Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation: A Book for the Times

by James B. Walker

Socrates.—To me it appears best to be patient. It is necessary to wait till you learn how you ought to act towards the gods, and towards men.

Alcibiades.—When, O Socrates, shall that time be? and who shall instruct me? for most willingly would I see this person, who he is.

Socrates.—He is one who cares for you; but, as Homer represents Minerva as taking away darkness from the eyes of Diomedes, that he might distinguish a god from a man: so it is necessary that he should first take away the darkness from your mind, and then bring near those things by which you shall know good and evil.

Alcibiades.—Let him take away the darkness, or any other thing, if he will; for whoever this man is, I am prepared to refuse none of the things which he commands, if I shall be made better.—Platonis Alcibiad. ii. [Back]

It is strange that among philosophers of succeeding ages there has not been wisdom sufficient to discover, from the constitutional necessities of the human spirit, that demand for the instruction and aid of the Messiah which Socrates and Plato discovered, even in a comparatively dark age.

There are two insuperable difficulties which would for ever hinder the restoration of mankind to truth and happiness from being accomplished by human means. The first, which has been already alluded to, is that human instruction, as such, has no power to bind the conscience. Even if man were competent to discover all the truth necessary for a perfect rule of conduct, yet that truth would have no reformatory power, because men could never feel that truth was obligatory which proceeded from merely human sources. It is an obvious principle of our nature that the conscience will not charge guilt on the soul for disobedience, when the command proceeds from a fellow man who is not recognised as having the prerogative and the right to require submission. And besides, as men’s minds are variously constituted, and of various capacities, there could be no agreement in such a case concerning the question, ‘What is truth?’ As well might we expect two schoolboys to reform each other’s manners in school, without the aid of the teacher’s authority, as that men can reform their fellows without the sanction of that authority which will quicken and bind the conscience. The human conscience was made to recognise and enforce the authority of God; and unless there is belief in the Divine obligation of truth, conscience refuses to perform its office.

But the grand difficulty is this:—Truth, whether sanctioned by conscience or not, has no power, as has been shown, to produce love in the heart. The law may convict and guide the mind, but it has no power to soften or to change the affections. This was the precise thing necessary, and this necessary end the wisdom of the world could not accomplish. All the wisdom of all the philosophers in all ages could never cause the affections of the soul to rise to the holy, blessed God. To destroy selfish pride, and produce humility—to eradicate the evil passions, and produce in the soul desires for the universal good, and love for the universal Parent, were beyond the reach of earthly wisdom and power. The wisdom of the world in their efforts to give truth and happiness to the human soul, was foolishness with God; and the wisdom of God—Christ crucified—was foolishness with the philosophers, in relation to the same subject;[37] yet it was Divine philosophy: an adapted means, and the only adequate means, to accomplish the necessary end. Said an apostle, in speaking upon this subject: ‘The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness: but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.’ The Jews, while they required a sign, did not perceive that miracles, in themselves, were not adapted to produce affection. And the Greeks, while they sought after wisdom, did not perceive that all the wisdom of the Gentiles would never work love in the heart. But the apostle preached ‘Christ crucified,’ an exhibition of self-denial, of suffering, and of self-sacrificing love and mercy, endured in behalf of men; which, when received by faith, became ‘the power of God, and the wisdom of God,’ to produce love and obedience in the human soul. Paul understood the efficacy of the cross. He looked to Calvary and beheld Christ crucified as the sun of the Gospel system. Not as the moon, reflecting cold and borrowed rays; but as the Sun of righteousness, glowing with radiant mercy, and pouring warm beams of life and love into the open bosom of the believer.

[37] From an observation of one of the Fathers, it would seem that after the Gospel had been preached among the Greeks, many of them perceived its adaptedness to accomplish the end for which they had sought in vain. ‘Philosophy,’ says Clemens, of Alexandria, ‘led the Greeks to Christ, as the law did the Jews.’

Concluding paragraph of the apology of M. Minucius Felix in defence of Christianity, A.D. 250:

‘To conclude: the sum of our boasting is, that we are got into possession of what the philosophers have been always in quest of; and what, with all their application, they could never find. Why, then, so much ill-will stirring against us? If Divine truth is come to perfection in our time, let us make a good use of the blessing; let us govern our knowledge with discretion; let superstition and impiety be no more; and let true religion triumph in their stead.’ [Back]