The herald., 1896-08-03

odlocy. The luxury or going without a
creed is like the luxury of going without
backbone. Evey man who has mind
I has creed. 1t makes little difference
about it's being in print. A mans creed
Is the sum Of his working moral convic-
tions. Most people who fight creeds
have their quarrel with the form of 1t
and not the fact Of 1t. The trouble with
our formulated creeds is not that they
exist, but that we have clothed them
with species of infallibilty, and insist
What everybody accept them as the final
and authoritative word on religion. So
far as the possession of a written con-
fession OF faith goes. 1t is of little mo-
ment and forms no essential part of
the religious life. For whatever creed
man really has Is not what he assents
to but what he actually shows in his
living to be the basal convictions on
which both his thinking and doing lift
themselves. So. after all, the real ques-
ton is not whether a man can follow the
logical movement of our church con-
LESSONS from their first word about the
being of God to the last about eternal
torment, but whether the man has root
ed In the very center of his soul great
principles of divine righteousness which
ne Is slowly working out into life. The
danger with some of US Is that in cast
ing away our forms of faith, we shall
be found casting away those fundamen-
tai Factors Of belief in God, in moral
government, In man. and In personal re-
sponsibility, without which no life can
be OF value to itself or to the world.
Christ had creed. 1t was not a writ
ten creed. but it lay 80 sharply defined
in His own mind that He had no difficult
ty in formulating It on occasion. Here
let me quote from Dr. Watson of Liver
pool: 1T would be very difficult to say
which Is the latest creed Of Christian
ity-there Is always some new one in
Formation hnf fhero ha
which is the Oldest Among all the creeds
or Christendom the only one which has
the authority of Christ Himself is the
Sermon on the Mount. When one reads
the creed that was given by Jesus and
the creeds that have been made by
Christians, he cannot fail to detect an
immense difference. and it does not mat
ter whether he selects the Nicene creed
or the Westminster confession. They
all have family likeness to each other
and family unlikeness to the Sermon
on the Mount. They deal with different
subjects. they move in a different at
mosphere. Were the Athanasian creed
and the Beatitudes printed in parallel
columns, one would find 1t hard to be-
lieve that both documents were virtual
ly intended to serve the same end, to be
basis Of discipleship. When one asks:
What Is Christian the creeds and
the sermon not only do not give the
same answer but models so contradic-
tory that from the successive specifca-
tions he could create two types without
any apparent resemblance.
What must strike every person about
Jesus sermon is that it is not metaphy-
steal but ethical. Upon the man who
desired to be His disciple and mem
Der of Gods kingdom were laid the con-
ditions of pure heart, of a forgiving
spirit, of helpful hand, of a heavenly
purpose, of an unworldly mind. Christ
did not ground His Christianity in think
ing or doing, but first of all in being.
1t consisted in certain type of soul
spiritual shape of the inner self. Was
a man satisfied with this type, and
would he aim at it in his life? Would
he put his name to the Sermon on the
Mount, and place himself under Jesus
charge for its accomplishment? Then
he was Christian according to the con-
ditions laid down by Jesus in the fresh
daybreak Of his religion. When one
turns to the creeds. the situation has
changed and he finds himself in another
world. They have nothing to do with
character; they do not afford an idea
of character; they do not ask pledges of
character; they have no place in their
construction for character. From their
first word to their last they are physical
or metaphysical, not ethical.
mo church since the early centuries
has had the courage to formulate an
ethical creed, for even those DOQ1eS or
Christians which have no written theO-
logical creeds, yet have implicit affirma
lions or denials of doctrine as their
basis. Imagine a body of Christians who
should take their stand on the sermon
of Jesus, and conceive their creed on
His lines. Imagine how it would read:
I believe in the fatherhood of God;
believe in the words of Jesus; believe
in the clean heart; I believe in the SER
vice of love; believe in the unworthy
life; I believe in the Beatitudes: prom
ise to trust God and follow Christ. to
forgive my enemies, and to seek after
the righteousness of Cod Could any
form of words be more elevating, more
persuasive, more alluring? Do they not
thrill the heat and strengthen the con-
science? Liberty of thought is allowed;
liberty Of SHINING Is alone denied. Who
would refuse to sign this creed? They
would come from the east and the west
and the north and the south at its call.
and even they who would hesitate to
bind themselves to crusade so arduous
would admire 1t and long to be worthy.
Does anyone say 1t is too ideal, too I'M
practical, too quixotic? That no church
could stand or work on such basis?
For three too short years the church of
Christ had none else. and 1T was by holy
living, not by metaphysical subleties the
primitive church lived and suffered
and conquered" Oh that we might
press back to the living springs. back
from these broken cisterns Of human
building to the fount itSpG! Oh, that
men might again find the grass grown
path to where the clear stream Sushes
from the eternal rock!