woefully so for some of us, we can not too But by coming before a thoughtless century | vocation has been necessarily imperfect, and as men intent upon a purpose, and not to be turned aside from an all-absorbing interest. To the Corinthiaus, the cosmopolites of the time, proud of their varied culture, curious of all the new gains of human wisdom, St. Paul wrote: "I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified." We may be convinced that what our proud and worn-out century proud of its progress, worn out by its de-ever deeply feel that we depend not on oursires-is particularly in need of, is a society of men who, like St. Paul, are determined to know only one thing. 2. Then, if Jesus should re-appear among us, we can not doubt but that his character would be just that which our gospels have faithfully handed over to us. Perfection is unalterable! So he would be just as we know him in his meekness, in his strength, in his perfect submission to God's will, especially in his self-sacrificing devotedness. And now, as then, mainly by the manifestation of that character in words and deeds, would he enlighten the world and found the kingdom of heaven. selves, on circumstances, or any one but the Master, who, after thrice inquiring, "Lovest thou me," thrice added, "Feed my sheep!" Those in the fourth century of our era, an Who would deny that our century is especialepoch of subtle science and refined civiliza-ly in need of self-sacrificing, consecrated men? tion, so similar to our own, who raised so high the influence of the Gospel ministrythe Chrysostoms, Gregories, Basils - what were they? Servants of Christ thoroughly prepared, who in their youth had largely benefited by the resources of the time, but who were especially men of solitude and thought, strengthening themselves for the struggle by prayer and meditation. Of this there is no doubt: we want men of solitude and thought more than ever nowadays; men learned and clever if possible, but seeking their strength in prayer and meditation, not in their own cleverness or in man's wisdom. I can not better sum up the numerous and important observations that I might lay before you on this grave question of the direction to be given to our ministry than in reminding you of the example of our Divine Master. “Be my imitators, as I am of Jesus Christ," said St. Paul. Every pastor, at all times, ought to aspire to be able to use the same language. Let us leave to Jesus Christ his redeeming work. Let us hold fast to his Spirit which he has left us as an inheritance, and let us ask ourselves (how often this question has haunted us in our perplexity!), What would Jesus Christ do if he were now to come back and place himself at the head of his messengers, to direct them by his example, as he formerly did the apostles? Let us ask what special teaching this model has for us in the present time, whose excellence rises above all ages, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Let us then put on the same character, and impress our friends with it. This generation has done with miracles; well, then, compel it to accept the miracle of Christian excellence. As of yore, the light will be welcomed by some and shunned by others. Christ in us will again goad the world to opposition. But if the world hate us, let us take care that it should hate us as it hated Christ, and that it should thereby be made inexcusable. And besides, as ministers, in fact, we personify the Gospel. People look to us, not to heaven. Our Christian soundness is the light of our flock, our inconsistencies are the excuses of those who refuse to come to Christ to get life. 3. Were Jesus Christ to re-appear among us, no doubt he would bring with him the same social spirit which is manifest in his life. He would take no part in politics; he would say to those who would tempt him to do so, "My kingdom is not of this world!" With his broad sympathies, he 1. He who devoted thirty years of inward would not be overparticular about details. preparation to master his vocation, who be- In the midst of the present literary, sciengan his outward work only when he clear-tific, and economical excitement, he would ly and vividly realized it; he who left his ever assert that "but one thing is needful.” home to speak and act only when he could conscientiously say, "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish his work”—he, I say, shows the extreme imporance which attaches to a realizing of our vocation. That, indeed, is a tower for us to build, a war for us to wage. Let us, then, count up our forces and consider our resources, for fear of failure. And this remark refers not only to novices, but also bears on masters themselves. We whose He would doubtless, as of yore, travel from place to place; no more from Galilee to Jerusalem, but from Europe to America, in a spirit of self-sacrifice for the sake of doing good. He would be every thing to all men, would address monarchs, wealthy men, learned men; but the poor especially would have his most loving attention, because they are sufferers, and because, in spite of appearances, they are nearer the kingdom of heaven. He would not only teach in synagogues and under the porticoes of temples, but in | we must each of us try to aim at, in order to Be this as it may, Jesus Christ, the living CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. BY THE REV. ALVAH HOVEY, D.D., It is, perhaps, well that I am expected to address you, if at all, on Christian Liberty, since it is a subject of peculiar historic and present importance to the body of Christians with which I am specially connected. For members of that body have often been constrained by the love of Christ to assert, at great sacrifice, the rights of conscience in respect to the service of God, and some of them, it is supposed, are doing this at the present hour in a distant land. I shall confidently assume that the honored brethren who assigned me this theme expected a frank and earnest though temperate discussion of it from my own point of observation. For no other could be worthy of a Christian man; no other could satisfy the members of this Evangelical Alliance; and no other, unless by the overruling interposition of God, could possibly serve the cause of truth. In what I say, therefore, it will be my duty to follow a plain path, neither eulogizing one nor criticising another, but, in the spirit of love and loyalty to Christ, aiming to set forth the principles which seem to me just and right. Without controversy, I shall best speak for one by speaking for all, and I shall best speak for all by laying, if possible, the foundations of my argument in facts that can not be moved. A word of explanation will prepare the way for this attempt. "Christian Liberty" will be understood to signify the freedom of action in religious matters which accords with the Christian view of man in his relations to God and the State; and this view of man is furnished with sufficient clearness by the teaching of Christ and his apostles. The expression used might be understood to embrace also the freedom of religious action which comports with the Christian view of man in his relations to the Church of which in any case he is a member; but this part of the subject I do not propose to discuss. By action in religious matters is meant, of course, outward action, not that which is purely mental or spiritual; for by common consent the latter should be free from civil constraint. The inward life of man can not be regulated by the State. Now it is evident from the teaching of Christ and his apostles that every man living in society holds important relations to God on the one hand, and to the State on the other; and a remark upon the former of these relations will cast a ray of light upon the latter. It is this: The authority of God is absolute and original, at once the source and the limit of all other authority. Hence the relations of a Christian to God are supreme, controlling all other relations. Every man, as a creature, is rightfully subject to God, his Creator; but the grace of redemption adds strength to this primary obligation, so that Christians may be said to owe the profoundest homage and the most unqualified obedience to the Lord. This fact can not be emphasized too strongly. Jehovah is King in all the earth, and disloyalty to him can never be justified by the plea of loyalty to another. Among the facts which may help us to fix the limits of Christian liberty in religious concerns, the paramount authority of Christ must have the first place. It is plain, therefore, that such liberty never offers to man the alternative of disobedience instead of obedience to the Lord. But it is equally certain from the language of Holy Writ that the State is of God; for one apostle exhorts his readers to "honor the king," and "submit themselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him;" another declares that "the powers that be are ordained of God," so that "whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God;" while Christ himself says, "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's." The authority of civil rulers is therefore fegitimate, and submission to it is enforced by the voice of conscience as well as by the impulse of fear. Yet this conclusion must be restricted in some way, or there is danger of infinite perplexity and disorder. For civil magistrates must certainly be thought in many cases to command what Christ forbids, and to forbid what he commands. There is, then, I am sure, some means of escape from this seeming conflict of authority; and it may be found by adopting one of the following hypotheses: Either, first, that the State, represented by its rulers, has authority from the Lord to interpret and enforce his law in religious matters; or, secondly, that the authority of the State is limited to secular affairs. Let either of these theories be consistently applied, and a con flict of authority in the domain of religion | charitable if not a favorable hearing. It is no longer possible; but attempt to mingle the two, and confusion, with injustice, is sure to follow. Which of these theories, then, is correct, when tested by the words of Christ and his apostles? Can the former be established? Is it consistent with the Word of God to suppose that civil rulers stand between the souls of men and that Word, with authority from the Head of the Church to declare and enforce what it means? that Nero and Constantine, Frederick the Great and Charles the Second, the Parliament of Great Britain and the Congress of the United States, have been severally charged with the duty of regulating for a part of mankind the service of God? I find no evidence or even hint of this in the New Testament. Neither directly nor by implication is such a view taught. The disciples of Christ were, indeed, to stand before magistrates and kings, not, however, to learn from them the mystery of Grace, but rather to bear witness to the truth, and in many instances to seal their testimony with their blood. If they had been taught by the Lord to look to the State for instruction in the Gospel or for directions in building up churches, some reference to this important lesson would have been put into the record of their work. Yea, more than this, some provision would have been made to furnish the people of every Christian land with a succession of godly rulers, who should be able, with the burden of secular affairs upon their minds, to guide the action of men in religious concerns also, more wisely than the saints themselves, or the pastors of the flock. But I discover in the record no hint of this function of "the powers that be" in matters of religion, and no provision to qualify them for so high a service. However certain it may be that civil government, though founded by men, is sanctioned by God, and should be honored and obeyed by the Christian, it does not follow that the State has control of every thing human, and may prescribe to men their duties to God as well as to one another; it does not follow that the rough and terrible forces which the State must employ are fit to be used in dealing with cases of conscience. Acting within his proper sphere, the magistrate is God's minister, but there is no sufficient evidence that his sphere of action should embrace the duties of religion. The first hypothesis must therefore be rejected. Is the second worthy of acceptance? May we justly conclude from the New Testament that the authority of the State should be confined to secular affairs? If I go further in my reply to this question than some of you are prepared to go, I beg you to bear in mind the different circumstances and atmosphere in which we have lived, and to give the considerations which it may present a may be true that the power of sympathy for brothers in affliction has fixed my mind on the evils which flow from State action in matters of religion, to the neglect of certain advantages which are said to result from that action, and possibly the reverse of this may be the case with some of you; but it will nevertheless be in our power to approach the sacred Word together, and look with an honest heart for the lessons which it teaches. In doing this a few significant facts will certainly deserve attention. 1 And the first fact is this: Christ committed to his disciples the work of preaching the Gospel to every creature; but in giving them this commission he made no allusion to consent or aid from the State. The command was explicit, and the work to be done required them to visit every land and attempt to change the religious life of every people; but not a word was said of their asking the assistance or obtaining the permission of any civil ruler, nor a hint given that the State as such had a right to direct in the matter. If any one should infer from the form of expression recorded in Matthew, "Go ye, therefore, make disciples of all the nations," that the followers of Christ were to approach the people through their rulers, and establish an organic union between State and Church, it is enough to reply that nations in their corporate form can neither be taught nor baptized, that the same expression is used in a previous chapter to denote the people composing the nations, and that the parallel passage in Mark requires us to understand the phrase "all the nations" as equivalent to "every creature,” or every man in the world. So, then, the fact to be weighed is simply this-that the Saviour committed the work of evangelizing mankind and teaching them to obey his will in all things to his disciples, with no hint of aid to be sought or expected from the State. The second fact is this: Christ provided for the proper organization, instruction, and discipline of his followers, thus preparing them for united action. This is evident from the history written by Luke, and called "The Acts of the Apostles." Believers in Christ were brought together in churches, were furnished with leaders, were taught to meet on the Lord's day for worship and instruction, and were encouraged, if able, to assist the poor. Whatever view may be held in respect to this primitive organization, whether it be declared popular or presbyterian, episcopal or elastic, it was at least from above and sufficient. Christians did not, therefore, need the patronage or constraint of the "powers that be" to hold them together in religious action. Disconnected and weak as they seemed to the world, they could be trusted, with faith in their hearts, to labor in concert for the best cause. "The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands." | instance to rulers of any kind for permission And so it was with the early Christians, hav- to teach the new faith, but it is still more ing no visible head and no aid from the State, significant that there is conclusive evidence they were able, through the love of Jesus, to of their declining to refrain from the work maintain order and carry the Gospel to the of teaching when commanded to do so by ends of the earth. As the motto at my right the highest court of their nation. Behold declares, they were "Abgesondert wie die Woge, them standing before the Jewish Sanhedrim, aber eine wie das Meer." The history of Chris- and listen to the words of the high-priest, tian life, labor, and success from the day of as, in behalf of the great council, he comPentecost to the reign of Constantine, is wor-mands Peter and John "Not to speak at all, thy of profound study by those who would answer rightly the question in debate. My third fact is this: Christ affirmed his kingdom to be distinct in origin and agency from that of any earthly potentate. He described himself as King in the realm of truth. He repudiated for himself and for his followers, to the end of time, the use of force in defending or extending his authority over men. In saying this I but offer you a paraphrase of his reply to the Roman governor, when asked if he was the King of the Jews: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice." If any person deny that I have set forth correctly the substance of this reply, he must, I think, suppose that the language of Christ was more comprehensive than his thought, and therefore obscure, if not misleading; for this language seems to explain his course in a particular instance by appealing to the very nature of his kingdom, which was spiritual in its means of action as well as in its origin. In perfect agreement with the answer of Christ to Pilate, was his response to certain Jews who questioned him about the lawfulness of giving tribute to Cæsar; for this response, "Render, therefore, to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's," presupposes a distinction between civil and religious affairs, between the service which is due to an earthly sovereign and that which is due to the Supreme Ruler, between the interests conserved by the State and those conserved by the Church. The same distinction may also be inferred from his reply to one of the multitude, who said to him, "Master, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me," a reply expressed in these words: "Man, who made me a judge and a divider over you?" for such a reply would hardly have fallen from the lips of Christ had the request pertained to spiritual affairs-to the matters of his own kingdom. My fourth fact is this: The apostles denied the right of any person in authority to restrain them from preaching the Gospel. It is a significant circumstance that there is no evidence of their applying in a single nor teach in the name of Jesus!" What now do you hear in response? "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; for we can not but speak the things that we have seen and heard." And, as if this were not enough, the scene repeats itself—the apostles stand once more before the august tribunal, and the indignant high-priest asks, "Did we not straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name?" while clear and firm, as before, the response comes, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now, bearing in mind the fact that a right to preach the Gospel involved a right to organize churches, and through them carry on a systematic effort to change the religious life of the whole people, it is safe to conclude from these replies that neither civil nor ecclesiastical rulers are authorized to determine what forms of religion may be taught among the people. You will observe that ecclesiastical rulers are included in this statement. Neither pope nor council, nor any other body of men, however exalted as leaders and guides, can lawfully decide for the people what truth they may hear and examine in the fear of God. In obvious harmony with the apostles' language to the Jewish Sanhedrim was their conduct ever after. They acted on the assumption that religious truth should be laid before the mind of every man, in order that he might accept or reject it freely. So, too, when the apostle to the Gentiles refers to the weapons used by Christians in their warfare, he pronounces them "not carnal, but spiritual," and describes them in language which may be summed up in two words, Christian character and Christian truth. Using such weapons only, it is not surprising that the apostles declined to rest from their holy warfare though com, manded to do so. Looking, then, to the teaching of Christ and his apostles for light, I seem to find that the rightful authority of the State is limited to secular affairs, and that Christian liberty is identical with religious liberty. But if Christian liberty is identical with religious liberty, believers in Christ are simply on a level in this respect with all other men. What they claim for themselves they should cheerfully concede to others, be they Jews or Turks, Buddhists or infidels; for, according to this view, so far as the State is concerned, the right of free inquiry and action |