Parish Papers by Norman Macleod

N >> Norman Macleod >> Parish Papers

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

PARISH PAPERS

BY

NORMAN MACLEOD, D.D.,

One of Her Majesty's Chaplains for Scotland;

AUTHOR OF "WEE DAVIE," "THE GOLD THREAD," ETC.

1863

DEDICATED,

WITH MUCH AFFECTION,

TO THE PARISHIONERS OF LOUDOUN, DALKEITH AND THE BARONY,

TO WHOM I HAVE MINISTERED

As Their Pastor.

CONTENTS.

THOUGHTS ON CHRISTIANITY

1. What is Christianity?
2. Who was Jesus Christ?
3. What can we Believe if we do not thus Believe in Jesus?
4. What if Christianity is not True?

THOUGHTS UPON THE FINAL JUDGMENT
1. The Judge
2. Who are to be Judged?
3. "The Books shall be Opened,"
4. Results of Judgment

THOUGHTS UPON FUTURE LIFE
1. Our Physical Life in Heaven
2. Our Intellectual Life
3. Our Devotional Life
4. Our Social Life
6. Our Active Life

FUTURE PUNISHMENT

WHAT AFTER DEATH?

MOMENTS IN LIFE

"LABOURERS TOGETHER WITH GOD,"

REVIVALS--
1. Their Need
2. Objections to Revivals

THE CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION

THE CURE FOR SCHISM

THE UNION OF MAN WITH MAN

PROGRESS OF MISSIONS

THE MYSTERY OF SORROW

THE BEGINNING OF A YEAR
Advices on Entering a New Year

THE CLOSE OF A YEAR

THOUGHTS ON CHRISTIANITY.

I.

WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?

This question refers to a matter of fact. I do not ask whether the
Christian religion is true, but only, What is the Christian religion?
What is that religion which has existed for eighteen centuries; which
is professed by Christendom; and which has been more precious than
life itself to millions who have died in its faith, and is so still to
millions who possess it as their peace and joy?

But how are we to obtain a satisfactory reply to this question? Are
we to examine the opinions of all the various "churches," "sects," or
"bodies," professing Christianity, in order to determine what it is
they profess? If we adopted such a process of investigation as this,
I believe we would reach, by a longer road, the very same point which
may be reached by a shorter and more satisfactory process.

For I suppose it will be admitted that the Christian religion is what
Jesus Christ and His apostles taught, and that we may rely upon the
information conveyed to us in the New Testament as to the sum and
substance of that teaching.

I do not even insist, as essential to my argument, upon the
inspiration of Scripture, according to any theory whatever of that
doctrine; but assume only that we have in the New Testament a true
account of the teaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles, and that
we are able, therefore, to ascertain from its pages what their
Christianity was _as an historical fact_, with as much certainty,
surely, as we can learn from the Koran what Mohammedanism was as
taught by Mohammed, or from any work of philosophy what were the
opinions of its author.

Now, if we read the New Testament with ordinary attention, we must,
I think, be struck by one feature which is repeated in almost every
page, and is manifestly the all-pervading spirit and life of its
teaching,--that is, the peculiar place which Christ occupies in
relation to all other persons mentioned there. This person, Jesus
Christ, whoever He was, stands out prominently before every other
_teacher_ of Christian truth. The apostles speak of _Him_, point to
Him, plead for Him, labour for Him. He is not the greatest Teacher
merely among themselves, but the _only_ Teacher, and they but His
scholars, who glory in having nothing of their own to impart, and in
being ministers, "stewards," only of what they have received from Him
their Master. The subject of all their preaching is this Person--not a
system of morality, or doctrines, or truths, apart from, but embodied
in Him who was _the_ Truth and _the_ Life--Jesus Christ. The text of
all their teaching is, "God forbid that we should know anything among
you save Jesus Christ." In order to see this, take up any epistle, and
mark how often the name of Jesus Christ appears as the ever-present
thought, the centre of every idea.

Again, consider how this Person is inseparably connected with every
motive, every duty, every joy and hope of the Christian as he is
described in the New Testament. Christian love is there, not love
merely in the abstract, (if such is in any case possible,) but love to
Jesus Christ, and to all men because "in Christ" The grand question
proposed is, "Lovest thou ME?" Christian obedience is not obedience
merely to a code of moral precepts, but to Jesus Christ and "_His_
commandments." Christian faith is not faith in "mysteries," or things
unseen, or truths revealed, though such faith may be Christian, but
its essence is faith in Jesus Christ the living Person; the supreme
command being, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ." The Christian's
hope is "hope in Christ;" his joy, "joy in Christ;" his peace, "peace
in Christ;" his labour, "labour in Christ;" his strength, "strength in
Christ;" his life, "life in Christ;" his death, "death in Christ;" his
immortality, "rising in Christ;" his salvation, "salvation through
Christ;" and his heaven, "to be with Christ!" On the other hand, all
that is evil and disastrous to the soul is summed up in being "without
Christ." To reject Christ, not to believe in Christ, to be enemies of
Christ, to despise Christ, to be ignorant of Christ, to lose Christ,
to be commanded at the last to depart from Christ--these are the
characteristics of the wicked and lost: for "there is no other name
given among men whereby man can be saved than the name of Jesus
Christ."

You will observe that I am not at present discussing what Christ has
done for us, but what, as a matter of fact, Jesus Christ claimed from
us and from all men, and recognised to be the religion which He came
to establish upon earth. I repeat it, therefore, that whether these
claims were founded on fact or fiction, whether the religion which He
taught was true or false, in accordance with, or opposed to, the will
of God, that nevertheless its sum and substance is _supreme love to
Jesus Christ_.

Now, if this, or anything even approaching to this, is true, my reader
will, I am sure, acknowledge that it is not possible to separate
Christ from the Christianity of the New Testament. The person and the
"religion" become, in fact, identical--so far at least that both must
be received or rejected. That a code of morals may be extracted from
the New Testament, and Jesus himself, as its centre, be put aside, is
quite possible; or that the character of Jesus may be recognised as
a perfect example of what He taught, a living embodiment of His
"beautiful precepts," is also possible, without recognising His claim
to the supreme love and unlimited obedience of every human being; but
the question still remains, whether this "philosophic" or "rational"
system--_this_ Christianity is really the Christianity taught by
Christ, or by Peter, Paul, and John? I do not argue as to which
"religion," "system," or "Christianity" is the best, but ask only a
question of fact, Which do you candidly believe to be the Christianity
of the New Testament? If you hesitate ere you reply to this question
of historical fact, open again the New Testament, with a manly
resolution to examine it, and obtain information, and ask its
pages, _What is Christianity?_ Read even such passages as the
following:--John x., xiv., and xv.; Acts. first four chapters; the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Philippians--portions of Scripture which
may be read almost in an hour or two. You do not require to master the
whole world of truth which is there revealed, but only to notice the
_Sun_ of that world; and say, is it not faith in Jesus, love to Jesus,
obedience to Jesus as to no one else in the universe except to God
Almighty?

I at once frankly express my earnest conviction that this, if true,
involves the truth of what are recognised to be the other "peculiar"
doctrines or facts of Christianity--such as the divine, as well as
holy and perfect character of the Person so loved;--His atoning work,
as the grandest expression of His love to us, and that which most
of all kindles love in us to Him;--the teaching of the Holy Spirit,
through whom alone we, who are spiritually blind, can so perceive the
spiritual character and glory of Jesus as to admire and love Him;--and
prayer, by which we can hold actual, personal intercourse with, and
thus come to know and love Jesus more and more from experience: these,
I say, and other doctrines appear to me to be involved in the very
idea that Christianity is supreme love to Jesus Christ. But I shall
not consider any of them except one, the first and all-important, the
very pillar and ground of the truth--viz., the divinity of Christ's
Person. Let us therefore inquire--

II.

WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?

A more important question cannot be proposed for our consideration!
Who is this, I ask with absorbing interest, whom I am commanded
to honour as I honour the living God? Who is this who claims my
unreserved faith, my unlimited obedience, my devoted love? Who is this
who promises to pardon my sins through faith in His blood; to purify
and perfect my nature through faith in His power? Who is this in whom
I am to abide in life; into whose hands I am to commit my spirit, and
the spirits of all who are dear to me, in the hour of death; whose
voice is to call me forth from the grave when He comes again, and who
is finally to judge me, and to determine my eternal condition?

That Jesus Christ _does_ make those claims upon us, and those promises
to us, is certain; and it is equally certain that they have been, and
are, joyfully acquiesced in by the Christian Church. The question,
then, which I have proposed for your consideration, is confessedly one
of equal importance with the truth of Christianity. We cannot, with
sincerity and intelligence, profess a willingness to examine into the
nature of the Christian religion, much less profess faith in it, and
yet reject the consideration of the question regarding the Person of
Jesus Christ as being unimportant or unnecessary.

But before proceeding further in this inquiry, let me remind you, and
be myself reminded, of the moral importance of _truthfulness_. I do
not allude to the truthfulness which despises all hypocrisy in _word_,
and seeks to maintain with sacred care an exact harmony between what
is believed in the heart, and confessed with the lip; or which boasts,
perhaps, of the honesty that never conceals a creed, however offensive
its doctrines may be to others. Let us not undervalue this kind of
honesty when real. But, alas! how often is it only apparent, while
the real feeling is selfish vanity craving notoriety, or moral
indifference which is insensible to the pain of either the existence
or confession of unbelief. And thus where that truthfulness of
character exists, which cannot give to others a false impression
of what is really believed, how often is there wanting the kind of
truthfulness, so much rarer and more difficult to attain, so much
nobler and more important to possess, which seeks to harmonise not
only profession with belief, but belief with truth itself. For it is
in the innermost sanctuary of the spirit, into which no human eye
can penetrate, and where truth, as a holy messenger sent from God,
presents herself, seeking for admission to dwell there, and take
possession of the soul's temple for ever,--it is _there_ that the
reality of a man's truthfulness, sincerity, and honesty must be tried
and decided upon by the all-seeing Judge, who can alone search the
heart. How do we deal there with what claims to be truth? With what
spirit do we listen to her voice? With what care do we examine her
credentials? These are questions settled in the secret of our own
personal experience; and just as the process of investigation is
conducted before the eye of conscience, can it be determined whether
or not we are really honest. But as sure as there is in us a genuine
truthfulness of spirit, it will, by a divine instinct, recognise truth
when revealed. Like a string rightly tuned by God, the truthful soul
will strike an harmonious chord with the note of truth wherever it
sounds. The "single" eye will perceive the light from whatever quarter
it shines. When, therefore, I ask my readers to consider, with
sincerity and honesty, the teaching of the Scriptures regarding the
Person of Jesus Christ, I crave from them that _kind_ of honesty which
is evidenced by the whole tone and spirit with which they deal with
what _professes_ to come from God, and what, therefore, claims their
faith because it is true, and their love because it is good.

I. _Consider this question in the light of His own teaching._ By this
I mean, read the Gospels, and from all Jesus said regarding Himself,
say what impression did He intend to convey as to His own person.
Remember I am not asserting the _truth_ of His claims, but proposing
merely to inquire into what His claims as a matter of fact were, in so
far as we may fairly gather these from His own words. Nor do I dispute
the possibility of giving a different meaning to His words, for I
know, and most gladly acquiesce in the righteousness of the fact, that
revelation is not demonstration, which necessarily overcomes even
the truth-hater, but such evidence as by its nature may satisfy the
truth-seeker. The criticism which is essential for our inquiry is that
which will _receive_, and not _give_ a meaning. With such a principle,
let the readers peruse any one Gospel--especially the Gospel of St
John--and in the presence of God say, Was it the intention of Jesus
himself to teach that He was human only, or that He was divine also?

Now, to illustrate what I mean, and to aid the reader to follow out
this first branch of Scripture evidence for himself, let us look, for
example, at the Sermon on the Mount. This wonderful portion of our
Lord's teaching is most frequently referred to by those who profess
to admire the precepts of the gospel, but not its "doctrines," and to
accept of Jesus as a teacher of morality, though rejecting Himself as
divine. Yet is it possible to hear that sermon even without perceiving
a consciousness on the part of the speaker of an authority, a power,
a dignity, which, belonged to no mere creature? This is not so much
brought forward in distinct doctrinal statements, but is _assumed_
by Him, as that which gave to fact and doctrine all the additional
authority which could be afforded by the lips of one who had come from
God. Consider such words, for instance, as the following:--"Not every
one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew
you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Marvellous words indeed!
Who is this, we naturally ask after hearing them, who at the general
judgment is to be addressed by "many?" How should _He_ be thought of
at all amidst the awful solemnities of that day, and be singled out
and appealed to as one of such authority and power? Who is this that
is addressed as "Lord, Lord?" What "name" is this in which many
prophesied, and by which many were able to cast out devils, and to do
marvellous works? Who is this that utters the sentence, "Depart from
_me_?" and who is He that such a sentence should be an object of
dread, yea, the very climax of human woe? He who uttered these words
was a poor man indeed, a Jewish artisan, at that moment seated on a
grassy hill surrounded by many as poor and unknown as Himself! But did
He wish to give the impression that He was nothing more? "The
people were astonished at His doctrine, for He taught as one having
authority, and not as the scribes." No wonder! For what scribe--what
teacher--what apostle--what mere man who ever lived had authority to
utter such words as those we have just read! (Read also in connexion
with this, Matt. xxv. 31-46.)

Almost every chapter in the Gospels contains similar assumptions,
on the part of Jesus, of a dignity which was divine. Think of the
following assertions from the Gospel of John, every portion of which
is irradiated by the glory of His person:--"The Father loveth the Son,
and hath _given all things into his hand_. He that believeth on the
Son hath everlasting life: and _he that believeth not the Son shall
not see life_; but the wrath of God abideth on him." "For as the
Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so _the Son
quickeneth whom he will_. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment unto the Son: _that all men should honour the
Son, even as they honour the Father_. He that honoureth not the Son
honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say
unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me,
hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is
passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour
is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the _voice of the Son
of God; and they that hear shall live_." "Philip saith unto him, Lord,
shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I
been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he
_that hath seen me hath seen the Father_; and how sayest thou then,
Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and
the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of
myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
"Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you
into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he
shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
_He shall glorify me_; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it
unto you. _All things that the Father hath are mine_; therefore said
I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." "These
words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father,
the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
as thou hast _given him power over all flesh, that he should give
eternal life to as many as thou hast given him._ And this is life
eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, _and Jesus
Christ_, whom thou hast sent."

Again I ask, What impression regarding His own dignity were such words
as these intended to convey Consider them, and give an answer to God.

2. _Consider Christ's Person as it was seen by His enemies and
friends._ Now, I bid you observe how both received from His words the
very impression which I assume He intended to convey by them.

His _enemies_ did so, and alleged that He claimed to be Divine in the
strictest sense of that word; accordingly they attempted to stone
Him, and in the end put Him to death on the very ground that He was
a _blasphemer_. "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM." "I and my Father
are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus
answered them. Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for
which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying,
For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and _because
that thou, being a man, makest thyself God_." "If I do not the works
of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me,
believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is
in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he
escaped out of their hand." "The Jews answered him, We have a law,
and by our law he ought to die,[A] because he made himself the Son of
God." "And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou
nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held
his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure
thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ,
the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless,
I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high
priest rent his clothes, saying. _He hath spoken blasphemy_; what
further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his
blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of
death. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others
smote him with the palms of their hands."

[Footnote A: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall
surely be put, to death, and all the congregation shall certainly
stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when
he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."--LEV.
xxiv. 16.]

Nor did the _friends_ of Jesus endeavour to undeceive His accusers.
They did not say, "You have misunderstood His meaning! He is not
guilty of such blasphemy! He is a man like us, and does not claim to
be one with God, as you understand Him to do." Instead of this, they
too recognised His claims as divine, and worshipped, loved, served,
and preached Him accordingly. I will return to this part of the
subject afterwards. I remind only the reader of it in passing.

But before the force of such teaching as this of our Lord's can in any
degree be appreciated, two things should be borne in mind: one is, the
previous training of the Jewish nation with reference to the being and
character of God; and the other is, the moral character of Jesus.

As to the first of those points, remember only how, from the very
beginning, God had revealed _Himself_--that men might know the One
living and true God; and worship and serve Him alone with heart, soul,
and strength. This was the lesson of all lessons. This was the mighty
theme of all God's teaching and training of His people, from Adam to
Christ, by patriarchs, kings, and prophets; by national blessings and
national judgments; by captivities and restorations. On the other
hand, the sin of all sins was idolatry; rot the bowing down to stocks
or stones merely, but the giving, in any degree, that glory to another
which belonged exclusively to the One living and true God. Had not
their whole history been determined by their adherence to God, or
their falling away to idolatry? Enter, then, into the Jewish mind with
reference to this training, think how hallowed God's name was above
every other name--how enshrined it was in the very holy of holies of
the national faith, and how it had become so only after a discipline
of much suffering, prolonged through many centuries, until at last
idolatry had been banished on the return from Babylon;--think! of this
while you read those utterances I have quoted of a Jew to Jews. Do you
wonder that they called Him a blasphemer? for so, indeed, He certainly
was unless He was Divine.

But could such a one have been a blasphemer? Was it morally possible
that He could have uttered what He did about Himself, unless it was
true? To establish His high claims, it might be sufficient to appeal
to His miracles, and assert that no such works of power and love could
have been done but by one who verily had God with him; as He himself
said,--"Believe me for the very works' sake. If I do not the works of
my Father, believe me not." Or I might appeal to the witness God gave
to His Son at His baptism, on the Mount of Transfiguration, and, above
all, when He raised Him from the dead, and thereby declared "Him to be
the Son of God with power." But, putting aside all this evidence, I
ask you to contemplate _the moral character of Jesus_, and say, Is
it not as impossible that such a person could have spoken untruly or
blasphemously regarding God, as that God himself can be aught else
than true and holy? Do not let us evade this awful question of
Christ's character--He was an impostor unless he was Divine! Either
Christ never uttered those things regarding Himself which are here
recorded, and so the history which we have assumed as true is false
in fact; or, having uttered them, He spoke falsehood, and was a
blasphemer, or spoke the truth, and was Divine. To deny the Divinity
of His Person is to deny the truth of His character.

If any man replies that those sayings of Christ _may_ be interpreted
differently, then I ask, What impression did Christ _intend_ to give?
If He was a mere creature, how could He have used language to which it
was _possible_ to give such an interpretation as would imply Divinity?
Only imagine any other man on earth daring so to speak that his
language could, with difficulty be interpreted as not necessarily
implying his assumption of Divine attributes! But Jesus certainly did
so speak, and did give this impression to friend and foe; and He
has left the same impression, in the form of a living faith, more
indelibly on the mind of the Church than if it were engraven with a
pen of iron on the rock for ever. If this impression is blasphemy. He
himself, and none else, is to blame for having given it to the world.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20