ally among the orthodox, in the period preceding Kant. Its next character, that of law, corresponds with the theory by which, in conformity with the philosophy of Kant, all religion was resolved into a mere postulate of morality. In its evangelical form, as the power of a divine redemption, it rests on the idea of religion as a state of feeling or immediate consciousness. But the relation of man to God in religion does not spring either from his understanding, or will, or feeling, separately considered. It includes all at once in the totality of his personal life. On this view therefore is based lastly that apprehension of Christianity which makes it to be the union of God with humanity, and under this form only the source of all light and holiness and salvation.

The first three views which have been described have severally their measure of truth; but the full truth requires their comprehension, in a living way, under the last. Hence also this last, to be genuine and right, must incorporate in itself the other less perfect conceptions. Christianity can be properly regarded as the union of God and humanity, only where due account is made at the same time of its doctrinal, ethical, and soteriological character, and all is made to rest on its original, inalienable nature, according to which it is no matter of thought or logic merely in any form, but action, history, and life. No pantheistic view of course can be admitted, in the case. Christianity is a revelation of the living God, by which the divine and human are historically united in the person of Christ, and which continues to bring the race subsequently into union with God only by redeeming it at the same time from the power of sin. The proper expression to denote the fact is therefore, not "the unity of the divine and human," which is too general, and liable to be taken in a pantheistic sense; but what is far more definite and concrete," the union of God and man."

3.

The modern theology, in its course of reflection upon the nature of Christianity, resolved it first, we have said, into the idea of doctrine.

This was done in two ways. Either all was taken in the

form of a positive revelation, accredited as truth by God himself, and to be received on his authority alone; or without any regard to its historical character, the Christian system was considered to be simply the first manifestation of a theory of rational religion, which it was the business of theology to divest of its original temporary covering, that its proper everlasting verity might come fully into view. Thus we have Supernaturalism and Naturalism. With all their opposition to each other, they were agreed in making Christianity to be essentially doctrinal in its character. Here however an important difference had place. Along with other positive elements, Supernaturalism received of course also what is said in the Scriptures concerning the person of the Redeemer, though as a dogma simply among other dogmas, rather than in any other light. Naturalism on the other hand, with its aversion for all that is concrete and historical in religion, could not retain the idea of any significance whatever in the person of Christ. It went so far as to utter the wish even, that his name might have been wholly concealed from the Christian world, so that it could have enjoyed the full benefit of the truth he taught, without being led into a superstitious misuse of the teacher himself!

That the true nature of Christianity was not to be understood in this way, is now admitted on all hands. Naturalism is called to mind only as a spiritual curiosity, belonging to other days. But the other course also, though more conservative so far as the contents of the Gospel were concerned, was no better as to form in relation to the point now under consideration. It failed entirely to make known the distinctive character of Christianity. This consists not, under any view, exclusively or prevailingly in doctrine. The true idea of religion itself, as well as the whole history of the Christian revelation, contradicts such a supposition. Religion does indeed include knowledge as one of its elements ; but to conceive of it as an intellectual apprehension only, is to mistake its true life entirely. Its inmost nature is love and reverence, a pervading sense of dependence on God and communion with him, a full self-surrendry to the idea of his presence and will. If religion consisted in doctrine, it might be imparted fully, like logic or mathematics, in the way of definition and demon

stration. But this is impossible. Instruction is called for, it is true, in its service; but the proper creative impulse of its life is not found in the conceptions thus imparted; it must spring from the general life of religion itself, as something already at hand, acting on the religious susceptibility of the subject. So with the individual; so with the race. Parents and teachers, prophets and founders of religion, accomplish their commission best in the way of living representation. Compared with this, mere instruction is cold and dead. It is only life, in the sphere of religion, that can create and call forth life. The notion of doctrine falls immeasurably short of what we mean by religion, viewed in its living concrete character. To make the one synonymous with the other, is a sheer contradiction. Conceptions and thoughts with regard to divine things cannot even produce any true and sound piety; much less may they be taken for such piety itself.

So it is clear, that Christianity in particular appears among men under no such character. In one view it is indeed a doctrine. Not however in the modern sense, as a system of abstract propositions and proofs; in this form it might have founded, perhaps, a school, but never a Church, or world-religion. It is the proclamation primarily of something that has taken place, a testimony, or joyful message. Not in the way of thought, but in the way of actual occurrence and transaction, as the comprehension of a system of glorious religious facts, has Christianity extended and filled with new life the spiritual consciousness of the world. This is its proper original force; the doctrine follows afterwards, only as the representation of what God has done. But still the doctrine itself, even in this form, has no power as such to generate life. This springs only from the presence of a higher life, already derived in the teacher himself from Christ. His teaching is but the experimental expression, we may say, of this life. Thus the apostles and evangelists, as heralds of the Christian salvation, preceded in the beginning the proper teachers of Christian doctrine; and so in every age, the Church has always begun with testimony, and only afterwards proceeded to instruction and science; while the true power of her doctrine, at the

same time, has ever resulted from the life which belongs originally to her Founder, and continues itself from him in his people. True, the actual in the case of Christianity has its significance not merely as something that has taken place, but as the realization of the highest religious ideas. These ideas may be abstracted from the facts, and formed into a system, either popular or scientific. Hence for theologians in particular, who are most occupied with this work, Christianity has the semblance of being itself a sum of doctrinal propositions. Only however as the idea of apprehension or science, in the case, is confounded with that of the object they embrace. Christianity must indeed be formed into doctrine for the purposes of popular and scientific instruction; but in its own nature, it still remains life, living power, a revelation of the Spirit in the form of facts.

Even if Christianity be regarded as doctrine mainly, we must still ask, in what the specific distinction of this doctrine consists? But no such distinction, it is plain, can be found in any particular religious or moral proposition, such as Christianity may have in common with other religions. It consists in what Christ speaks of himself and his relation to God, as also of the new posture towards God into which he has brought the human family; and again in the testimony of the Apostles concerning his person and work. This however carries us at once beyond the sphere of doctrine, to that which constitutes its ground and object, the creative force of the religious life itself as revealed under its highest character in Christ. That which is most essential in the mission of Christ, is his self-exhibition. This runs through his whole life. It includes, of course, his testimony concerning himself, and the account of the impression which was made by him upon others. Words and doctrines consequently belong to the representation. But what is thus partial only and independent, must not be taken for the original whole, by which alone the distinctive character of Christianity is determined. This is not the Christian doctrine, but the general life-revelation from which it springs. Only as life, is Christianity the light of men ; as the Saviour himself clearly signifies, when he says, not that

his doctrine is the truth, but, I am the truth, which is immediately referred again to this, that he is also the life.

4.

The next view places the distinctive character of Christianity mainly in its ethical force, its power as a Rule of life. This stands closely connected with Kant and Rationalism, as it proceeded from his school. It went along with the conviction, that the human mind can attain to no sure knowledge of the supernatural and divine in a theoretic way, but only as it may be necessary to assume it in obedience to the demands of our moral nature. What morality requires as a postulate for its own support, may be counted certainly true, though in other respects wholly unknown. The moral law became here the absolute measure of truth. Morality in man occupied the first and highest place. Religion was something secondary and subordinate, necessary only as required by the other for its own service. Christianity then was an ethical law; starting in the form of positive divine precepts, but identical at last, in its true and proper substance, with the demands of the practical reason itself, by which accordingly it is to be tried and interpreted. Christ was the great lawgiver for humanity; the Church a platform, for the grand contest of good and evil in the history of the race. Faith in God and the retributions of a future life, resolved itself into a firm persuasion that virtue must at last prevail. It was faith in the moral order of the world.

We freely allow the great importance of this ethical conception of Christianity. It surpasses the doctrinal in this, that it brings into view more fully its proper dynamic nature, its teleological character, the relation of the whole to a supreme moral end. It turns attention also more towards the author of the religion, as being himself, though indeed only in an idealistic way, the centre of the whole system. It served powerfully moreover, one may say to its credit, to hold the age to which it belonged on good terms with Christianity, by presenting towards it that side. of the system, which alone it was prepared to appreciate and approve. Still the view is by no means sufficient. It proceeds