תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

and bewilder the soul, adding doubts and difficulties that were better let alone? Why not leave the prophets of our faith to their own inspirations, and let them speak, without any dress or pruning from the schools, the fresh word which the Lord gives them? Especially why should not those who affirm that inspiration is not exhausted or antiquated, and that the spirit has a general voice for the churches, permit that word to come forth, as it came in the elder time, from the lips of tent-makers and fishermen, of the men of the people? Why should those who claim to be the nearest to the thought of the primitive Church still hold to the way of the Church in later ages? Must Peter be a pupil of Hillel to fit him to say, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" or had John to study three years in Tiberias that he might fitly urge the call, "Little children, love one another?" Paul, indeed, had waited at the feet of Gamaliel; but is it not clear that his rabbinical memories hindered, rather than helped, his missionary work, and darkened the gospel which he so burned to expound? If our message is that of the early apostles, who were sent out at the first, not only with no store of learning, no manuscripts, versions, commentaries, no Mishna or Gemara, more than their memories of the synagogue teaching; but also with no provision for physi cal needs, with no gold or silver or brass in their purses, nor scrip for their journey, nor extra shoes and garments, — why should we make such careful and long preparation for the repetition of that message? Why should it be necessary to become a master in Israel, in order to do the work' of a Christian evangelist? On the theory that the sole business of a Christian minister is to iterate an ancient message, such questioning as this is plausible; but, on a broader theory, it may easily be answered and set aside. It does not require any special learning to enable a minister simply to say, "Little children, love one another," or to demonstrate sins which are palpable, or to show the beauty of a righteous life. But that is not now the theory of a minister's service. No church, in any sect, is satisfied now to have its ministry a mere echo of ancient inspiration. The "mouthpiece"

idea, which makes a prophet of this century only an automaton, with no personal soul, finds no more favor with the churches than the "mouthpiece" idea of the ancient prophets finds favor with the critics. In spite of these plausible questions, we have to recognize the changed conditions in which the gospel of this day and land is to be preached, though it is the very same simple gospel which was preached by the first apostles. We speak and think reverently of those plain messengers who journeyed in Galilee; but I doubt if the fisherman or the tax-gatherer, preaching as a candidate in any of our liberal parishes, city or country, would satisfy the hearers, and "get a call:" much less in the churches of other faiths, where they would certainly be rejected, not only as uncouth in manner, but as "not orthodox," fatally unsound. Peter would not do at all in Cincinnati, or Philip in St. Louis, or Thomas in Baraboo. Nay, I doubt even if Paul the Apostle would quite come up to the mark of the city in Minnesota which bears his name. That the substance of the word is the same now as in the beginning, does not involve the conclusion, that the ancient form is still sufficient and best.

It is a singular fact, that the Church which has the most refined and complicated system of theology is the Church which needs to give its ministers the least theological training for their practical use. The priests of the Roman Church must have very careful and thorough discipline for their priestly vocation; but, in their function of preachers to such congregations as they find in this land, theological knowledge aids them very little. They get it, but they do not need it. On the other hand, the liberal faith, simplest of all, both in statement and in substance, which may be reduced to five or three propositions, or even to one, which a child may understand, really requires, by the conditions in which it must be preached, a great deal of knowledge and dialectic skill. It needs about as much ingenuity in our body to keep saying, "Love one another," to any effect, as it. does in the evangelical bodies to explain the Triune mystery, or the plan of salvation. And this for several reasons:—

1. For though the liberal faith is in itself a very simple thing, -a few plain propositions of reverence and virtue,it is a mistake to suppose that it can come to men anywhere in that way. It cannot come anywhere as a new faith to men who have never known any other religion, or even as the first gospel came to those simple Jews, -a republication of the practical parts of the accepted faith. It comes everywhere as heresy, as protest, as the denial of errors, as the rebuke to falsehood, as a new thing and a different thing from the religions all around. The liberal faith cannot be preached to these Christian communities as Christianity was preached two or three centuries ago by John Eliot or Father Marquette to the red savages of America. It has not only to bear the reproach of innovation, but it has to use the arts of contest. It must be wise enough to show wherein these existing faiths are unwise. Though it may shrink from the work of controversy, whether in attack or defence, whether by aggression or apology, and may prefer to go in a peaceful and unobtrusive way, yet it cannot go in that way, and make any progress: it must have all the means of combat and vindication. A minister is not strong to preach the liberal gospel, who cannot defend it against the attacks of other systems, cannot compare it intelligently with these systems, cannot show its superiority and its right. For these systems have the ground already; they have secured their place; every new system is an intruder, and must make good its right to be there. The liberal missionary does not come to preach orthodoxy in any form; but he must know how to unpreach it, if that be necessary. He ought to know as much about it as one of the existing facts of religion around him, ever crossing and often blocking his pathway, visible at every turn-as if he were in sympathy with it. That is what the men whom he meets mistake for the truth; and he must be able to show them that it is not the truth, not by bare denial, not by vituperation, not by ridicule, but by just and honest appreciation of its value and meaning. So long as orthodoxy, in one form or another, is the prevailing, the almost universal, type of religious belief,

[ocr errors]

a liberal preacher has to study to know how to deal with that fact, as much as if his own theory were equally complex. Self-defence requires him to know the position, the resources, and the spirit of the adversary. The heretic is at disadvantage. He needs to be more amply furnished than one who works within the orthodox pale, with all the strength of Church tradition aiding; and the extreme of heresy needs all the more wisdom to sustain itself when such weight is brought against it.

We cannot take it for granted, that the fine affirmations of the liberal faith, which seem to us so natural, so true, so undeniable, will be received in that way by the men whom we address. These assertions strike violently against fixed prejudices; and, sweet as may be their sound, other sounds stay in the air. The questions with which a liberal preacher has to deal when he comes to the work of his duty, - certainly where he is a propagandist, and does not turn the crank of some sleepy parish in some decaying town, - are the old theological questions, "What think ye of Christ?" "Do you believe in the atonement?"-"What is your idea of baptism?"-"Do you think that punishment is eternal?” "What do you mean by the Church?" These old questions are the first words which the prophet of the new gospel hears; and, unless he is willing to meet them and can meet them effectively, the people will turn away. They will not believe that a man who cannot answer these questions, and cannot give good reasons for his answer, has any thing worthy to say to them. So long as the old theology holds its large place, and offers its creeds as the sum of divine knowledge, it is idle to say that any scheme of training, even for the most liberal sects, can stop with bare ethics, or a simple repetition of the new Christian commandment.

2. This heretical and antagonistic position of the liberal faith requires a special education, adequate to the needs of defence from, or of attack upon, the creeds around. But, apart from this, the place of the Bible in the religious life and order requires such an education. It may be that some preachers of the liberal faith think that they have outgrown the Bible,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

-the infant book of piety, and can now dispense with any printed charter, in the joyful and sure possession of those traditions and intuitions which have become the soul's common law. One part after another has been dropped by them, -the Pentateuch, then the Prophets, then all the Old Testament excepting the Psalms, then the Apocalypse and the Pauline Epistles; until the residue is only in the words of Jesus, as Matthew or Mark reports them. Yet the fact remains, that the Bible is still the manual of religious knowledge; the appeal in controversy, prized as the source of spiritual life; the "Book of books," which has, even with the extreme rationalist, a peculiar honor and a place apart. The liberal preacher may not, like the evangelical, make this book his arbiter, or surrender his reason to the letter of any part of it. But he must know how to interpret it, how to divide it rightly, how to adjust its parts, how to show what in it is transient and what is permanent, how to connect it with doctrine and with life; else he will seem to be out of place in a pulpit where the Bible is kept and is read. The liberal prophet expounds the word in a different way from the literalist, but still he expounds the word; and it requires more knowledge of that word-more thorough, accurate, and critical knowledge to show its failings and to detect its errors. A rationalist ought to have at least as much skill in Scriptural explanation as one who holds that every word and letter were given by the special voice of a separate God. Does it not seem arrogant for one to pronounce concerning this Sacred Book, to narrow its province, to depreciate its worth, unless he has studied it faithfully and well? He may praise it, when he knows but little about it; for in that he only takes up the burden of the Church, and echoes the word of the ages. But he must not abuse this book, until he knows, from personal and intimate study, of what he is speaking. If there be any thing disgusting to honest souls, it is the confident scorn with which those who have never studied the Scripture speak of its precepts and its history, -the rash judgments of this treasured book by those who have only touched it in a few points, and then in a hostile spirit. We smile when inspired

« הקודםהמשך »