The Sermon on the Mount and the Kingdom
J. N. Darby.
<45002E> 69
(Notes and Comments Vol. 5.)
It is a great mistake to apply the Sermon on the Mount in its positive statements to the law of the Ten Commandments, as if it was a spiritualising of them. The Law, as a system, is spoken of, taken up in Matthew 5: 17, 18, along with the Prophets. Prophecies, ceremonies, and all that is in the Law, were not set aside, or annulled, but fulfilled, the body was of Christ, and no doubt the Lord fulfilled its behests and precepts. It was to be kept till all was fulfilled. For faith, it was fulfilled in Christ, and, as to practical righteousness, is fulfilled in the Christian; Romans 8. But what the Lord goes then through is the contrast of an internal state of heart with Pharisaic outward formal righteousness. Only two of the commandments are mentioned as of the old times, and a subjective state is contrasted with a mere formal fulfilment of the letter. Duties to God are not entered on (never, I think, in Matthew, for God was revealing Himself in a new way). Man was not to think merely of killing - if one hated his brother, was angry even without a cause, God took notice of it; so of adultery. You have thus the state of the heart judged. So, as to alms, and all else, it is a righteousness which exceeds the righteousness of Scribes and Pharisees, as in verse 20. But in no wise a spiritualising of the Law. As I have said myself, eight out of ten commandments are not referred to. Verse 20 is the key to it; compare Matthew 6: 2, 16. There, of course, you get positive directions.
Matthew 5: 1-16 is the whole character, and state, and position of the disciples as entering into the kingdom; verses 17-20, relationship to foregoing dispensation and revelation - not destroy but fulfil. But then, as instructing them, taking it up on the side of man's responsibility (vv. 19, 20) the difficult point is "these." It is to be remembered that all this was before redemption, and no mention of it in the Sermon. It is the character of the enterers. The rock is obedience. Now this would make it obedience to the Law, but seen as they all were by the Lawgiver who was there, by Christ Himself, who did look to the end of those things which were to be abolished - the spiritual estimate of them by Christ Himself. The one who then in Israel, while the Law was in force, enfeebled any, the least, was the least in the Kingdom. Disobedience, and taught disobedience to the schoolmaster, was not obedience to the Father, nor the way to coming blessing, nor would Pharisee righteousness do. Then (v. 21) He gives not a spiritualising of the Law, but the two great principles of sin at all times - violence and corrupt lust.
70 Verses 25, 26, are Israel's then condition; the reducing it to practice ever (vv. 23, 24). To the second is added the question of divorce, not now to be allowed save in one case. Then the principle of human competency is judged, and mere human righteousness of the law of Talion. Grace takes its place as supreme, above law, in connection with relationship to the Father. The Law and Prophets were fully owned as of Jehovah to be fulfilled, but man's will and power negatived, and grace and the Father in sovereign goodness introduced. This was the Son's place perfectly, and exactly, upon earth. Not that He had not power, but did nothing of Himself - was not making vows. In the first two, the two great principles of evil in man relatively, we have instead of unbroken violence of will, the lowly seeking of forgiveness, to be reconciled in the acknowledgment of fault seeking peace, and this applied to the Jews' then state, Christ being there, their present state the consequence then spoken of. In connection with the other principle, the most thorough self-judgment, plucking out a right eye, cutting off a right hand, at all cost maintaining purity and holiness. This judgment of self to maintain holiness of heart as against sin, as the other, grace in holiness. Then relationship with God and the Father. As regards God, not voluntary promising to Him, as a Jew would, but the just sense of His greatness, and our incapacity to do anything, restraining us; and then grace, not resisting evil in contrast with legal maintaining our rights, to the full measure of the Father now revealed - a total change of dispensation, not the Holy Ghost revealing a glorified Christ, and, sent of the Father, the Spirit of adoption, but the Father fully revealed in the Son in grace. Thus, besides the blessed moral instruction, the fullest dispensational teaching in the revelation of the Father in grace in the Son. But it is wholly Christ on earth, "I have declared unto them thy name."
Verse 25. The Jews were with Jehovah (with Messiah) in the way, the precept being given morally. Here the Father is fully revealed as to His character in love in Christ. Man's ways before God, and the revelation of the Father before men, both in Christ.
71 Thus far subjective. But now the Father's name has been introduced, and is the basis up to the end of Matthew 7: 12. It is the positive activity of divine life - doing righteousnesses, alms, prayer, fasting, all to be with, as if true from, the Father. The incense was all burned to God, however the sweet savour might go forth. They were to trust Him as a Father, and not to be laying up, or having anxiety. Here the Father's name connects itself with what is subjective, still as the consequence of a true and right object. This is chapter 6: 19-34. Note too, though it be the revelation of the Father in the Son on earth, the Father is in heaven though they are on earth, and so viewed, but this sets their treasure in heaven, their motive wholly there, and it is wholly this - God or mammon; compare Matthew 5: 12. When they are the light of the world, the Father's name comes in - it is grace - verses 14-16. Verse 13, it is responsibility and so dealt with. (Note, this is the present difficulty, to unite both, to maintain being the salt of the earth and be light to it in love, to abide as Joshua in the tabernacle, and go with Moses into the camp, though having pitched the tabernacle very far off from it - but that is what we have to do.) Compare the difference of verses 10 and 11, 12 and 9, from what goes before. Hence also in chapter 6, we have reward.
Matthew 7 gives, as before, subject responsibility and self-judgment, in contrast with man's pretention to judge others, though these were profane and reckless men, to whom the rich blessings of grace and truth should not be presented, but all this is not redemption. Then grace in the Father which closes the instruction. The rest is composed of warnings not to deceive one's self or be deceived, and obedience is laid as the foundation, and true wisdom. It remains a strait gate and a narrow way. In sum, the discourse belonged to that time (whatever instruction there be for us) is what Christ was as the Man according to God's heart, and Son of the Father, and they were called so to walk. It does not treat of redemption, nor love to sinners, but of responsibility as then specially developed, and the Father's name and grace - they being on the earth. Do to others, grace doing, what one would wish one's self, reciprocal care loving one's neighbour as one's self. This is the Law and the Prophets. Is not this what they amount to? But the Law is "this" - such is its true character; and the Prophets, not touto (this) but houtos ho logos (this is the word). God is in heaven, but the reward there, if we suffer for Him who came thence, and is there, but Man on the earth.
72 So the prayer. It is Christ's ministry, the manifestation of His mind on earth, and connected with the true Remnant, but with the Father.
The divisions in the Sermon come out more clear to me. It is clearly the characters suited to the Kingdom, and the circumstances and heart-duties of those who are awaiting its establishment in power. Chapter 5: 1-16, the character of those to whom the Kingdom belongs, and who belong to it, even reward in heaven if persecuted. It is a change of dispensation, as far as realised, havo ([the age] to come), and not hazeh (this [age]). Verses 17-37, the connection, and mutual bearing of the new and old, with the spirit engendered by the Law, and the Law itself; but going on to take up the great principles of sin in nature, violence and corruption, and God's power, and our nothingness in connection with it, and so subduedness. Verses 38-48, good in the midst of evil, and that doubly - Christ's life on earth, not resisting evil, and grace, the manifestation of God in Him on earth. This closes one section.
Matthew 6: 1-34, purity of motive, not to be seen of men - as to alms, prayer, fasting, all to be done to God. This world's good, moreover, not to be a motive at all, nor a matter of care - cannot serve two masters - and we are to trust God, and first to seek the Kingdom of God. Subdivided, verses 1-18, 19-34.
Matthew 7, general characteristics, directions, and warnings. Then, note, the name of the Father comes in, when good in grace, as it was in Jesus, comes in; chap. 5: 45. Previous to verse 37, it was, after the first characteristics, contrast with the old system with the Jews; those, also, consequently, who touched the commandments in that state of things, would be small in the Kingdom. This was the moral, not the grace side. The Law and the Prophets were of Jehovah, and were fully owned, and now, as far as they referred to it, to be fulfilled. This Jewish aspect brings in verse 25. They were passing from their dispensation to another, as indeed they expected. But from chapter 5: 43, 45, all is connected with the Father. Verse 38, as said, begins Christ on earth.
I find more than I remembered in 1874. Chapter 5: 1-16 is their character and place, and therefore the Father is brought in at the end. Verses 17-37, contrast or principles in reference to "of old." Verses 38-48, are really Christ in His double character - as Man on earth, and revealing the Father. Hence verse 43 brings in full grace. Then the Father properly begins, or grace, and all from that is relationship with Him, and reference to Him now revealed in Christ. Religious duties, dikaiosune (righteousness). Chapter 7 is general, not special relationships, but truth and discernment in conduct, still in relationship with the Father.
73 The character of the end of chapter 5 is deeply important. After insisting on the subjective state and spirit suited to the kingdom, the putting down of will and unsubdued self, He takes up the principle of the Law, dealing with evil for its repression by the law of Talion, and then introduces the immense principle, known by Christ's coming into the midst of evil - good entirely above evil, but acting in the midst of it - takes notice of it, and as exercised against one's self, but above it, and acting from its own motives, and this is what God does, and here is made known to those born of Him, those connected with Christ. "As their Father," a totally new principle, they are to be like Him - this was the perfect path of Christ - a wonderful privilege, showing what, in this connection, "perfect" means. It is not reached by the evil, save to draw out the good, and make a new created but divine path in this world. It is not righteousness, in the sense of justice, not what presents us to God, but that wherein we are to be perfect like Him. What a place to put us in! But it is not holiness (though largely ministering to it; see 1 Thess. 4) not intrinsic purity though supposing it and inseparable from it, but as above evil and self, goodness, for such is God even our Father, evil would make it impossible - it is goodness in the midst of evil. Goodness in the midst of good is heaven (but, in its highest character, result of redemption, for good and evil are now known - in the Cross, absolutely and perfectly brought to an issue) but in itself, as result. Goodness in the midst of good, all answering to itself, and adoringly capable of enjoying it. This is. grace. Good above evil.
It is as clear as language can make it that verses 17 and 18 have nothing to do, good or bad, with our fulfilling the Law in our walk. Whatever "fulfil" means for the Prophets, it means for the Law. Verse 18 connects it more strongly with that sense than the structure even of the preceding verse. The previous dispensation and revelations of God, He came not to set aside as testimony but to fulfil. They were God's testimony, not for a permanency, but not as such to be made void. The righteousness of God is revealed wholly apart from law, but was witnessed by law and prophets. Whatever the Law and the Prophets put forth as that which God would have, that Christ met in all that concerned Him, for all is not fulfilled yet. Nor will one atom of God's testimony pass away as void in either - all will be made good. Am I to fulfil the Prophets? Yet what is here said of fulfilling, is said of law as of prophets. Whatever is fulfilled it is, here, by what Christ came to do. The righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us, because we are not under it, by those who walk after the Spirit.
74 Although taking up the Remnant as such, yet I think the Sermon on the Mount, and the tenth chapter must be taken as especially applying to the kingdom as then proposed, and the disciples as then called - a period which practically ended with the destruction of Jerusalem. It may be resumed in a modified way at the end, and doubtless will, but they could hardly pray then, "Lead us not into temptation," for they are in it, and they have been delivered to the Judge. Jehovah will be hardly in the way with them as He was now. Doubtless it will be applicable to them in principle (as to us), but the direct application is to the Remnant then. Only there was suspension, by the Son of Man's not coming then, of the whole thing, the Church coming in then meanwhile.
There is a closing in Matthew 9, as well as in Matthew 12. And note in Matthew 10, the Spirit is spoken of, as in the disciples. But the mission divides in a measure between chapter 10: 15, 16. Matthew 11 and 12 give a much more definite rejection, with its declared consequences as against Israel, and bringing in a new state of things, as the Father and the Son, the Son of man Lord of the Sabbath, and the unclean spirit entering into the generation with seven more, and the like. Up to the end of chapter 10, we get His then presence in grace, and even the mission in grace after He was gone, and passes this last over. Even the same blasphemy of the Pharisees is followed by calling for the prayer for labourers. He raises the dead Israel (Jairus' daughter) as well as on the way heals whoever had faith to touch Him. And, though the effect is intimated in result as the children of the Kingdom being cast out, and the swine rushing headlong into the sea, yet the direct dealings, the subjects of the teaching are grace - the blessing the Gentile who had more faith than Israel, and healing Legion.
75 Chapters 11 and 12, the axe is at the root of the tree. There had been the mourning and the piping. In chapter 10, grace continues to Israel. In chapter 11, the Person of the Son in grace takes the place of His service there, to whomsoever He may reveal the Father, and in Matthew 12, final judgment is on Israel because a greater than Jonah and Solomon was there unheeded. He knows only His disciples through the Word, not His relations in the flesh with Israel. This development of Matthew is very striking. After the Sermon on the Mount, in which what suited the Kingdom and those who would enter into it is stated, and the Father's name manifested to the disciples, we have in chapter 8, Jehovah cleansing but touching the leper. A wonderful testimony - nothing in circumstance like it - and the Gentiles received while the children of the kingdom would be shut out. Still the subject, as noticed, is grace (only for faith). Then Jehovah bearing, as Man, our sicknesses and infirmities, but the Son of man not where to lay His head. Obligation to leave all, even the dead to bury their dead, then storms, but Christ tranquil (asleep to man's eyes) but the disciples in the same boat with Him, and then casting aside Satan's whole power by a word, but the ruin of the possessed swine (Israel) and the easy world getting rid of Him. The whole picture of His presence in grace.
Matthew 9, we have the character of His mission. Again He is the Jehovah of Psalm 103 - forgives and heals what Israel (as we all) wanted, but new wine cannot be put into old bottles. All is grace, but Israel rejects, cannot as such receive, but it is grace. He is come to call sinners. We have then the coming to raise really Israel, and those who had faith healed on the way. Still He has compassion on Israel as sheep without a shepherd, and sends labourers into the harvest, of which I have spoken. My object now is to note the character of grace in all these dealings, though it may with unbelief bring with it judgment.
In Matthew 11, He is Jehovah, there testing John Baptist himself by the adequate evidence He gives of Himself. It is now counsels and judgment - the Law and the Prophets were till John - the Kingdom was going to be set up, and pressing into it with the suffering violence of faith was the path. If they could receive it, it was Elias, but the die was cast - John had mourned but they had not lamented - He had piped and they had not danced. He reproaches the cities because they did not repent, and the Father, as we have said, is revealed by the Son in whom rest and the easy yoke of submissive obedience is found. Then the sign of the covenant dealt with - He is Lord of the Sabbath - He continued in patient grace, but would not be known till He sent forth judgment to the Gentiles. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost comes in, and then the full judgment of the generation. In chapter 11, then we have the judgment, and the deaf ears of the generation, and the Father and the Son brought in to replace present ministry. In chapter 12, He is paramount to the old covenant as Son of man, and, on the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, the generation is given up to final judgment of the seven spirits worse than idolatry, only those who receive the Word are owned. He is now the Divine Word, not Messiah in Israel, nor Jehovah seeking fruit from His vine. Even here note the Father and the Son, as such, bring in pure grace (Israel being set aside as in John) the Word, responsibility in itself and when the Kingdom is set up. So that judgment applies to it at the end as it did to Israel.
76 The Kingdom of God was present in the Person and power of Christ on the earth. The Kingdom of heaven is presented prospectively (at hand). The establishing heavenly rule with a heavenly character in those that were its children, poor in spirit, converted, becoming as little children, persecuted for righteousness' sake. By the rejection of Christ, the Kingdom became like (homoiothe) such and such, and not only the enemy sowed tares, but the fisherman's net gathered of every kind. But the good seed were the children of the Kingdom, and the object of the net was the good fishes. Next, the Kingdom of the Son of man is when Christ comes and establishes His power on earth. The Father's Kingdom is the heavenly part which is the source of all. So the Lord's prayer, so the explanation of the parable of the tares, introducing both these last - when Christ will drink the wine, be their companion for joy in a new way. Now, as far as Christ was concerned, it was only good seed, and no one entered into the Kingdom by Him but the converted - those whose righteousness exceeded that of Scribes and Pharisees. But in Israel Christ was gathering the wheat into His garner, His fan was in His hand. This testimony of the Kingdom of heaven at hand was to Israel, not to Gentiles, as in Matthew 10. They were not to go to them. The Sower, when Israel was judged, and the other parables in chapter 13, go out beyond this.
77 Then as to the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven; it is as thus presented as coming in, not reward in heaven - that in Matthew 5, is a distinct thing - but the least in the Kingdom (the then prospective Kingdom) was greater in the blessings he enjoyed, His place, than John the baptist.
The Sermon on the Mount is very interesting in connection with Matthew 10 and 24. First Matthew 10 and 24, when they speak of being hated for Christ's sake, do not speak of the final conflicts of the last three years and a half, but of that general mission which could be carried on even when Christ was there, and yet extended beyond it and continued when He was gone. In chapter 10 it applies to Israel alone, the lost sheep of the House of Israel. They were not to go to Gentiles or Samaritans. They were on the ground of the Matthew testimony - the Father's name revealed to them, sent forth from Jesus announcing the Kingdom of heaven's being at hand. Only when brought before kings and rulers of the Gentiles, there is the additional fact of the Spirit of their Father helping them, and the ministry is carried on in the presence of a hostile people. They are Maschilim (the instructed). It is not redemption, or what we call the Gospel, but the proximity of the Kingdom - not Christ's personal ministry, nor is the Holy Ghost presented as the Comforter sent down, though when sent down, He might act in this way. The disciples are placed in the revelation of the Father's name as Christ revealed it when on earth, and their Father's Spirit speaks in them. It is the kind of testimony, or position of rendering it, which is consequent on Psalms 1 and 2. They have to endure to the end. They will not have accomplished their service till the Son of man be come - that brings us to Psalm 8. It is not laid upon the basis of a Son of man suffering, though most of the testimony went on after the fact, and led to all their trials, but they are a Remnant suffering from a hostile and wicked nation, and from perverse and rebellious Gentiles. They are in view of a coming Son of man whom God has made strong for Himself. As to the spirit of the nation - "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." They are for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Jerusalem is not definitely part of the scene.
78 In Matthew 24, Jerusalem is definitely the centre of the subject. Her house left desolate, and not to see Christ again until she say: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord. We have not the Son of man here, but the Stone which the builders refused become the Head of the corner. Hence the disciples suffer, from the outset there are false Christs. It is not a testimony, though it may be supposed, but they suffer for Christ's name's sake. And the Gospel of the Kingdom is preached in all the world for a witness to all nations, and then the end of the age comes. Then there is a specific time of three and a half years referred to in Daniel, during which Jerusalem is under special oppression through the abomination set up. Those that are in Judaea are to flee to the mountains. It closes with the coming of the Son of man. All Judea is the subject of warning, but the occasion is the abomination of desolation in Jerusalem. To verse 14 it went on to the end. What follows is special, but the tribulation is not confined to Jerusalem, but it is intimated that its focus is in Judaea. The fact of the preaching in all nations is merely a sign of the end.
In Matthew 5-7, we have just these elements as to the character of the Remnant. It is, as often remarked, the character belonging to the Kingdom. But then we have suffering for Christ's sake, and going to heaven as the martyred Remnant will. The Father's name is revealed - redemption in no way taught. The condition of Israel briefly but clearly told us in verses 25, 26. The Law and the Prophets not destroyed. They are salt in the land and light in the world. But here, as in chapter 10, the last trial is not found. It is a matter apart, even in chapter 24. The Lord's prayer is perfectly suited to that time. It goes on to that day; Matthew 7: 22, 23. Even false prophets are warned against, but they are discerned morally, just as the judgment in that day is on the same ground. Hence we have not the Son of man, because the subject is what is morally fit for the Kingdom, and to be applied then that He might not be rejected. He was propounding, as a present thing, the doctrine as to the principle of the Kingdom, only He brings in their consequences. While stating the change both as to Church and Kingdom (the Church by a special revelation, not what Christ was openly teaching) it is remarkable how Matthew keeps on Jewish ground; so there is no taking up to heaven at all.
Jehovah their Messiah was there as Prophet. It would go out to Gentiles (Matt. 8: 11), who would be in the Kingdom of heaven. The Son of man had not where to lay His head. Christ is in the troubles with His disciples, but it passes on to His rejection as then (and from Matthew 13, sowing, not looking for fruit), the definite rejection, yet of Him who satisfied the poor with bread in Israel. The nation judged in its rulers. But God, from His nature, blesses necessarily beyond, where so looked to, and the Remnant according to His own perfectness if not administrative fulness naturally. Then chapter 16, the nation is judged practically, and the Church brought in.
The Spirit's Work
<45003E> 80
We see the Spirit's work in Creation, in the Samsons, Jephthas, Sauls, and even Balaam - then in the Prophets, calling back to the Law, and foretelling Messiah, suffering, and the glories to follow. But here though called the Spirit of Christ, yet it was a divine Person working in a divine way to manifest power, or deal with God's people from without. This went on till John. He was Messiah's forerunner - it was a transition time. Then on Christ, as Man, the Holy Spirit came down as a dove. He was anointed and sealed, but He only - on this to be declared Son of God by John. And then the heavens opened, He anointed, and the Father owning Him as His Son, the Man that was there, the Second Man and last Adam, personally though yet alone. For, except the Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die, it must abide alone. Even then Christ was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to overcome for us, fully tested here below. Through the eternal Spirit He offered Himself without spot to God. But He was alone. But then, what no heart can tell or fathom, the blessed Son of God, the lowly One, and the Just, was made sin for us, and we can say: He hath borne our sins in His own body on the tree. Now He is risen - all that is passed - that wonderful atonement has been made, in the very place of our sin in absolute and perfect obedience and love to the Father - God perfectly glorified. Sin, death, Satan's power, God's forsaking, and judgment against sin, all passed, and Man owned of God as to His work, and having glorified God as made sin, is passed into the divine glory to begin all afresh in a place, the consequence of redemption, and thence, having in that place received the Holy Ghost, has sent it down to believers - not to man in the flesh, or the world (though the Gospel goes out to them by it) - to associate them with and unite them to Him who, glorified, begins all afresh.
Fragments
<45004E> 81
1 Timothy 1: 5. How very perfect this statement as to the result! In what an atmosphere of blessing it puts us, in contrast with the idle speculations of man's mind! The object of the commission is not idle speculation, but love (God's own nature) enjoyed and active, purity in the affections, a pure heart which sees God - the conscience, with nothing on it, happy in God's presence; and then faith, the spirit of dependence on, and confidence in God. How bright a state in God's presence!
________
The three points of our present walk are very clearly brought out in 2 Timothy 2, in the well-known passage - withdrawal from iniquity, as naming the name of Christ - purifying ourselves from the vessels - association with those (in the path of grace, righteousness, and peace) who call on the Lord out of a pure heart (whom I am thus called to own, as far as manifested, though owning the Lord only knows them that are His). I add then, courage and the Scriptures; and we have the special provision for the last days. The armour of God is for all times - the sense of dependence our security.
_______
The comparison of John 1 and 1 John 1; chap. 2: 1, 2, is full of interest. In John 1, the life is the light of men, but darkness comprehends it not. In 1 John 1, they have seen, looked upon, and handled the Word of life, and show the Eternal Life which was with the Father, and manifested to them; through the Word made flesh become a Word of life to them, they have fellowship with the Father and the Son - the names of grace. Then instead of the light shining in darkness, and the darkness not comprehending it, they are in the light as God is in the light, where responsibility and test comes in. I only touch on the main elements to suggest the ground of what was in my mind - the complete contrast of the Christian's place by redemption, and the world's on the presenting of Christ and His being merely in it. And I add, in chapter 2: 1, 2, provision is made for failure in detail. Jesus Christ the righteous, and the propitiation remain in full force - we are in the light as God is, as to place and title. But darkness in act has necessarily totally destroyed communion, though righteousness remain, and hence He is not an Advocate with God, to restore righteousness, but with the Father, on the footing of righteousness and propitiation restoring communion. Failure is judged according to the light we are in - as God is in it. And hence on the footing of what He accepts as putting away sin, I speak as I am, an ever present now, according to that light. The full enjoyment of the out-flowing of grace in communion is re-established. The whole comparison is full of interest.
_______
82 I think it is remarkable how Paul contemplates the introduction of false brethren from the beginning and distinguishes the sacramental system as distinct from salvation, and man's work contrasted with God's - while Peter does not, save as the fruit of positively false teachers like the false prophets of old; but as an ordinary fruit to be produced, he does not. The Christian work is Christ's work, is of God. He addresses the saints, not merely as positionally and rightly such, but as individually such; nor is any other work recorded or supposed. We may suppose such must have been, and such may have been the case in Lydda, but it is not supposed; they turned to the Lord. Simon Magus he detected, which confirms this. Paul's object, of course, was the same, but, like the fisherman's net, it gathered, and he contemplates its gathering of every kind. He contemplates wood, hay and stubble - branches being cut off - sacramental introduction and privilege - but with many God being not well-pleased. This is remarkable. It is a vast system inaugurated on the earth, which Paul commences - Peter's is a falling one there, but in its nature simply divine operation. I have already considered Matthew 16 in connection with this.
__________
The two 'becames' in Hebrews 2: 10 and Hebrews 7: 26, are striking, as showing the deep truth of God's dealings in respect of Christ, and the wondrous height of our heavenly calling. - "It became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." The majesty of God was such that it became Him, if that Blessed One took up our cause, to make Him pass through the suffering to enter into glory. We can say that it became God, our sins being such, not to pass over them, or our state before Him, and Christ must suffer. Then when our calling comes, a High Priest becomes us who is separate from sinners, made higher than the heavens, for that is our place as called. Another kind of high priest, or place of exercise of his priesthood would not do, for that is our place and condition, called withal to the holy and harmless.
________
83 The first disciples saw and believed, but then fuller light came in. Between that fuller light and Thomas's confession, which represents Israel in the latter day, the difference is evident. In the message by Mary Magdalene, where it was faith by hearing, the testimony is of the Son of God going on high as Man, and placing His disciples in the very same position as Himself: "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God." Thomas's confession of Christ is a remarkable one, owning Christ as his Lord and his God; but he looks up to Him in the divinity and glory of His Person. He is not associated with Him in His own blessed position in relationship with the Father, and the place He has taken as Man before God. This latter is Christ's own communication in grace to the disciples, as giving them part with Himself - Thomas's, his recognition of His glory when it is forced upon him. And this is all in its place.
_______
Note, Paul alone puts baptism, as far as I am aware, on the ground of death and resurrection with Christ. Thus it becomes the means of doctrinally bringing the Christian on to the point where, on the new ground and in a new position, he is united to Christ as Head. In Romans, he only carries it out to the individual position, but in Colossians he uses it not as union, of course, but as that which, by taking out of flesh into what is beyond it, is the inseparable introduction into holding the Head. It is only life, but life hid with Christ in God. But he introduces 'holding the Head' as the necessary and inseparable consequence, only the Holy Ghost is not brought in in this Epistle. The connection is in chapter 1: 18, not the same, but connected, so immediately in Christ. Hence it glimmers though not unfolded, as in chapter 1: 24, 25, and chap. 2: 19.
_______
84 Note in 1 John 5: 18, 19, we have the opposition of the new nature to the whole trinity of evil; whosoever is born of God sinneth not - the will and nature of flesh; he that is born of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not; and, we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
________
Note the remarkable contrast between John 1: 5, "The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not," and 1 John 2: 8, "The darkness is past, and the true light now shineth." We get the full character of the living Christ in the presence of men brought in by redemption after the Lord's death. In life He was the Light of men, but men were darkness, opposite in nature, and the Light did not dispel the darkness at all. It remained, as before, darkness, and did not comprehend the Light. But redemption came in - there was a new state of things - Christ had overcome the power of darkness, and brought a new condition of men in resurrection into existence, and vivified according to the power and place of this life, which was in the light as God was in the light, and had left the darkness and the whole scene and power of it where it was, behind, the other side of the Cross. Thus those who had received Him, had received light in life in their souls - cleansed by the blood, they walked in the light, and were light. It was not the strange phenomenon of light shining and darkness remaining, but the darkness was passing and already the light shone as light, not in darkness merely. This is an immense change indeed. It is then easy to see how it connects itself with "Which thing is true in him and in you." It shows the relative place of the Gospel and Epistle very clearly, and more, it shows very powerfully the difference between Christ's position and witness on earth, and the light brought in after redemption was wrought, and He was risen. It is a very important comparison.
85 Note how carefully the Kingdom and our portion in Christ are everywhere distinguished when brought together, and both introduced so as to mark the distinction. First, in 2 Peter 1, the transfiguration is the plain manifestation of the glory of the Kingdom, indeed is so said to be in the Gospels, where it is visible and Christ appears with His saints. This is connected with prophecy. It confirms what the Prophets had said as to what the history of this world would end in - was a light in this dark world - but this is contrasted with another thing, the daydawn, and the Daystar arising in the heart. Next, in Revelation 2, we have the promise of Kingdom of Psalm 2 extended to the saints. Here in the full corruption of the Church (popery) the faithful are urged to hold fast, and the end looked at, "Till I come"; then the Kingdom of the rod of iron over the nations given (that is prophecy) but, besides that, the Morning Star, Christ, before the day comes. Then in Revelation 22, as at the beginning, the efficacy of Christ's forbearing known in the heart relationship of the saints, so when all the prophecy had been gone through, Jesus presents Himself as the Root and Offspring of David, the bright and morning Star. As the former He is the Source and Heir of promises, as the Morning Star the Hope of the Church. The Spirit who is down here animating the Church, and the Bride in the sense of her own relationship, looks for Himself to come, and the whole position of the Church meanwhile, as having the Spirit, is unfolded. And so we find it elsewhere. At the end of 1 Thessalonians 4, where it had been declared that those that slept in Jesus, God would bring with Him - this is the manifestation in glory also, which is continued in connection with the day, in chapter 5; our going up to Him, so as to be with Him for ever, which answers to the Morning Star, is unfolded in the intervening parenthesis.
The Soul
<45005E> 86
First, the word psuche is clearly used for "life," as Matthew 2: 20; Matthew 10: 39; Mark 3: 4; Luke 9: 24, 56; John 12: 25, and many other passages. Next, it is used for the general fact of conscious feeling and existence - the activity of the inner man - without defining whence or what it is. In this way, it is used even of God; Matt. 12: 18; Heb. 10: 38. Thus: "With all thy heart, and with all thy soul"; "My soul is exceeding sorrowful"; "A sword shall pierce through thy own soul;" Matt. 22: 37; Mark 14: 34; Luke 2: 35. It is used for persons, as Acts 2: 41, 43; chap. 7: 14. But as "life" and "soul," it is in contrast often, or "life" is used for "the soul" in its higher aspect. The same word is used of what is profited and lost in the same act. Thus: "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it;" Matt. 10: 39, compare verse 28; chap. 16: 25, 26; Mark 8: 35-37 (compare Luke 9: 24-26, and John 12: 25) and Luke 17: 33.
We have then "the soul" used generally for the responsible part, in which we live with God, whose state and movings are expressed in the body's acts, as Matthew 11: 29; chap. 16: 26, and the passages of contrast I have referred to. Matthew 26: 38; Mark 8: 37, and like passages to Matthew; Mark 14: 34; Luke 1: 46 (passage cited from Luke); Luke 12: 23; John 12: 27; Acts 14: 22; Acts 15: 24; perhaps Romans 2: 9; 2 Cor. 1: 23; Heb. 6: 19; chaps. 10: 39; 13: 17; James 1: 21; James 5: 20; 1 Peter 1: 9, 22; 1 Peter 2: 11, 25; 1 Peter 4: 19; 2 Peter 2: 8, 14; 3 John 2. Here we find contrast with Jewish temporal deliverance.
It is contrasted carefully with "body," Matt. 10: 28; Luke 12: 20 (stronger because of verse 19); Acts 2: 27, 31 - practically several of the passages quoted under the last head. Acts 20: 10; compare 1 Kings 17: 21, 22. It is also distinguished as the mere living soul from the higher part in which it is in connection with God, through living in Him by the breath of life from Him; 1 Thess. 5: 23; Heb. 4: 12. Add to this Luke 16, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. It is distinguished from the power of life in Christ in 1 Cor. 15: 45. Its distinct condition in man is originally founded on Genesis 2: 7 - never said of beasts; hence Acts 17: 28. The "souls under the altar" confirm this.
87 "Spirit" is used often for the soul including the higher part. So even of Jesus, "He gave up the ghost" (paredoken to pneuma). This word we must also examine. It is used not uncommonly for the spiritual part of man in contrast with his body, as Luke 8: 55, "Her spirit came again," confirming the clear distinction between the two, as with soul. So where the two latter are also distinguished, spirit, soul, and body. But I think it has another force than "soul," though used in a general way like it, in contrast with "body," as the non-corporeal part of man. "Soul," as connecting itself with its action in the body, though clearly distinct, is more connected with life, and so used for it. "Spirit" is more the active, intelligent consciousness, or the seat of that consciousness, which belongs to the inner man; and just what distinguishes man from the beast is that the latter has merely a living soul connected with an organism, passions, habits, faculties, such as memory, affections; while man has received this state of existence through God's breathing into his nostrils the breath of life - by the spirit of life he became a living soul. Hence in ordinary language the two may be used as one; because of the pneuma zoes (the spirit of life) he has a psuchen zosan (a living soul). The mere animal has a psuchen zosan, but not through a divine pneuma zoes. The mere breath of natural life is organic, and has nothing to do with this. Hence "spirit" is used for this active, intelligent, consciousness. In the Christian it is connected often with the Holy Spirit which dwells in him, as its activities are produced by it, not the soul. The Spirit and its fruit may thus also characterise the state of the soul. This character of the spirit of man, the connection of the term with active intelligent consciousness is frequently found; Matt. 26: 41, "The spirit indeed is willing"; Mark 2: 8, "Jesus perceived in his spirit; chap. 8: 12, "He sighed deeply in his spirit"; Luke 1: 80, "Waxed strong in spirit;" chap. 2: 40; chaps. 10: 20; 23: 46; John 4: 23, 24; chaps. 11: 33; 13: 21; (chap. 19: 30, used in general, so Acts 7: 59). Acts 17: 16; Rom. 1: 9; chap. 12: 11; 1 Cor. 2: 11; chap. 5: 3-5 (used in special manner for activity of the inner man and a power, not intelligent, thus contrasted with nous - proof of the difference of mere mind from the active principle, though usually acting, in the present state of human nature, in it as the present form of its power; so that consciousness, not mind, is essential to it); 1 Cor. 14: 2, 14, 15, etc.; 2 Cor. 2: 13; chap. 7: 1, here through the mind, verse 13; Gal. 6: 18; 1 Thess. 5: 23; 2 Tim. 4: 22; Heb. 12: 23. In Thessalonians and Hebrews, the contrast with body is clear, and in the former with soul also.
Sacraments
<45006E> 89
I think the Sacraments have a larger bearing than I was aware. They are (1 Cor. 10) for the wilderness. One introduces into the wilderness, but it is Christ's death (Romans 6), not ours. Only I thereon reckon myself dead as a consequence - place too in baptism - in the likeness of His. But we have not in Romans 'resurrection with'; and even where we have, as I think, we must say in Colossians 2, no ascension, we seek the things above, in Canaan. Then the manna was for the wilderness only, and the spiritual drink. That is, one brings into, the other sustains in the wilderness. So we show forth Christ's death "till He come." I take my place in the world, consequent on Christ's death - a wilderness. It is not the corn of the Land. But we are all One Body. Here, for myself, I have union with the saints, and my place is in virtue of union with Him, still as down here. We are the Body of Christ, as down here - not as in this world without the Cross, for then I do not know redemption, do not enter into the holiest to worship. I am on earth, but in the consciousness of being member of the One Body, which implies union with Christ. But it is on earth I celebrate it, not in heaven, i.e., not as being there myself. I look at the humiliation as over with Him, but remember Him in it. Note it is not the Passover here; that went with the corn of the Land, Canaan, and circumcision. I am in the fruit of redemption, but in the wilderness, but in the unity of the Body. With the manna we must take in Christ's death, of course, according to John 6. Our service in it is simply owning the preciousness of His death, and till He come. Our state is in resurrection, but we are occupied with, and celebrate His having been once down here, and show forth His death. The question is, Where are we when we celebrate it? In the wilderness. What are we? Members of One Body, united to Christ in fact. In a responsible place in the wilderness, but by redemption, and really united to Christ, or I could not talk of "The Unity of the Body." 1865.
_______
I think of the account of the Passover in Luke we have the sign of the passing away of the old system, and the bringing in of the new. True love to His disciples in, for the last time, eating with them - a token of affection, but He will not eat it any more. Then the Passover cup - fellowship and communion in joy then in it - this He does not take at all. It was now to be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, and He does not drink this cup. They are to divide it among themselves; He will not drink of it till the Kingdom of God comes. Then He institutes the new thing in His body broken, the remembrance of a new and better deliverance, and the Cross the new covenant in His blood.
Remarks on an "Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent"
<45007E> 91
{Essay in aid of a Grammar of Assent, by John Henry Newman, D.D. of the Oratory. Second edition. London: Burns, Oates & Co., 17 and 18, Portman Street.}
It is striking, to begin with, that in his three acts of the mind, he only speaks of 'doubt,' 'inference,' and 'assent.' He makes 'assent' different from 'inference,' and there he is right. I have often said, an inference is only 'must,' or therefore never really 'is.' Belief of a fact never rests on an inference, but on intuition, sight, etc., or testimony. But a man's disbelieving is not believing the contradictory. Religion is revealed - rather God and His truth; I do not believe it - I do not think there is adequate evidence and do not believe it. But I do not believe there is none. If we put truth instead of revealed religion - and the truth is - this depends on a religion being in question as revealed. Now certain things being presented to me as revealed, my being unable to receive them is not my saying there is no revealed religion. And when truth is presented to me, it must be specific truth (and there can, if it embraces all our relationship to God, be but one) but if truth be presented to me, my disbelief of it, seeing it must be positive, is not saying 'there is none.' According to Dr. Newman there are three modes of holding and three ways of enunciating propositions - each corresponding to each - three mental acts. Taking free-trade as an example, he says: "These three mental acts are doubt, inference and assent. A question is the expression of a doubt; a conclusion is the expression of an act of inference; and an assertion is the expression of an act of assent. To doubt, for instance, is not to see one's way to hold that free-trade is or is not a benefit; to infer, is to hold on sufficient grounds that free-trade may, must, or should be a benefit; to assent to the proposition, is to hold that free-trade is a benefit." "And, in fact, these three modes of entertaining propositions - doubting them, inferring them, assenting to them, are so distinct in their action, that, when they are severally carried out into the intellectual habits of an individual, they become the principles and notes of three distinct states or characters of mind. For instance, in the case of revealed religion, according as one or other of these is paramount within him, a man is a sceptic as regards it; or a philosopher, thinking it more or less probable considered as a conclusion of reason; or he has an unhesitating faith in it, and is recognised as a believer. If he simply disbelieves, or dissents, he is assenting to the contradictory of the thesis, viz., that there is no revelation." This is quite false.
92 But his logic is wholly at fault too, the comprehension of the word wholly left out. In page 6, he says: "We cannot assent to a proposition, without some intelligent apprehension of it; whereas we need not understand it at all in order to infer it. We cannot give our assent to the proposition that 'x is z,' till we are told something about one or other of the terms; but we can infer, if 'x is Y, and Y is z, that x is z, whether we know the meaning of x and z' or no." Thus the "is" is absolute, i.e., x must be all Y, and Y must be all x to be always true. Thus, snow is white, white is a colour, therefore snow is a colour. This is nice logic!
What follows is sufficiently judged further on - the confusion of effect from the thing assented to, and strength in the assent. But further; he says: "The only question is, what measure of apprehension is sufficient. And the answer to this question is equally plain: - it is the predicate of the proposition which must be apprehended. In a proposition one term is predicated of another; the subject is referred to the predicate, and the predicate gives us information about the subject; - therefore to apprehend the proposition is to have that information, and to assent to it is to acquiesce in it as true. Therefore I apprehend a proposition, when I apprehend its predicate. The subject itself need not be apprehended per se in order to a genuine assent: for it is the very thing which the predicate has to elucidate, and therefore by its formal place in the proposition, so far as it is the subject, it is something unknown, something which the predicate makes known; but the predicate cannot make it known, unless it is known itself. Let the question be, "What is trade?" here is a distinct profession of ignorance about "trade"; and let the answer be, "trade is the interchange of goods"; trade then need not be known, as a condition of assent to the proposition, except so far as the account of it which is given in answer, "the interchange of goods," makes it known; and that must be apprehended in order to make it known. There is no reason why our knowledge of the subject, whatever it is, should go beyond what the predicate tells us about it," but a proposition may where it is a complex idea to explain a word, or to render a vague idea definite and clear. Thus, "trade is the interchange of commodities." A child has read a book, and finds "trade," and says, 'What is trade?' "It is the interchange of commodities," is explaining the word by the thing expressed. Or I may say, 'Money is a mere conventional representative,' and, whatever the means employed, bills or gold, trade is really the interchange of commodities - here it pretends to give the real character of the commerce I have seen going on in the world. Otherwise, a proposition relates to something known objectively, say, as Dr. Newman, Lucerne. He states I need not apprehend the subject, and anything more childishly fallacious I never read. I will give his own words. "If a child asks, 'What is Lucerne?' and is answered, 'Lucerne is Medicago sativa, of the class Diadelphia and order Decandria'; and henceforth says obediently, 'Lucerne is Medicago sativa,' etc., he makes no act of assent to the proposition which he enunciates, but speaks like a parrot. But if he is told, 'Lucerne is food for cattle,' and is shown cows grazing in a meadow, then, though he never saw lucerne, and knows nothing at all about it, besides what he has learned from the predicate, he is in a position to make as genuine an assent to the proposition 'Lucerne is food for cattle,' on the word of his informant, as if he knew ever so much more about lucerne. And as soon as he has got so far as this, - he may go further. He now knows enough about lucerne to enable him to apprehend propositions which have lucerne for their predicate, should they come before him for assent, as, 'That field is sown with lucerne,' or 'Clover is not lucerne.'"
93 In the first place Medicago sativa is merely a change of names, and gives nothing at all, unless a genus, if I know botany. The class and order make me know it is a plant, if I have read Linnaeus, but, the subject, lucerne, not being known by sense, the passage, if I knew Linnaeus by heart, tells me nothing save that the predicate supposes, does not state, that a plant with a Latin name exists, but no more. "But if he is told lucerne is food for cattle," he can assent to the proposition on the word of his informant, as if he knew ever so much more about lucerne." And now we see the utter folly of the man - he adds: "And is shown cows grazing in a meadow." How does he know that it is lucerne they are eating? He must know it is lucerne, to make the proposition anything at all to him. Suppose it is clover they are eating, he will call clover lucerne because cows eat it, or he knows somehow lucerne as an object of sense, which is just what Dr. Newman is proving he need not. The proposition must be, 'all that cows eat is lucerne.' Logically he has made the predicate of an universal affirmative universal, instead of particular. "Lucerne is food for cows" only means is one kind of food for cows. Hence, when he sees the cows eating lucerne, he only knows it is a kind of food for cows since they are eating it, but he does not know it is lucerne. If Dr. Newman merely means that seeing cows eating makes him know what the predicate "food for cows" means, it is ridiculous. If it is so, he has only learned that the name "lucerne" is attached to one thing cows eat, but he has no object at all before his mind to which the predicate attaches. If he must see cows eating to know what the predicate means, it is child's play, for then he must be told they are cows, and what eating is, or the predicate is nothing, and he understands that but nothing more of the subject, save the name. Say "Dollum is something cows eat." What do I know about dollum, save that cows eat something men call "dollum." But I should then say, "But what is dollum?" But this child's play is not what Dr. Newman means. For when it is said, "That field is sown with lucerne," it is only when he is told that field is sown with lucerne, if he has not seen lucerne, and known objectively, or now learns by seeing it, he knows no more. We know what lucerne is and hence associate the ideas. But supposing he was told lucerne meant "bread and butter," he would suppose the field, if he assented, sown with bread and butter, for cows might eat that. "Clover is not lucerne," he can know nothing about, unless he knows them both, for cows eat clover, too. It is talking of a known thing, and slily slipping in, "seeing cows grazing in a meadow," which deceives here.
94 Page 13, he says: "Yet there is a way, in which the child can give an indirect assent even to a proposition, in which he understood neither subject nor predicate. He cannot, indeed, in that case, assent to the proposition itself, but he can assent to its truth." "Thus the child's mother might teach him to repeat a passage of Shakespeare, and when he asked the meaning of a particular line, such as 'The quality of mercy is not strained,' or 'Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied,' she might answer him, that he was too young to understand it yet, but that it had a beautiful meaning, as he would one day know; and he, in faith on her word, might give his assent to such a proposition - not, that is, to the line itself, which he had got by heart, and which would be beyond him, but to its being true, beautiful, and good." "It is, indeed, plain, that, though the child assents to his mother's veracity, without, perhaps, being conscious of his own act, nevertheless that particular assent of his has a force and life in it which the other assents have not, in proportion as he apprehends the proposition, which is the subject of it, with greater keenness and energy than belongs to his apprehension of the others. Her veracity and authority is to him no abstract truth or item of general knowledge, but is bound up with that image and love of her person which is part of himself, and makes a direct claim on him for his summary assent to her general teachings." Now if he heard his mother say, "Virtue turns vice," he would have no idea in his head, if he did not know what "virtue" is; he might think it meant bad habits, or human nature, or taste, or anything you please, and he would learn nothing of what was meant to be conveyed. If he was sure his mother told him, his only real thought would be, "My mother tells the truth," but that that was true he could not say, he does not believe it. He has no proposition in his mind. And when Dr. Newman speaks of one assent being stronger than another, as when his mother's truthfulness is before him, it is a totally different matter - feeling, caring for, not assenting - and, if the mother was all wrong, would lead astray, because feeling is no real ground of assent, and may influence the heart contrary to the truth. Dr. Newman's mother led him up, I suppose, in Protestantism as true, and, as he now believes, brought him up entirely in error. God may act on feeling, conscience for the truth, then influence and truth go together. But that can be said of none else.
95 Dr. Newman partly distinguishes afterwards between inference and assent, but he has no idea of believing what God has said, simply because He has said it. Quoting from Locke's "Degrees of Assent,"* he says, "Where any particular thing, consonant to the constant observation of ourselves, and others in the like case, comes attested by the concurrent reports of all that mention it, we receive it as easily, and build as firmly upon it, as if it were certain knowledge, and we reason and act thereupon, with as little doubt as if it were perfect demonstration . . . . These probabilities rise so near to certainty, that they govern our thoughts as absolutely, and influence all our actions as fully, as the most evident demonstration . . . . Our belief thus grounded, rises to assurance." When we talk of "belief rising to assurance," with Locke, it is all very well, because it is mere human reason, and, for practical purposes, we must act on what is adequately proved as true though only "exceeding high probability," we have, save what is seen, nothing more. But all this shuts out divine faith. There is no rising to anything, no exercise of the mind to prove, no degree of anything, no possibility of human deceit. If God has spoken, it is the truth. But the whole of his reasoning in the chapter on assent, considered as unconditional, though he separates inference and assent, yet he speaks only of "the facts of human nature as they are found in the concrete action of life," i.e., men are certain enough to act on it, is all true. But on page 169, he insists that assent is "unconditional, and' that in 'subject-matters which admit of nothing higher than probable reasoning."
{*Essay concerning Human Understanding, Book 4, chapter 16.}
96 Page 171. He says, "None of us can think or act without the acceptance of truths, not intuitive, not demonstrated, yet sovereign." But some believe that things exist besides ourselves, "that there is a Supreme Being." He insists our nature is so constituted - so do I. "Nor," he adds, "has any philosophical theory the power to force on us a rule which will not work for a day." Now we have here inference, and, besides that, convictions which flow from "the constitution of our nature," of which we have no doubt (till we reason, and which reason may cast into doubt, rightly or wrongly); I admit all this, but none of this is divine faith. That "England is an island" is no example, because visible. "An island" means what I see, or others do there. He insists (page 179) that all this "does not interfere with the pre-eminence of strength in divine faith, which has a supernatural origin, when compared with all belief which is merely human and natural." But still, it is only because it has its origin in grace and its motions. "The greater certainty is according to appreciation, not intuition, for natural truths are often more clearly perceived!" "The connection of knowledge with truth is more apparent than the connection of faith with the same!" And another author, he quotes, says: "The adhesion of the will is stronger." And again, "The difference of certainty from the difference of motives." This only regards an exterior difference, for every natural certainty, formally looked at, is equal. "There is a transcendant adhesion of mind, intellectual and moral."
97 Page 218. "A man is infallible, whose words are always true; a rule is infallible, if it is unerring in all its possible applications. An infallible authority is certain in every particular case that may arise; but a man who is certain in some one definite case, is not on that account infallible." "I may be certain that the Church is infallible, while I am myself a fallible mortal; otherwise, I cannot be certain that the Supreme Being is infallible until I am infallible myself. It is a strange objection, then, which is sometimes made to Catholics, that they cannot prove and assent to the Church's infallibility, unless they first believe in their own. Certitude, as I have said, is directed to one or other definite concrete proposition. I am certain of proposition one, two, three, four, five, one by one, each by itself. I may be certain of one of them, without being certain of the rest; that I am certain of the first makes it neither likely nor unlikely that I am certain of the rest; but were I infallible, then I should be certain, not only of one of them, but of all, and of many more besides, which have never come before me as yet. Therefore we may be certain of the infallibility of the Church, while we admit that in many things we are not, and cannot be, certain at all."
Infallibility, as I have remarked elsewhere, is wrongly used. Truth cannot be infallible, nor anything actually revealed. It is simply absolute truth. It is more appropriately applied to Scripture, so far as there is an immense mass of truth there which I have not discovered, and I am sure all is true there with divine authority, but this is only used in a secondary way, as Paul says, "The Scripture foreseeing . . . preached before." But God is infallible, i.e., cannot be mistaken or deceived. Infallibility is not simply always speaking the truth, but the impossibility of mistaking, or deceiving, or shortcoming. It involves not mistaking in anything, as well as not deceiving. Now this is part of my idea of God, the true God. If He is not infallible, He is not God, He that is true, to whom all things are open.
Dr. Newman is audacious enough to say, "If I must be infallible to know the Church is such, I must be infallible to know God is such." This is every way false, and savours of blasphemy, and proves only one thing, as is evident from all he says, that he has never known the testimony of God as truth. It would have been impossible for him to use this logic if he had. But that is all it proves. And it is wholly without foundation, for 'know' has a different meaning. When I say, 'I know God is infallible,' though I dislike the expression, 'I know' is merely the intuitive conviction of what God is, not knowledge from proof - it is part of the nature of God, necessary to His nature - a fallible God is not what 'God' means. But I do not know whether an assembly is infallible. It is not so by necessity of nature, so that it is not an assembly if it be not. Nay! no assembly of creatures is or can be. It is the property of a creature to be fallible in itself. God may keep me right through grace, I will suppose, but in the sense it is used of God, I deny that the Assembly of God is infallible. Dr. Newman's argument is bad, because I have the proof that God has promised to keep it from all mistakes. But what has to be kept is not, per se, infallible, and it has to be proved that what is not necessarily infallible is made so in its judgments by Another. Of that I have to judge, and I may make a mistake, and I cannot say absolutely it is infallible. I may be certain, but that proves nothing, because I may be wrong, and it is a thing to be proved. I have not to judge if God be infallible - He is not God at all if He be not. It is a necessary element of Godhead. I do not know God at all, if I think it has to be proved.
98 I see no sign of faith, or moral perception in Dr. Newman; and lowering God in order to exalt the Church, i.e., man, is a sign of deep moral alienation from God.