exercising faith a man does what he ought to do, and who shall deny moral value to the doing of what one ought to do? We are justified by faith, we are forgiven upon repentance, because we are saved by grace. All three statements mean the same.

CHAPTER XII

THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER

WE seem to have emerged at length out of the arena of theological strife into a region of comparative peace. To what extent this is really the case we shall see as we proceed. Certainly this much is true, that the Christian world is fairly well agreed as to what are the principal qualities and duties of the Christian life. We recognize and appreciate them in whatever associations of opinion or of worship they may be found. The Christian character is fundamentally the same in Catholic and Protestant, in Churchman and Dissenter, in Sacramentalist and Quaker, in conservative and in radical. Love, sympathy, humility, patience, and charitableness are coin which pass current everywhere; while hatred and bitterness and all their kindred are admitted by all to be unchristian. They are as unlovely and repulsive when seen in the life of the most orthodox believer as when disfiguring the character of the latitudinarian. There is a degree of agreement among Christians, which is sufficient for all practical purposes, as to what are the fruits of the Spirit, on the one hand, and the works of the flesh, on the other.

This, I take it, is the reason why Christians have so much in common in those acts and exercises which have to do with the expression of religious aspiration or the performance of practical Christian duties, and so little in common in their theoretical explanations of religion. All Christians can use the same Bible and find comfort and edification in its truths and promises; but the instant any historical or theoretical question is raised regarding it, they immediately go "wide as the poles asunder." The hymnody of the Christian ages, in

which the devotions, aspirations and hopes of millions of believers have been expressed, is the common heritage of all Christendom. The many sects of Protestantism all sing, in great part, the same hymns. Any religiously minded person could enjoy the cadences of the Greek Church, which so charm the ear and inspire the heart as almost to make one forget the close alliance of this church with political despotism. He must be an extremely prejudiced Protestant whose heart is not touched by the solemn chants of the Roman Catholic ritual, even though they be parts of the mass, the theory of which he utterly repudiates.

I conclude that what unity there is among Christians is chiefly in the sphere of religious feeling and of practical life and duty. Outside that sphere reign difference and division. An evangelistic meeting for the conversion of sinners is conducted in much the same method by those whose theology is Calvinistic as by those whose theories are Arminian, and apparently sinners are saved in the same way in both cases. But question the leaders in such movements and you learn that there is no similarity whatever. In one place they are saved by "a new creating act of omnipotence," in the other by "a change of the governing purpose"; you are in the intricacies of the ordo salutis. Yet the preaching is much alike in both places; the prayers are similar, and the hymns are identical. Or, let one enter a Christian church on occasion of the customary Sunday service. They are celebrating the Lord's supper. It is a simple and touching memorial of Christ's supreme self-sacrifice, and all that is said seems harmonious with this simplicity and suggestiveness; but if one were to ask for some explanation concerning this rite, so seemingly clear and self-explanatory, he might, not improbably, hear the most recondite explanation of its mysterious powers and effects, or an elaborate exposition of the proper opinions and practices which alone entitle the disciple of Christ to participation in it. Its practical religious meaning and use seem plain enough; not so the theory,

One cannot help wondering what aspect the Christian world would present to-day if the Church had kept to the policy and program of Jesus. of Jesus. What if the Church in her ideals and efforts had remained predominantly religious and ethical, instead of becoming, as she did, predominantly doctrinal and speculative? It is not easy, indeed, to make such a supposition real to ourselves. We are so accustomed to associate the great doctrinal disputes which have succeeded one another from age to age, with the history and activity of the Church, that they almost seem an essential part of her life. But are they really such? Was the neo-platonic philosophy, which formed the chief substratum of ecclesiastical orthodoxy, essential to Christianity? To take a specific example: Has the Augustinian doctrine of original sin with all the disputes about universalia ante rem and universalia in re in which it was involved, promoted the real purposes of the Christian religion? As we look back upon the extinct and, as it now often seems, well-nigh meaningless controversies of the past, it is not easy to resist the feeling that the Christian Church might have done a greater work and might now present to the world a better representation of the Spirit of Christ if she had observed the terms of his commission and had not undertaken to annex to her province so many foreign territories, such as those of natural science, archæology, and transcendental metaphysics.

There, are, indeed, those who declare that Christianity is a dogma rather than a life. They mean, I suppose, that the Christian religion consists primarily in a system of doctrines on which the Christian life is dependent. There is doubtless some room for differences in the interpretation and application of such assertions. But what they would seem to involve is the claim that such theories as have been current in the Church concerning the composition of Christ's person, the Trinity, original sin, expiation, and the like or, some particular selection of these theories -represent the primary purpose of Christ and of the Christian religion in the world. This has certainly been the working theory, if not the avowed opinion, of

multitudes of men, particularly of theologians. I would raise the question whether one could derive this impression of the main purpose of Christ and of the meaning of his Kingdom from his own words. Let the advocate of the primacy of dogmas select any assortment of them which seem to him truest and most important. Let him take, for example, unconditional predestination, tripersonal Trinity, the hypostatic union of the eternally begotten Logos with impersonal human nature, native depravity, antecedent imputation, and penal substitution. That is a fairly representative collection of widely accepted orthodox dogmas. Now if Christianity consists primarily in dogmas, it must consist in some particular dogmas. It cannot consist equally in each of two contradictory dogmas. It cannot, for example, consist equally in the dogma that Christ's human nature was personal and in the dogma that it was impersonal; nor, again, can it consist equally in the dogma that we are under the wrath of God from birth because we really sinned in Adam (Augustinian realism), and the dogma that though we did not sin in Adam at all, we are by virtue of God's sovereignty regarded as if we had, and are condemned accordingly (federal imputation). But let my proposed collection, or any other similar assortment of dogmas, be taken as representative. Then let them be compared with the teaching, and life, and life-work of Jesus, and in the light of that comparison the reader shall judge whether they fairly represent the primary purpose of Christ's mission and Kingdom. I do not care to argue the question, but I should like to urge that it be fairly considered.

But even those for whom Christianity consists primarily in dogmas do not deny that it is, secondarily, a life; even for them it is concerned incidentally with character. Let us note one or two classic examples of this correlation and comparative estimate of dogma and life. "Whosoever will be saved," declares the Athanasian creed, "must thus think of the Trinity," and this "thus" is explained to mean the belief in the eternal coequality of three persons in one God, the second of whom is begotten by an eternal