himself by the Lord Jesus — and [305] that there is effected thereby, not the preservation, but the destruction, of Soul, by its being swallowed up in Spirit: tell them, in a word, that Soul, or fleshly mind, as a worthless, impure shadow, neither is, nor can be immortal, immortality being a predicate of the substance, Spirit; and not more cordially did Herod and Pontius Pilate, notwithstanding their previous dislike of each other, unite in unholy confederacy against the Son of God, than Pharisees and Sadducees, however strong their mutual dislike, will shew themselves combined in deadly hostility to you.
SECTION VIII.
RATIONALE OF SPIRITUAL PHENOMENA.
2. Spirit operates on Soul.
That is, the mind of God operates on the mind of man, not the mind of man on the mind of God. And when I say so, one recently enlightened from above, would be apt to think, that I was uttering one of those truisms, which had only to be enunciated in words, in order to command universal assent.
So far, however, from this impression being correct, to very few, indeed, is it given even to understand the proposition which begins this section. The very idea of any other mind than the soul of man existing, and being concerned with spiritual conceptions, is scouted with contempt as well by the religious as by the irreligious. If I am not to understand divine things with the mind which I have naturally, pray how am I to understand them at all? is deemed a complete poser to persons like myself, by our ordinary thinkers and writers on religious subjects. And yet, unless another mind does exist, and is communicated, scripture never can be understood, if scripture itself is to be relied [306] on as an authority. The man with a soul (ανθρωπος ψυχικος) receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2:14. And unless another mind had existed, of which we have been allowed to participate, we who now to a certain degree apprehend divine things, must, as to such topics, have remained in total and irremediable darkness. But why argue on this subject? The moment any man alleges that with his Soul, or fleshly mind, he either may apprehend, or has apprehended, spiritual truths, he is merely furnishing us with an illustration of the very fact which he stoutly and strenuously denies. If he contend for the existence of no other mind than Soul, and for the ability of Soul to comprehend spiritual things, he can have no reasonable objection surely to our taking him up on his own avowed principles, and speaking of him as a soulical man.
The truth is, the manifestation of the Son of God in flesh, is the Shibboleth of Christianity. No soulical mind ever yet apprehended it; and no soulical man was ever capable of propounding it. But, blessed be God, that manifestation is carried home, by divine power, to the consciences of some; them it enlightens, at the very moment that in them it is the creation of a new and divine mind; and by means of this manifestation developed more and more to their consciences, the divine and spiritual mind which it was originally the means of communicating and implanting, becomes enlarged, matured, and strengthened. It is the word of God recorded in the scriptures, opened up in its meaning to the understanding, and nothing else, in which this divine and spiritual mind consists.
This word speaks throughout of Jesus of Nazareth. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. To possess Spirit, or divine mind, then, is to understand who Jesus is — what he hath done, is doing, and will do — is, in short, to have the meaning of the divine testimony, as concerning God’s well-beloved Son, and our oneness with him, dwelling in us, in consequence of its having been imparted to us. How simple, and yet, when scripture itself is understood, how correct, this view of the subject!
Now all this understanding of divine truth, and consequent possession of Spirit by us, is the effect of Spirit operating upon Soul, and thereby conforming Soul to itself. It is [307] not by Soul operating on Spirit, that the slightest particle of divine truth has ever been apprehended by us. Soul has to do with the letter, not the spirit of scripture. Whether with the Unitarian party, a man suppose his soul, or soulical powers to be of themselves sufficient to grasp religious subjects; or, with the evangelical party, that by study of the scriptures, prayer, and the devoted performance of duty, he shall be able to attain to the understanding of divine things; in both cases equally he shall (unless sovereign grace interpose), be made to experience the awful consequences of his mistake. Men, putting forth the efforts of their fleshly minds to understand religion, reap, as the result, fleshly views of it. Sowing, in this, as in other respects, to the flesh, they, of the flesh, reap corruption. They never, at the utmost, get beyond the mere letter of scripture. “They,” “forsooth, are using the means of salvation.” That is, they are acting as if Christ’s salvation were not already complete — as if God, through the medium of that work, had not revealed himself to be, what he is, love — and, above all, as if they, by the steps which they are taking, could bring the Creator under some sort of an obligation to them. Vain and deluded men! Not so, however, when the Creator himself interposes. He, then uses the means of illumination. And as means in the hands, not of the creature, but of the Creator, they are of necessity efficacious. These means he uses, not by encouraging but by superseding, creature efforts. And this is accomplished, not by Spirit causing Soul to put forth efforts which are finally crowned with success, as religious soulical men suppose; but by Spirit as the mind of God revealed in scripture, being made to bear, with all its divine power and efficacy, upon the conscience. In spiritual illumination, God, not man, is the actor. The result in such cases is, that, as a matter of necessity, the scales fall from the eyes of the understanding. The mind of God, or Spirit, is thus by God himself, as alone it can be, introduced into the conscience; superseding, in so far as it enters, Soul, or the mind of man. For, it is substance, absorbing shadow. And thus, as the result of the whole, he who was sometime darkness, is now light in the Lord.
1. Viewed as to their origin, spiritual phenomena are always and exclusively the result of the operation of the mind of God, upon the mind of man. That is, there neither is, nor can be, any activity on the part of man in the produc-[308]tion of what is spiritual. And this to such an extent, that human exertions, even the minutest, are inconsistent with the very existence of spirituality; Spirit, in all its workings, superseding the activity of Soul. The mind of man in divine illumination is passive. It is so, in the first operations of spiritual principle; it is so, in all the subsequent operations of which it is the subject. For Soul, or fleshly mind, to exert itself in divine things, is fatal to Spirit. I care not what the nature of the efforts put forth by Soul may be. Whether reading the scriptures, engaging in prayer, and attendance on public worship — or repenting of sin, accepting of Christ as he is freely offered in the gospel, and appropriating him to ourselves with all the blessings of his salvation, if a simple effort be made, great or small, internal or external, intellectual or moral, with a view to secure to ourselves a good not yet possessed by us, that effort indicates the activity of Soul, or fleshly mind, and is, therefore, inconsistent with spirituality. When Spirit operates the activity of Soul ceases. Not that the activity of Soul ceases previous to the putting forth of spiritual power, and the reception of spiritual influence, as some mystics have alleged; for that would still imply activity on the part of Soul, in putting a stop to activity: but that activity of Soul ceases in consequence of Spirit operating, and in consequence of the workings of Soul being thereby superseded. This supersession of the activity of Soul, by Spirit, is the grand characteristic of spirituality. And the supersession in question is always in exact proportion to the degree in which Spirit operates, and in which Soul is thereby subjected to its influence. Thus Soul never takes, never can take, the initiative in spiritual matters. Is Soul active? Is it putting forth religious efforts? Is it attracting notice by its goodness, its piety, its professed ardent desires after God, and conformity to his will? Depend upon it, the individual is, in every such case, deluding himself, and deluding others. Instead of having made, or being likely to make, advances towards God, he is, while he continues in such a state, receding farther and farther from him — he is going about, perhaps under a very refined form, to establish his own righteousness, and thus refusing to submit himself to the righteousness, of God — he is plunging deeper and deeper in the mire of fancied creature ability and creature goodness, and thereby blinding himself more and more to the glory of the revealed power and goodness of the [309] Creator. Every fresh attempt to draw near to God made by the creature, is thus a still farther departure by him from the fountain of life and happiness. In a word, for the creature to act in divine things, is thus necessarily to act amiss. And the more intense, and ardent, and persevering, the efforts made by the creature, to come to the Creator, the more decided the hostility thereby manifested towards the Creator. God must act, before the first measure of spirituality can be possessed by the creature; and if God should see meet to withhold the working of his mighty power, it is in vain for the creature to think to supply the defect by the putting forth of any puny efforts of his own. The very first effect of God’s operating on the mind of the creature is, to shew that no operations on the part of the creature are required. In superseding creature efforts, he shews that they are superseded. He manifests the work of salvation as already accomplished. “It is finished,” is the first spiritual view introduced into the conscience. “Do something, in order to be saved,” is the suggestion of the fleshly mind. “Behold the work of salvation completed, and therefore do nothing,” is the language of Spirit continually. “Use the means of salvation,” whispers flesh. “Salvation is of the Lord alone, in its plan, in its progress, and in its consummation, — in its fulfilment by Christ, and in its manifestation to the sinner — and, therefore, God, not man, employs the means of salvation,” is the substance of the information which Spirit communicates. When Spirit operates upon our minds, and spiritual views are thereby imparted to us; we discover, that all our previous reading of the scriptures, prayers, and religious exercises, had not advanced us one step towards the knowledge of God. And this, because instead of disposing us to acquiesce in his revealed character, they had been merely flattering the self-righteous notions and tendencies of our minds, and thereby leading us away farther and farther from him. Instead of superseding our creature activity in divine things, they had been specimens of that activity, and had been prompting to still greater exertions of a similar kind. All these religious exercises of ours therefore, we now discover, had been merely pious methods of calling God a Liar. And we now see, and are ready to confess, that there was no necessary connection between the most religious step which we ever took, and the most religious act which we ever performed, at the dictate of our fleshly minds, and our having had the knowledge of the gospel imparted to us.
[310] 2. When the means of the production of spiritual phenomena is made the subject matter of consideration, we find that these are always and necessarily exhibited through the opening up to the conscience of what was implied in the appearance of the Son of God in flesh. God, not man, we have seen, is their author. But how? This is the question which we are about to answer. It cannot be by God’s prescribing any thing to be done — any act to be performed — by the creature, whether, negatively, abstinence from evil, or, positively, reading the Scriptures, engaging in prayer, or attendance on religious exercises; nay, it cannot even be to exert an act of of faith, and, thereby, to appropriate to ourselves the blessings of salvation: for, if so, as something would require to be done, God in that case, instead of repressing and overcoming soulical activity, would be stimulating it into the most vigorous exercise. No more can it be by God’s holding up to view the preservation of our souls, or the resurrection of our flesh and blood bodies, as such, to be the amount of the privileges and advantages which it is his intention in a future state to bestow: for, if so, God, instead of overcoming, would be confirming, that attachment to Adam’s life and Adam’s nature, which we all of us as human beings cherish; and which attachment, no less than the nature and life themselves towards which it is directed, God hath pronounced to be accursed. God, it thus appears cannot impart Spirit, by enjoining acts of obedience; or by holding up the preservation and perpetuation of an immortal (?) soul, as the prize to be contended for. What, then, is to be done? If God, in imparting the first fruits of Spirit, be himself the actor; and yet if, through the medium of stirring up creature activity, and conforming the natural notions of creatures respecting spiritual subjects, he cannot operate; to what expedients must he have recourse for the accomplishment of his gracious purposes? Why, in the first place, the tendency of the creature mind to act must be overcome, by the manifestation to it, that there is nothing to be done; and, in the second place, the importance which man naturally attaches to Soul and the things of Soul, and the false estimate which he thereby necessarily forms of Spirit, must be overcome by views, which, presenting spiritual things as they are, that is, as the destroyers of Soul and the things of Soul, shall be the means of casting our natural and exclusive attachment to soulical matters, out of the conscience. And this is exactly [311] the line of procedure which God, in the implanting of spiritual principle, and the production of spiritual phenomena, hath seen meet to adopt. — In the first place; he implants Spirit, not by commanding the creature to obey any law, but by manifesting to the creature the perfect obedience to divine law, which hath been already yielded by him who is one with the creature, even his own well-beloved Son. His language to the man whom he enlightens is not, perform any thing, whether act of faith, or act of love, as the condition of my being favourable to you; but, be it known unto you, that through this man, Christ Jesus, is proclaimed unto you the forgiveness of sins. That is, on such a person he enjoins nothing to be done; but manifests, or makes known to him, the glorious work which his own Son hath already done. To behold this, he opens the eyes of the previously dark understanding. The individual who was formerly darkness, is rendered thus in an instant light in the Lord. Conditions infinitely more severe and stringent than any which he had formerly conceived of, are seen by him to have been fulfilled; and, therefore instead of any conditions of salvation remaining to be fulfilled by him, he finds that salvation hath been bestowed upon him unconditionally, in so far as he is concerned, through the medium of the work which Jesus hath accomplished. He has had information communicated to him, which, at once and for ever, supersedes all actions of his own. Jesus hath laboured; and, instead of any addition to these labours being required from him, or, indeed, being possible, he finds that he is introduced already into the enjoyment of the benefits which have resulted from them. He hath, without any efforts of his own, and merely by the information given him, entered into Christ’s labours. Thus, then, is every tendency to act on the part of creature mind, overcome and superseded, by the manifestation to it of an action having been performed by the Son of God, which as of itself to him the source of eternal life, renders every attempt at action on his part as unnecessary, as it would be insulting and unavailing. Consequently, no Christian asks, what shall I do to be saved? or what shall I do to inherit eternal life? — or wherewithal shall I come before the Most High God? all such questions being left by it to the mere fleshly mind; but rejoices in the inheritance of eternal life, as having been already and gratuitously bestowed on him, through the righteousness, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.
[312] 3. As to the nature of spiritual phenomena, — the third and last point connected with the rationale of them of which I proposed to treat, I observe, that these phenomena bear an exact and perfect resemblance to the medium of manifestation by which they are produced. That medium is the resurrection of Christ. In it, the nature of the creature, temporarily taken into combination with the nature of the Creator, is seen ultimately swallowed up in the nature of the Creator. The primary effect of the manifestation of this fact to the conscience, is to produce a change or transformation, on it, precisely corresponding to itself. Like the seal on wax, it makes and leaves its own impression on the mind. The sense of transgression, and the fear of death, are the two most remarkable features disclosed by mere Soul, when its ideas and reflections take a religious turn. And as mere soulical religion advances, so far from mitigating or removing, its tendency is to strengthen and deepen these two impressions. But the sense of sin, and the fear of death, are in our minds immediately and necessarily swallowed up in the knowledge of righteousness, and the enjoyment of the first fruits of life everlasting. A guilty conscience, and a dread of future vengeance, cannot coexist in the mind, with the knowledge of Christ as risen again. There is an absolute incompatibility between the two things. Perceiving that Jesus became for a time one with us, that he might make us for ever one with him, we perceive, that whatever occurred in him, from this essential union subsisting between him and us, necessarily occurs in us likewise. But Jesus has already brought in everlasting righteousness, and is already in possession of everlasting life. The consequence of this fact being divinely disclosed to us is, our perceiving, that our enjoyment of the privileges of righteousness and life everlasting with our head is not merely and properly speaking a blessing which remains to be conferred on us at some future and distant period, but that in reality we enjoy these privileges with him even already. For now are we the sons of God. 1 John 3:2. As even now one with him, we perceive that even now his righteousness is our righteousness, and his life is our life. Thus then, even while residing in bodies which are liable to death, and with minds which in so far as they are Adamic are contracting and charging us with, guilt continually, we are actually, by faith in Christ Jesus, possessed of a righteousness which in our mind swallows up all [313] sense of guilt, and of a life which in our minds swallows up death in victory. We find that there is to us no condemnation, as being in Christ Jesus, and as, consequently, not walking after the flesh but after the Spirit. Rom. 8:1. We are, thus, even already seated in heavenly places with Christ. We are even already perfect and accepted in his righteousness. As knowing that he who hath believed in Jesus hath everlasting life, and, therefore, can never die, we are even already enabled to say triumphantly, we know that if the earthly house of this our tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Thus, then, the medium by which God operates upon the conscience, in the production for the first time of spiritual phenomena, being the manifestation of Jesus as, in his resurrection, swallowing up in himself the nature of the earthy in the nature of the heavenly, the first spiritual phenomenon thereby produced, is the swallowing up in the conscience of earthly views and feelings, in such as are spiritual and divine. And as spiritual phenomena thus begin, so are they carried on. Spirituality never confirms any of our soulical, or natural notions of divine things. On the contrary, it uniformly and necessarily subverts and destroys them. It is the breaking up of all our natural sentiments of religion. Every new spiritual view, that is, every new and more enlarged view of what is contained in the scriptures, always involves in it the destruction, and swallowing up, of some old soulical one. This process of the swallowing up of Soul in Spirit, of creature mind in the mind of the Creator, and consequently, this gradual assimilation of our minds to what is implied in the resurrection of Christ, the grand medium of all divine knowledge, goes on and increases; until, at last, the scene is changed from time, where we are absent from the Lord, to eternity, where we are introduced into his immediate presence; and the degree in which we take with us spiritual mind into the realms of glory, is just the degree in which, while on earth, Soul is in us swallowed up in Spirit.
[314]
SECTION IX.
CERTAIN FACTS EXPLAINED.
Principles which have been laid down, and developed, in the preceding part of this Essay, serve, when applied, to explain certain facts, which can scarcely fail to have attracted the notice of the more enlightened and reflecting portion of my readers.
First. Nothing affords more frequent and reiterated subject matter of complaint, than the very small and unsatisfactory progress which the science of mind has made in modern times, when compared with the gigantic strides taken by physical science. A series of abortive attempts distinguish, I might almost say constitute, the former; a succession of constant triumphs over popular and previous ignorance, and a career of advancement and improvement to which it seems to be impossible to assign any limits, characterise the latter. How is this difference to be accounted for?
To a Christian, the explanation of this marked difference is perfectly easy. The various topics which constitute Natural Philosophy are contemplated under every aspect, and on all sides; mind, however, on the other hand is looked at only under one, or at the utmost, two out of three, distinct aspects which it presents; and under all of which it may, nay, if meant to be thoroughly understood, it must be contemplated.
Soul, or natural mind may be looked at
1. Upwards, from matter, or the bodily organization with which it is connected, and on which it is dependent.
2. Directly, that is, it may make itself, without reference to any thing besides, the subject matter of its contemplation. Or
3. Downwards from Spirit, or the mind of Christ, of which we have shewn that Soul is the shadow, image, and representation.
Now in every age of the world, and in our own age as decidedly as in any other, mind has been contemplated under either the first or the second of these aspects. Sometimes, although more rarely, attempts have been made to combine both views of it. But the contemplation of Soul, or [315] natural mind, as the shadow of spirit, has scarcely, if ever, yet, been thought of. It has been viewed religiously, I admit often enough. Men of pharisaical character and sentiments, whose ideas reach no higher than to what they suppose the mind of man originally to have been, and to what they suppose it to be capable, through what they call grace, of again becoming, have from time to time favoured us with their lucubrations on the subject. These, as mere figments of their own brains, have been rejected with contempt, by acuter, and profounder, and more practised, metaphysicians. And with justice. For if natural mind is to be looked at in the light of natural mind — and Pharisees can pretend to do no more — let us look at it as what it is, not as what we may imagine it to have been.
Remark, I do not object to
1. Looking at natural mind through matter, or through its fleshly organization. That is, I do not object to receiving Soul as originating with, affected by, and conformed to, the brain, and physical frame in general.
This is what materialists, as they are commonly called, have done. And in their footsteps, but with more accurate observations, and with better prospects of success, phrenologists, or the followers of Gall and Spurzheim, have more recently been treading. By the line of conduct which they have pursued, very important advances in the science of mind, it strikes me, have been made. By comparing man’s cerebral mass with his mental manifestations; and by observing that, as the inferior animals are deficient in certain portions of the cerebral mass which man possesses, so they are also deficient in some of the mental faculties, which most eminently characterize man; an amazing step has been taken towards the most surprising and valuable discoveries. Soul, or natural mind, so clearly and decidedly takes its cue from the organization of our brains and our temperaments — so obviously are our thoughts and feelings, as are the permanent and present states of our bodily frames, that to throw out of view, or overlook, mind’s dependence on matter, in our investigations into its nature and functions, would be the extreme of folly. Besides, man’s mind is in scripture expressly denominated the mind of flesh, Rom. 8:5-7; see the Greek; and that of itself is sufficient to justify, nay, demand, our attention to the constitution and circumstances of that physical frame upon which it is depend-[316]ent. But because Soul is fleshly, to make it nothing more than flesh, is to be guilty of the grossest abuse of language. The very circumstance of its being denominated mind, and thereby distinguished from matter, renders it impossible to speak of it as matter. Hence materialists, as they are called have uniformly failed, and ever must fail, in thoroughly satisfying either themselves, or others. Mind, if not looked at through the medium of matter, is, I admit, viewed incompletely. Numbers of its phenomena, unless we consider them as the result of its connection with flesh, are thoroughly inexplicable. But mind, as such, points upwards from matter. It is fleshly, but it is not flesh. And, therefore, while to contemplate Soul as material, or fleshly, is fair enough, and attended with many advantages; to contemplate it as matter, or flesh, is to violate the meaning of language, as well as to belie the convictions of our own minds.
2. I do not object to our making Soul, or natural mind itself, directly, apart from any consideration of its connection with our bodily frames, the subject matter of our consideration. This was the system of Des Cartes; and it is the system which has been in several respects so happily prosecuted by our Scotch metaphysicians. Nor is this to be wondered at. When confined to the mere observation of phenomena it is toiling in its legitimate province. And, therefore, as might have been expected, we are indebted for many most valuable accessions to our stores of psychological knowledge. But in furnishing us with facts, and enabling us to classify these, this mode of philosophising exhausts itself. It can go no farther. Should it attempt to speculate concerning the causes of the phenomena with which it makes us acquainted, it merely covers itself with ridicule. The mind of man being never known to me, except in connection with flesh, what importance can I attach to theories, which, as their fundamental position, pretend to abstract it from flesh altogether? Again; the mind of man being never known to me, except in connection with things which are transient and shadowy, and as itself a being whose existence began yesterday, and terminates to-morrow, can I do aught besides than laugh at philosophers who profess to treat of Soul as if it were a substantial and immortal principle? Psychological investigations which take mind, apart from flesh, as the subject of their consideration, however valuable as means of directing our attention to phenomena otherwise likely to have been [317] overlooked, and as means thereby of supplying us with facts, are, in so far as theorizing is concerned, utterly valueless. They end in a complete cul-de-sac. Of the origin, nature, and destiny, of mind, they can tell us nothing. This has been confessedly the result of the speculations of Hume and Kant, two of the acutest, most enlightened, and most honest, of modern Pneumatologists. If others, pretending to be mental philosophers, have appeared to advance farther, it is merely because they have contrived to deceive themselves, or are attempting to deceive others. Well would it have been, if men of considerable genius, but of ill-regulated imaginations, had allowed themselves to stop where Hume did. We should not, in that case, have had the mere coinage of the human brain palmed on us, as a substitute for well ascertained facts. At phenomena of mind, Hume stopped; saying, with equal truth and honesty, “for the causes of these phenomena, you must seek elsewhere. Mind itself does not and cannot, furnish you with them.” In the hands of Lord Brougham, however, mere conjectures, as to the origin of Soul, and its phenomena, having no other foundation than the mere wishes, and feelings, and poetic aspirations, of a highly gifted mind, would fain arrogate to themselves the respect which is due only to truths elaborated by the strictest scientific investigation. How ludicrous, were it not painful, to find his Lordship, in his Introduction to Paley, pretending to establish the immateriality and immortality of the Soul on principles so weak and worthless, that there is not a school-boy on the fourth form capable of being imposed on by them. In detailing his speculations, the noble author appears to indulge even in the very language of triumph. And commended for this by the Edinburgh Review, too! Are his Lordship, and his Reviewer, desirous of playing off a little gentle banter upon their readers? This is scarcely to be supposed. A tone of seriousness runs through his Lordship’s remarks, which disposes as to regard him as the dupe of his own delusions! As overmastered by the mere creations of his own genius! Or, rather has he not been desirous, in this, as in other respects, to strike out a path that is new and original? May he not have contemplated the possibility of carrying forward the boundaries of pneumatological science beyond the boundaries which Hume and others, have assigned to it; and, thereby, of achieving a triumph which was denied to them? If so, he has signally failed. He, and those who are [318] disposed to go along with him, require to be told, that theories of mind, which are founded on its fleshly origin and nature, have something like facts to recommend them to our notice. But such theories as represent mind to be both immaterial and immortal, in the first place, do violence to facts which evince Soul to be neither the one nor the other; and, in the second place, to scripture, from which we learn that immateriality and immortality, are the peculiar and characteristic attributes of a mind of a very different description.
What I contend for
3. Is, that without looking at Soul downwards, or from the heights of Spirit, it is absolutely impossible to understand its origin, nature, and functions. The materialists necessarily interpret the existence and phenomena of Soul upon fleshly principles alone. On the other hand, the essential differences subsisting between the phenomena of Soul, and those of ordinary matter, while they justify psychologists in demurring to the mere earthly origin of Soul, leave them, while declining the aids of Revelation, without any positive theories of their own to substitute for what they reject. The Christian, and the Christian alone, understands, and can explain, the whole. Instructed by scripture in the everlasting and heavenly existence of Spirit, he is also instructed to regard Soul as deriving its temporary and earthly existence from it. Soul was brought into being in the image, or as the shadow of Spirit. Hence Adam, the soulical man, is expressly said to have been the type, or figure, of Jesus, the spiritual man. Rom. 5:14. From Spirit, then, as shadow from substance, Soul derives its origin. — And as is the beginning, so also is the nature, of Soul, explained by that of Spirit. Spirit being immaterial and immortal, Soul, although neither the one nor the other, must nevertheless, as Spirit’s shadow, possess the outlines, and exhibit the form, of immaterial and immortal existence. Hence, when Soul is looked at in its own light, and under the influence of high natural faculties and attainments, no wonder that the semblance should so frequently be mistaken for reality. It is Spirit, alone which, entering the mind as substance, can dissipate the illusions of Soul, the shadow. For then it is. and then alone, that Soul, although seen to resemble Spirit, is seen nevertheless to be in all respects essentially different from Spirit. And, farther, it is the knowledge of Spirit alone which enables us satisfactorily to illustrate, the faculties and opera-[319]tions of Soul. In Spirit or the mind of God, when it is opened up to us by his word, we recognize three remarkable phenomena. 1. It has the attribute, or quality, of self-origination. 2. Of self-comprehension. And 3, of self-assimilation. In other words, all its operations arise from its own depths — by it, all things consist, and in it all things are comprehended — and to it, all things are ultimately and necessarily conformed. Thus it is, that speaking of him whose mind Spirit is, the apostle delivers the sublime and condensed truth; of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. Rom. 11:36. Now Soul, or the mind of man, if it be, as I assert, the image or shadow of Spirit or the mind of God, must resemble it in these three different respects. And so it does. 1. Soul has apparently a power of self-origination. It is capable of willing; and its volitions, to all appearance, spring from its own depths. This, no doubt, is deceptive; for they are, in reality, in one sense, the offspring of flesh, and, in another, of Spirit. As produced by earthly motives, and as tending voluntarily and intelligently to earthly results they shew themselves to be born of the former; as fulfilling the purposes of God, and as pointing instinctively to heavenly results, they indicate their derivation from the latter. All our volitions then, or the results of the faculty commonly denominated the will, constitute the shadows of the self-originating, and supreme, will of Jehovah. 2. The intellect of man, is a beautiful figure of the all-comprehensive nature of God. Need I insist on this fact? The school of Berkeley in modern times, and such of the ancient philosophers as took a view of matters similar to theirs, in maintaining, that an external world has no existence except in the human mind, would almost seem to have intended to speak of Soul as in this particular the type of Spirit. True, the comprehensiveness of the human intellect has its limits; being dependent on flesh, and, like flesh, necessarily bounded. But knowing as we do, that Spirit, considered with a reference to its wisdom and love, has a height, and a depth, and a breadth, and a length, which pass all created understanding, we discover in the indefinite power of the human intellect, and in the expansive character of the human affections, enough to satisfy us, that the faculties of Soul can only be thoroughly appreciated, when viewed in connection with, and in the light of, their glorious prototypes. 3. The tendency of Spirit, or the divine nature, is to assimilate all things [320] to itself. So by the human mind is possessed the power, by means of its statements, reasonings, and eloquence, of conforming the views of others to its own. Mind operating upon mind, and thereby effectuating its purposes, is thus seen to be the striking and appropriating image of Spirit, as exercising its mightier, because complete, power of assimilation. And yet it is merely an image; for if capable of influencing minds similarly constituted with itself, it is itself continually influenced by its own fleshly constitution, and the circumstances in which it is placed. — Now self-origination, all comprehensiveness, and assimilating energy, exhaust our ideas of Spirit, or the mind of Jehovah; so do will, intellect, and active power, exhaust our ideas of Soul, or the mind of man. Not that these features of the divine character alone, have left their impress upon the Soul; for there is no view of Spirit presented in scripture, to which something belonging to Soul will not be found to correspond, and from which something concerning the nature and properties of Soul may not be learned. But what I have stated is sufficient for my present purpose; and under the heads of shadowing forth the self-origination, the comprehensive nature, and the conforming influence of Spirit, everything connected with Soul may be classified. My meaning is, that Spirit understood, the functions and operations of Soul become intelligible; the latter by the very constitution of its nature reflecting the former; whereas if Spirit be not understood, we must be content, either to explain the phenomena of Soul on fleshly principles alone, as is done by materialists; or, without pretending to be able to account for them at all, to observe, arrange, and classify them, with the more acute and enlightened psychologists.
SECTION X.
THE NEW BIRTH.
We deny that Soul, in any state, or under any circumstances, can produce spiritual phenomena.
[321] It could not do so as originally created. For, as pure, so far from having been identical with, it was merely the shadow of Spirit, and, as pure, it was not only destitute of spiritual principle, but incapable of receiving it. It was actually necessary that the primeval purity of Soul should pass away, before an opening could be made for the entrance of Spirit. No spiritual operations, therefore, could exist, previous to the existence of sin. What, under such circumstances, becomes of the romances of Boston and his followers?
Soul, as it now exists in the great majority of the human race, cannot exhibit spiritual phenomena. The reason of this is obvious. If, while pure, it was incompetent to the production of spiritual effects; how much less now that it is impure? If, previous to its transgressing, all its acts and feelings were of necessity acts merely of Soul, can they be less so, now that it is loaded with guilt? This point, however, I need not labour to establish. It is probable, that I shall encounter small opposition to my averment, that Soul, as it exists in the majority of mankind, plunged in ignorance and sensual gratifications, is unable to give birth to spiritual effects and consequences.
Lastly, Soul cannot give rise to spiritual phenomena; improve, purify and refine, it as you may. Observe, what by the terms of the supposition you improve, purify and refine, is Soul, or creature mind, still. But Soul, as such, is under the curse. Thus runs the divine declaration: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. And as sin attaches to every soul, therefore is every soul under the curse, or obnoxious to death. But that which is accursed, cannot give birth to effects which are acceptable to God. It cannot produce spiritual phenomena. Consider the case of our blessed Lord. By taking Soul, and taking it out of a sinful creature, he brought himself under the curse; for although sinless himself, sin attached to the Soul which he assumed; and from the curse attaching to Soul he had no means of extricating himself, but by destroying it. Take notice, destroying it. He had previously, by uniting Soul with Spirit, improved, purified, refined, aye even spiritualized it. But all would not do. He behoved to sacrifice, that is, to destroy it, before by himself even, as the Son of God, pure, spiritual phenomena could be exhibited. For, while in flesh, his actions proceeded neither from mere Soul, as in ordinary men; nor from mere [322] Spirit, as now; but from Spirit united to Soul, or the mixture of Soul and Spirit. But if the actions of the Son of God himself in flesh, so far from springing from the mere improvement of Soul, had their origin in the compounding of Soul with Spirit; and if even his compounded nature could not bring forth spiritual phenomena in an unmixed state; how much less can mere Soul, or the mere mind of the creature, to whatever extent it may be improved, produce phenomena of a spiritual kind? Plain and simple, indeed, is the state of matters as laid down in the sacred volume. Whatsoever is born of the flesh or of the fleshly mind, is flesh, says the Son of God. Can Pelagians, Unitarians, Arminians, and even religionists of a somewhat superior class, confute this? And if not, why say, or insinuate, that from Soul, which however much improved or refined, is fleshly mind after all, spiritual effects can proceed?
I am so far from intending to deny, by the preceding remarks, the gradual improvement of Soul, and the temporal advantages thence accruing, that I regard Soul as having been in a constant state of progression from the first ages of the world until now; and that if there be one thing more than another which gladdens my heart in reference to the present aspect of Society, it is that the progress of the human mind just now appears to be evidently going forward with a rapidly accelerating pace. Art and science, after a comparative slumber of ages, are now, in combination with literature, thoroughly awake. Their devotees prosecute their researches with the most intense and unwearied activity. Thus it is that improvement treads on the heels of improvement. To the onward march of discovery, it is impossible to assign any bounds. And all this, to the manifest improvement and increase of the human race. Who can help feeling an interest — a deep and lively interest — in events so conducive to the happiness of man?
Nor do I deny, that, to this improvement of Soul, and this onward march of human comfort and happiness, the scriptures have contributed. From the sacred writings, we derive all that can be safely relied on as historical facts, in regard to the remote ages of antiquity; by them, our notions of moral rectitude are enlarged and purified; and by them, the human mind is furnished with topics of the most intense and exciting interest, the consideration of which is calculated at once to sharpen the intellect, and correct its metaphy-[323]sical and moral notions; these effects the scriptures are fitted to produce, and actually have produced, wherever they have been circulated, irrespective of the understanding of their spiritual meaning altogether. In proof of this, let the state and condition of countries where the Bible is unknown, be compared with the state of communities, where Bible reading, and Bible morality, are in full operation: the most superficial cannot fail to remark the difference. The deplorable ignorance and brutal vices of the former, contrast strongly and strikingly with the enlightened views, the high-toned feeling, and the comparatively correct notions of duty which are prevalent among the latter. Let me not be understood, then, as depreciating the advantages which even the literal meaning of scripture is calculated to confer; or to discourage the perusal of its pages, and the enforcement of its precepts, by men who are ignorant of the gospel, and may never attain to the knowledge of it themselves. They, and society in general, will benefit thereby. The destined heirs of salvation may from time to time be brought to the knowledge of the truth thereby. And that is enough.
But I do deny, that, in this natural and gratifying progress of Society, any thing spiritual is involved; that the most enlarged understanding of the literal meaning of scripture, or the highest Biblical attainments, necessarily imply any acquaintance whatever with the real signification of the sacred volume; and, that the advancement of the fleshly mind, whether by means of the scriptures or otherwise, contributes directly in the slightest degree towards the reception of divine truth. Nay, so far from thinking that it does so, I regard the human mind, as it advances in natural knowledge and attainments, aye, and in Biblical discoveries too, to advances in hostility to the truth as it is in Jesus likewise; and I anticipate that the most advanced state of that mind, and the most advanced state of human society, will be found to be that in which the most deadly hatred to the truth will be evinced. The world, by wisdom, knew not God. This held true in ancient, it holds equally true in modern, times. Natural knowledge, it is probable, will continue to advance, as it hitherto has advanced, among the many, pari passu, with the progress, among the few, of vital Christianity. But while the grand cause of the progress of natural science, will be the progress of Christianity, natural science will not, vice versa, contribute in the slightest degree towards the pro-[324]gress of Christianity. Indeed, the very reverse. Although science is fostered by the gospel, being indebted for its most important discoveries and most brilliant triumphs either more or less directly, to revelation, that is, either to the light which it sheds, or to the habits of mind which it induces, science nevertheless hates revelation. And this, because revelation exposes its nakedness, and lays it under an unwilling sense of obligation. Its hatred to the word of God science will exhibit more and more. And thus future ages will go on displaying still more strikingly, a phenomenon which has astounded all who are ignorant of its cause, and, except for the scriptures themselves, utterly inexplicable, viz. Christianity in its onward progress continuing to shed the most important temporal blessings on those whom it does not spiritually and savingly enlighten, and yet more and more cordially hated by those whom it is thus laying under constantly increasing obligations.
The fact is, that a new birth, and new creation, of the mind, is indispensable to the production of the first, and most trifling, spiritual phenomenon. No improvement of mere Soul, to whatever lengths it may be carried, can accomplish this. Nay, the most serious views, and the most intensely devout feelings, which the mere mind of man can cherish, necessarily come short of it. Rather, such views and feelings directly contradict it. They lead to satisfaction with self — whereas the very essence of Spirit consists in the discovery of the worthlessness, and the consequent annihilation, of self. Spirit must exist, before the effects of Spirit can be produced. But the mind of man naturally is not Spirit. It is Soul, or fleshly mind. A new mind, therefore, must be created — a new and living principle must be implanted — the individual must be renewed, or made new, in the Spirit of his mind — in a word, he must be born again, and born from above, becoming, through his heavenly parentage, a partaker of a nature essentially different from, and infinitely superior to, that which he inherits from his earthly parents, before fruits and effects different from, and superior to, those of mere human nature can be brought forth by him.
If spiritual phenomena, then, be displayed by any, it is because they are possessed of Spirit; and if possessed of Spirit, it is not because they have derived it from their first and natural birth, but because they have been born again.
[325] With regard to the necessity of this new birth, the means by which it is effected, the nature of it, the persons who are privileged to participate in it, and the blessed consequences which result from it, the scriptures are so full and explicit, that there is occasion to do little more than quote their phraseology.
Its necessity is thus asserted by our Lord himself: — except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3. And by his Apostle: — If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; Rom. 8:9; and, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature or creation, old things are past away, behold, all things are become new. 2 Corinth. 5:17.
As to the means by which the new birth is effected, we have equally explicit declarations: — It is by Spirit, says Christ. For, that which is born of the Spirit, is Spirit. John 3:5,6. The signification of Spirit, he himself condescends to explain: — The words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are life. John 6:63. In complete conformity with which one Apostle declares, that we are born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth, and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1:23. And another, that of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures. James 1:18. In different language, to have the meaning of the divine word introduced into our minds, or perhaps more accurately, to have our minds introduced into the meaning of the divine word by being swallowed up in it, is to be begotten, or born, again. I live, says the great Apostle of the Gentiles; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. Galatians 2:20.
The nature of the New Birth consists in faith, or the belief of the divine testimony. Observe, of the divine testimony as such, or on its own authority; not, as the majority of those who make a profession of believing it do, on the authority of custom, parental teaching, or the most cogent grounds, arguments, and evidences of mere human origin. Different, however, is faith as a divine principle. God who at first commanded the light to shine out of darkness, commands the light of the knowledge of his glory in the face of Jesus Christ, to shine into the mind. 2 Cor. 4:6. And thus is faith of the direct and immediate operation of God. Faith is produced by the word; for of his own will begat he us by the word of truth: its very nature consists in the indwelling [326] of the word; for God dwells in our hearts by faith: and its growth is through the medium of the word; for we grow in grace, as we grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is in consequence of the nature of the new birth consisting in faith, that faith is, throughout scripture, represented as in time, the all and in all of salvation; we are justified by faith, we walk by faith, we live by faith, and so on. The fact being, that the degree in which any one is possessed of faith, is the exact measure of the degree in which he is born again, or is a partaker of the divine nature.
Those who are privileged to believe the divine testimony, and thereby to be born again, are not those who will and run, to use the emphatic language of scripture, but those to whom God is pleased to shew mercy. And such persons were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. It is in consequence of their having been foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of God’s Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren, that they in due time likewise receive the nature of divine sonship, by being born again, and this by being called, justified, and glorified. Rom. 8:29,30. Thus only the spiritual Israel, God’s chosen ones, those who are from everlasting to everlasting beloved of him, become, in time, partakers of the divine nature, and heavenly calling, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. 2 Thess. 2:13.
The grand effects, or leading characteristics, of this New Birth, are love to God, and love to the brethren. We love God, because he first loved us. We love one another, out of a pure heart fervently. And this because the end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. This love is a spiritual effect, and, therefore, can only have Spirit for its cause. Love of relations, and other affections of a similar kind, have Soul, or fleshly mind, only, for their origin; and, when carried to any very great extent, so far from implying the existence of spiritual principle, but too generally indicate its total absence. The love which has Spirit for its origin, is love to the truth, that is, love to God as he is revealed in his own word which is truth; and love to others, not for natural considerations, but for the truth’s sake which dwelleth in them, and shall be with them for ever. This principle has no existence in man naturally; he, as he comes into the world, being enraptured [327] merely with shadows and, therefore, it requires to be communicated to him, before he can possess it, or exhibit its effects. But no sooner does the testimony of God, which is truth, enter his conscience by faith than does the love of God as love of the truth, discover its existence there likewise, and does it begin to make its appearance outwardly in the shape of various spiritual phenomena. Being born again, the fruits and effects of a new birth are immediately and necessarily brought forth.
Have I succeeded in making myself understood? If so, then the two following things must be apparent. —
1. That the amelioration, nay, the enlightening even, of mere Soul, is not regeneration and never can become so. You may improve natural mind to an almost inconceivable extent. You may even, by means of the scriptures, so enlighten the natural conscience, as to make it remarkably tender, and render it scrupulous with respect to almost every action which it should perform, and almost every thought which it should indulge. And yet, if this be all, it is as far as ever from having become the subject of a new birth, and a regenerating process. It is still natural conscience. It is still in its sins. It is still Soul. And Soul, unless divine grace interpose, it will continue to be. In truth, all attempts by abstaining from evil, and obeying law, (whether the law of works, or the law of faith,) to purify Soul, and thereby qualify it for the production of spiritual phenomena, are virtual attacks on the character and work of Christ Jesus; springing from ignorance, that his pure Soul alone, as the Soul of the Creator manifest in flesh, was capable of abstaining from evil, and obeying law; and that by the obedience which his Soul rendered to law, even unto death, the necessity of obedience to law, on the part of our impure souls, was superseded at once and for ever. The pure Soul of Christ having perfectly obeyed divine law, and perfect obedience of his pure Soul being ours in consequence of our oneness with him, how absurd, as well as criminal, to attempt, by the obedience of our impure Souls, to add to what he hath perfected. To suppose that the impure soul of the creature can do, what it required the pure Soul of the Creator to effect, is absurd; and to suppose that the acts of impure Souls are requisite to complete the work of the pure Soul of Christ, is worse than absurd — it is blasphemous. Divine law has been fulfilled, and brought to an end, by the pure Soul of [328] Christ — as one with us, this fulfilment, and exhaustion, of law by him, is ours — divine law therefore, neither remains, nor requires, to be fulfilled by the impure Souls of us creatures. And, be it observed, that in fulfilling divine law, the pure Soul of Christ came to an end. His last act of obedience to law, was to sacrifice it. He made his Soul an offering for sin. In rising from the dead, therefore, he rose not with Soul even pure. He rose with Soul swallowed up in Spirit. He had sacrificed his pure Soul, or pure creature nature; and, therefore, with Soul, or creature mind, he could no longer appear. In plain English, his resurrection from the dead, as the swallowing up of Soul in Spirit, was his new birth; and as such he became the first fruits, as well as model, of that wherein the new birth consists in all his people. But if Soul, as it appeared pure in the Son of God in flesh, alone could obey law; and if even pure Soul in him could not pass into glory, and enjoy spiritual privileges, but behoved to be first sacrificed, and then subsequently swallowed up in Spirit; then think how absurd the notions of those who fancy, that the impure souls of creatures may, as such, be so improved as both first to become spiritual themselves, and also capable of bringing forth spiritual phenomena! The Soul of the Lord Jesus, the Creator, could not become spiritual, except by being swallowed up in Spirit, and thereby being born again, in his resurrection; and yet mere creatures, forsooth, imagine that their souls may become spiritual, and capable of producing spiritual fruits, continuing as they are, and without undergoing the same regenerating process of being absorbed in Spirit! The truth is, that ordinary religion, in its attempts to improve human nature, and thereby recommend it to the divine favour, is merely engaged in the vain attempt to make the Ethiopian change his hue, and the leopard his spots — is merely undertaking the worthless task of whitewashing loathesome sepulchres. Consequently all such religion is an exhibition of ignorance, not knowledge; of folly, not wisdom; of pride, not humility; of an erroneous estimate of the powers and capacities of human nature, not of the reception of the divine nature. It is the attempt to substitute, and pass off, the old man, Adam, and his deeds, which are corrupt, under a somewhat altered aspect, for the New Man, Christ Jesus, as he is formed in the heart by faith. This is spurious regeneration. It is merely the act of the creature; springing [329] from the operations of natural conscience, sermons, good opinion of others, and so on. True regeneration, is the act of the Creator.
2. It must be apparent, still farther, that to possess Spirit, and to be capable of exhibiting spiritual phenomena, implies our having become partakers of a nature, or, perhaps more correctly, of the earnest of a nature, essentially different from that which we bring with us into the world. In other words, if we are spiritual, it is because we have been born again, or a second time. At first our minds were fleshly only — fleshly, as imparted through flesh — fleshly as dependent on flesh — and fleshly, as conversant only with fleshly or earthly topics — and this, as derived by natural generation from Adam, the fleshly man. But now they are, in certain respects, and to a certain degree, heavenly; the mind of Jesus, the heavenly man, as he now sits at God’s right hand, having been imparted to us, by faith in his glorious testimony, and we, as having thereby the incorruptible seed of the word thus dwelling in us, having been begotten, or born, again. The possession of the earnest of this heavenly mind, on our parts, implies these things: — 1st. That the eyes of our understandings have been opened; and that we have been brought thereby out of the darkness of nature’s ignorance, into the marvellous light of the knowledge of God’s revealed character. 2ndly. That this enlightening of our minds bears a resemblance to what occurred in the resurrection of our blessed Lord; the same power which was put forth in quickening him, by raising him from the dead, being put forth in quickening us, by raising us from our previous and natural state of mental death likewise. And, 3rdly, that as Christ, in rising from the dead, swallowed up his fleshly nature entirely and for ever in his spiritual and heavenly one, so the effect of Spirit, or the mind of Christ, being communicated to us is, not to improve our fleshly minds, but to kill and destroy them, by swallowing them up in spiritual mind; the degree in which Spirit, or spiritual mind, is possessed by us, being just the degree in which Soul, or the mind of the creature, is in us swallowed up in Spirit, or the mind of the Creator. — This being the case, Regeneration, or the new birth, is so far from being the mending, tinkering, or improving, of human nature, that its very essence is the killing, or destroying, so far, of human nature. It is the introduction of a principle entirely new, and gloriously divine, even the mind of God him-[330]self, into the conscience. It is a being born, not as we naturally are, of flesh, but of Spirit. It is the result, not of corruptible but of incorruptible seed. It is an enlightening of our minds, not in regard to the things of time, but in regard to those of eternity. It is not the elevation of our minds, to the heights of human science, but the introduction into them of the understanding and enjoyment of the first fruits of a higher state. It is not conferred by ourselves. It is not increased by ourselves. As Adam was, independently of any act of ours, our natural; so is Christ, independently of any act of ours, our spiritual, father. Of his own will begat he us, by the word of truth. And this, not by giving a bent or direction, to our old, or Adamic faculties, but by swallowing up these, in a new and heavenly principle. That is, he does not, in regenerating us, merely enlarge the old mind of Adam, and thereby qualify it for the reception of divine truth; but he supersedes in so far that old and fleshly mind, by that earnest of his own new and heavenly mind of which he makes us partakers. The reason of this being, first, that the fleshly mind is totally unable, by any species of teaching, or any species of enlargement, to conceive of topics superior to those which concern the life that now is; and, secondly, that were the mere human mind as such to be enlarged, and spiritualized, and thereby rendered immortal, the work of Christ, in his death and resurrection, would be completely nullified, that work consisting, not in the sparing, and perpetuating of his own pure Soul and body, but in their utter destruction and swallowing up in his own divine and heavenly nature; a result which implies, that a nature which was unworthy to enter into glory, and live for ever, even when pure in the Creator himself, must be still less worthy of being glorified, and rendered immortal, in mere creatures. Besides, if regeneration in us consisted in the enlargement, improvement, and preservation, of human nature, how could those who are regenerated ever come to know a distinction between human nature, and the divine nature; between an old nature, and a new? How could they practice self denial, mortify their members which are upon the earth, crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts, and in other respects put off, and part with, their old nature, except through the medium of their having previously become possessed of one that is new? To apply the term regeneration, or a new birth, to what was merely the carrying out and perfecting of a nature [331] which we already possess, would be obviously the height of absurdity. We could become the subjects of no new birth, and the possessors of no new nature, in that case. We should be obliged to cling to, and love, human nature, and not part with it. Nay, the very terms — new birth, new nature, new man, and so on, would be perfectly unintelligible to us. But, blessed be God, there is such a thing as regeneration. And it is, what its name implies, a new begetting, and a new birth. It is our becoming the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. It is our thereby becoming possessed of the mind of God; and as such, it implies our having superseded in us, to the degree in which we possess it, the mind of man. In that case it is not we who live, but Christ who lives in us. This new nature is a principle which, so far from mixing itself up with, hates, assails, and aims at the destruction of, the nature of man; and that, even when his fleshly nature, puts on its best, its most amiable, and its most attractive forms. Regeneration, in a word, is not the perpetuating of human nature; its very essence is the destruction of human nature. It is the principle of spiritual mind; and it is only where it exists, that spiritual phenomena can be exhibited.
[The ERRATA has been incorporated into the text, and numerous other typos, with errors in numbering, corrected.]
THE REFORMED UNIVERSALIST 