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

5S1 A L/q~c $ [Oc~on~~,
ft)'1o~ ally ot~~er. ~~s~s s<i~s: " i'uLLO~V ~IE.'~ " IF ANY
MAN WILL COME UNTO ML, L~T HIM DFA2Y HIMSELF, TAXL UP
HI GLOSS, AND FOLLO~
This (r055 15 no iln~~il~ation: it is no idea or t}~cory: it
15 an ~~i~n.~e7j p~~&o~j~ d~(tt/~ U?~tO 8~fl afld ~ liVi)?j( u'~~to
C/~i~i.~~. ll~re is the n~ost concrete of all realities. The
Apostle 5'~~5: " I die daily." Again: " OllF old Ill an is cr11cified With Ilim, that il~e body of sin might be destr()yed."
Freedom from sin, in tlie most con~prebensive sense, is tlie
end of tl~e Cl~ristia~i life; deatl~ shall be s~allo~ed np in
~ict(~ry. lIe ~vl~o is n~~~~illii~g to take I1~ his cross, tile intensive death niito sin, C(t?~UOt follo~v Cllrist. Flesh and sense
must 1)C denied: passion and lust InliSt be overcome, and if
not ~iven np or overconle, il~ere ~nust be a want of personal
godliness in the actual struggle of life. Thonsands l~ave ~~ne
to priests whose daily life proves that they are not tl~e disciples of Cllrist. Tl~ese nlQy be obedient to priests they are
not lovers of Christ " Bv their finits ye sl~all know then~."
Never ~ere words in ore strikiii~ than the saying of S~rauss
" IV1~~r~p'~~c~(s`~`u7~, ~4e~~ ~~ji~J6)4ity abo~~nis."
Tl~e schen~e advocated by Dr. Nevill is fallaeious. It is not
based upon tl~e creed as 511C11: but upon a privct~e j~t(i~7fl(?~$,
" idea, or theory," as a principle, put into the creed. Speaking of this creed, the enlillent Danisl~ divine, Dr. ~I'.irteiisen,
savs " Its ~hole inner form and COilteIlts are such as to
prove its insufficiency to serve as the liigbest critica~ standard
of' the church.... It is quite clear too, that without
the Scnptures, we should derive froni the Apostles' Creed a
poor support... It gives us not the slightest inform ation concerning the sacramental significance of baptism.
~~Te are, therefore, unable to see in tIlls theory of fl~e Apostles'
Creed, ally improvement upon tlie P~eformation." See Jtfu~.
J)oq., Clarke's Ed., pp. 40-1.
No tl~eologieal scholar finds any fault with Dr. Nevin for
attempting to construct a scl~eme of theology; his fearful mistake centres in trying to identify a purely hnn~an`~ idea or
theory" of the Person of Christ with tlie existence of tlle
Christian Church. This abstruct notion he puts ilito tlie
creed, as the principle of liis scheme, ill his own way; aiid