A Phase of the Church Question. [pp. 566-586]

7jS~ A?I~ct8~ of [OcT~BLR,
bIin4, i~norant, and slavisb, to a so-called priest}y order. Snbjcctioi~ to priests is abject slavery. Truth is always free. In
vain atte~npt to defend a pantheistic philosophy, as thongh tl~is
coi~ld be identical ~vith Christ liiniself. IIo~ can the f}i~ite
mii~d comprehend fi&P&o)~(i~ k(Jifl~? If man cannot find out
the mystery of his own person, ho~v infinitely less can i~e
coi~prehend il~e Person of tl~e Uod-man. The Gospd is
personal: it is not all idea: it is not a mere doctrine: it is
Cl~rist himself, the Saviour of sin~~ers. Tl~e Apostles do not
preach an "idea or theory " of Cl~rist; hnt Cl~iist himself.
These holy ii) en k1?c~(5 the Saviour: they loved him snpremely.
The same is true no~v.
The Apostles do not speak of their " priestly functions."
They make no 1)retension to being a mediatil~g pMestl~ood
l~ctwecn Christ and the human soals. None of this. ()n}y
when men have a human "idea or theory" to serve is there
any necd of priests. An advocate ot' this Mereersburg scheme
says, " A priest is one whose sole object is to bring the peoplc near to God."-See Jf&!'. f~cv., vol. xv., p. 177.
IIo~vever this may be, wl~at minister at a}1 conscious of
1 is responsibility to Christ, will ever pnt confidence in an
~bstraetiOn which demands what il~e Saviour does not authorize? i)r. Nevin mQy imagine that his panfl~eistic n~)tion
of a whole is in harmony with facts. It may be allowed
to pass for what it is worth as a philosophical curiosity: it
i~~ay not be regarded as having any reality in il~e spl~ere of
that wl~ich is divine. As well suppose H~at Plato or Aristotle
preaA~ed Chnst, as to think of il~is Mereersburg notion being
in any sense ideiitically the Gospel. An " ideal church,"
founded upon a pantheistic philosophy, is no more the church
of Christ than Confncins is Paul, or Zoroaster the loving John.
Dr. Nevin seems to il~ink ti~at his so-called Cl~nsto-eentric
~~Otion is profoundly Cliristological. All admit that it is well
to study the Gospel in tl~e l?glit of philosophy; human conceptions, however, are not to be confounded with divine realities. llere is where Dr. Nevin mistakes tlie calling of a minister of Christ. IIis so-called Christo-centric "idea or theory"
is simply his own philosophical conception; and, as such, is
subject to ilie vicissitudes of that which is human. 1-lis prin