be
interpreted
(Mt
16'*).
It
certainly
meant
tliat
Peter
was
the
chief
instrument
by
which
in
the
primitive
period
the
Church
was
to
be
built
up,
but
the
promise
was
to
Peter
as
confessing
Christ,
and
by
implication
to
all
who
make
themselves
his
successors
by
sharing
his
faith.
'
(6)
The
work
of
the
Christian
society.
—
There
can
be
no
doubt
that
this
is
formulated
by
Jn.
in
accordance
with
the
mind
of
Jesus
in
the
words
—
'
As
thou
didst
send
me
into
the
world,
even
so
sent
I
them
into
the
world'
(1718;
cf
.
Mk
3"«-
).
His
instructions
to
the
Twelve,
and
to
the
Seventy,
in
which
He
appoints
and
equips
them
for
a
ministry
like
His
own,
show
that
He
conceived
of
the
society
as
an
instrument
whiich
should
carry
on
His
works
of
preaching
and
healing.
The
risen
Lord
lays
on
the
conscience
the
duty
of
making
disciples
of
all
nations
(Mt
28").
The
work
of
the
Church
which
is
spoken
of
in
most
detail
is
discipline,
the
aim
of
which
is
declared
to
be
the
improvement
of
the
erring
brother,
while
the
stages
of
the
procedure
are
laid
down(Mt
IS""-).
Importance
is
also
attached
to
the
function
of
binding
and
loosing
(vM),
which
is
regarded
as
the
prerogative
of
the
Christian
society
as
a
whole,
not
of
a
particular
class.
The
reference
is
to
forbidding
and
permitting
—
i.e.
framing
maxims
and
rules
of
life
which
should
be
recognized
as
operative
wltliin
the
society.
(c)
The
rdigious
rites.
—
There
is
every
reason
to
believe
that
Jesus
instituted
two
simple
rites
to
be
observed
in
the
society.
That
baptism
was
appointed
by
Him
has
been
denied,
on
the
ground
that
it
is
vouched
for
only
in
the
narrative
of
the
post-resurrection
life,
and
that
it
embodies
a
Trinitarian
formula
(Mt
28").
It
is,
however,
antecedently
probable,
from
the
con-nexion
of
Jesus
with
the
Baptist,
that
He
took
over
the
rite
of
baptism,
while
its
use
from
the
beginning
of
the
Christian
Church
as
the
sacrament
of
initiation
pre-supposes
its
appointment
or
sanction
by
Jesus.
The
institution
of
the
Lord's
Supper
as
a
standing
ordinance
has
already
been
referred
to.
(7)
The
future
and
the
inheritance.
—
The
teaching
of
Jesus
about
the
future,
so
far
as
it
deals
with
the
Return,
has
already
been
touched
on,
and
it
is
sufficient
now
to
note
—
(1)
references
to
the
growth
of
the
Christian
society
on
earth;
(2)
the
glimpses
of
the
final
in-heritance.
(a)
The
development
of
the
society.
—
There
are
a
number
of
passages,
especially
in
the
parables,
which
imply
a
history
of
the
Church
marked
by
three
features
—
a
gradual
growth
to
a
world-leavening
and
world-
overshadowing
influence,
debasement
through
a
large
admixture
of
evil
elements,
and
experiences
of
trial
and
persecution
(Mt
13).
(6)
The
final
portion.
—
It
is
in
vain
that
we
look
in
the
teaching
of
Jesus
for
instruction
upon
many
eschato-logipal
questions
which
have
exercised
the
minds
of
theologians.
His
message
may
be
summed
up
in
the
two
articles,
that
there
is
a
fearful
punishment
reserved
for
those
who
come
to
the
Judgment
in
unbelief
and
impenitence,
and
that
for
those
who
are
His
there
remains
a
great
and
an
enduring
inheritance.
As
to
the
conditions
and
the
content
of
the
blessedness
of
those
who
'
enter
into
life'
there
is
a
large
measure
of
reserve.
He
has
no
doctrine
of
the
intermediate
state.
He
fixes
our
gaze
on
the
final
state
in
which
there
is
no
longer
any
human
impediment
to
prevent
the
bestowal
of
all
that
is
in
the
heart
of
the
Father
to
give
—
peace,
blessedness,
glory,
with
opportunity
of
service.
As
to
the
ultimate
fate
of
the
wicked,
we
can
only
say
that
it
is
a
problem
for
the
solution
of
which
the
letter
of
certain
sayings
makes
in
one
direction
(Mt
25"),
while
His
proclamation
of
the
Father's
unlimited
and
untiring
love
makes
in
the
other.
18.
The
credibility
of
the
teaching.—
The
teaching
of
Jesus
contains
two
saUent
features
(apart
from
the
Christology),
which
are
of
such
fundamental
importance
in
a
view
of
life
that
they
may
be
briefly
touched
on
from
an
apologetic
point
of
view.
The
questions
are
—
Is
the
Fatherhood
of
God,
as
Jesus
proclaimed
it,
a
fact?
Is
the
Christian
ethic,
as
expounded
in
the
Sermon
on
the
Mount,
practicable?
(1)
The
doctrine
of
the
Divine
Fatherhood,
on
which
virtually
everything
turns,
is
inexpressibly
beautiful
and
consoling;
but
there
is
evidence
that
Jesus
Himself
was
conscious
of
difficulties.
Otherwise
He
would
not
have
spoken
of
faith
as
maldng
a
demand
on
the
will.
His
insistence
on
the
need
of
importunity
in
prayer
shows
that
He
felt
that
events
do
not
always,
and
at
the
first
glance,
fit
into
a
scheme
of
things
in
which
the
hand
of
the
Heavenly
Father
is
manifest.
In
Gethsemane
and
on
the
cross,
if
words
mean
anything.
He
felt
to
the
full
the
trial
of
faith.
When
we
question
human
experience,
there
are
numberless
persons
who
say
that
they
have
been
unable
to
trace
the
tender
individualizing
discipline
of
a
Heavenly
Father
which
Jesus
assumed,
and
that
things
rather
seem
to
have
been
governed,
except
in
as
far
as
they
have
themselves
compelled
results,
by
a
blind
and
deaf
fate.
Modern
views
of
the
reign
of
law
increase
the
difficulty.
If
the
Universe
is
a
vast
mechanism,
grinding
on
in
accordance
with
inviolable
laws
to
predetermined
issues,
where
is
the
possibility
of
the
intervention
of
a
Father's
hand
to
control
the
individual
lot,
and
to
mete
out
such
blessings
as
we
need
or
pray
for?
These
are
real
difficulties
which
burden
many
a
sincere
mind
and
trouble
many
a
sensitive
heart.
But
it
is
to
be
considered
that,
apart
from
the
authority
which
may
be
claimed
for
a
revelation,
there
is
good
ground
for
beUeving
in
the
title
of
man
to
inter-pret
God,
as
Jesus
did,
in
the
light
of
the
idea
of
Father-hood.
God
is
revealed
in
His
works;
among
these
works
the
greatest
thing
that
has
come
into
view
on
earth
is
the
self-sacrificing
love
and
the
disinterested
service
which
are
associated
with
the
sanctities
of
family
Ufe;
and
we
may
well
be
sceptical
that
God
is
less
in
goodness
than
a
human
parent,
or
His
purpose
with
mankind
less
generous
than
that
of
an
earthly
father
with
his
family.
Theistic
philosophy
construes
God
in
thel
light
of
man's
rational
and
moral
nature;
Christ's
method
was
similar,
except
that
He
took
as
His
clue
the
moral
nature
as
it
is
revealed
at
its
best,
namely,
in
the
life
of
the
home.
Nor
are
the
objections
of
the
strength
which
is
often
supposed.
The
Universe
is
no
doubt
machine-like,
but
it
does
not
therefore
f
oUow
that
it
puts
it
out
of
the
power
of
God
to
deal
paternally
and
discriminatingly
with
His
children.
In
the
first
place,
God's
greatest
gifts
consist
of
things
with
which
the
mechanism
of
nature
has
absolutely
nothing
to
do
—
such
as
communion
with
God,
forgiveness
of
sins,
peace,
joy,
spiritual
power.
And
as
regards
the
outward
cir-cumstances
of
our
lot,
with
which
it
has
to
do,
it
is
quite
possible
to
hold,
as
many
profound
thinkers
have
held,
that
God
works
in
and
through
general
laws,
and
yet
is
able
by
their
instrumentality
to
accomplish
partic-ular
providences
and
to
vouchsafe
answers
to
prayer.
Nor
does
it
seem
that
any
bitter
human
experience
can
be
such
as
to
justify
disbelief
in
the
Divine
Father-hood,
because
the
witnesses
to
the
truth
include
those
who
have
tasted
the
extremity
of
human
sorrow.
The
paradox
of
it
is
that
the
belief
in
the
Fatherhood
of
God
comes
to
us
attested
by
many
who
were
beyond
others
sons
and
daughters
of
affliction;
and
owes
its
place
in
the
world's
heart
above
all
to
Him
who,
dying
in
unspeakable
agony,
said,
'
Father,
into
thy
hands
I
commend
my
spirit.'
(2)
The
Christian
e«hic.—
The
modern
criticisms
of
the
morality
of
the
Sermon
on
the
Mount
are
two
—
that
it
is
imperfect,
and
that
it
is
Impracticable.
The
first
objection
has
already
been
touched
on
In
part,
and
we
need
refer
now
only
to
the
line
of
criticism
which
finds
fault
with
its
exaltation
of
the
passive
virtues
as
a
mark
of
weakness.
What
lends
some
colour
to
this
is
that,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
many
weak
characters
naturally
behave
in
a
way
that
bears
some
resemblance
to
the
