Py el) OS ah , emerge nbs Sea tll elcid etc ages Reclianiaaee nai Rascal Mec Haas shi marlin aha ts wD ADT TNT Tat Cee Arann nee tmp ememn tte nm raiilelaiman - te er anil eed Pa ae Men ee Ad ttc ali all i ‘Sea DUKE UNIVERSITY DIVINITY SCHOOL LIBRARY MANUAL OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS. BY ALVAH HOVEY, D.D.,LL.D., —_ PRESIDENT OF NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION, PHILADELPHIA: AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 1420 CHESTNUT STREET. 4 BEACON STREET, Boston; 71 RANDOLPH STREET, CHICAGO; 9 Murray STREET, New York; 209 N. SixtH Street, St. Louis, COPYRIGHT —- 1877 — BY ALVAH HOVEY. _B ; j tte Pi 4 ey AY \ f a * « , / * . / . A * Mi eo bs ! i ; . ‘ bs x = . - - 4. PREFACE. It is proper for me to state that this Manual is intended, first of all, for the use of students under my instruction; and that the brief treatment which.is here given to many topics is only meant to prepare the way for ample discussion in the class-room. This primary design of the book is also my apology for quoting several Latin sentences without translation; for re-translating a few passages of the New Testament; for giving in some instances the Greek original of an important word or clause; for referring to theological works in foreign languages; and for calling attention to published articles or minor treatises of my own, which exhibit a little more fully than does this Manual, the considerations that favor some of the views here presented. The same circumstance has had more or less influence upon the manner in which certain difficult questions are treated; since my aim in teaching is to secure candid and thorough study on the part of those under my care, rather than to give them, in a dogmatic spirit, the results of my own investigation. Whether a Manual of Theology and Ethics, prepared in this way, will be of any service to ministers of the gospel, iv Preface. teachers of Bible-classes, or other thoughtful Christians, must depend in a great measure upon the care with which they examine the biblical passages referred to in the volume. For, if the work has any merit, this merit will be found in its orderly statement of the evidence which goes to prove that the Scriptures are a trustworthy revelation of the divine will; and in its erderly presentation of the blessed truths which are taught by the Scriptures. In other words, the _ treatment of nearly every topic is biblical, rather than philo- sophical, and will be found useful in proportion to the care with which the Bible is consulted, ALVAH HOVEY., NEWTON CENTRE, July 2, 1877. INDEX. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. PAGES. Ae AO TNO THEO Neatreg fo) Pench Mak mx iiPaiinibs Yell gi a) ey. WA Pe ney, O20 Definitions, 9-11; Assumptions, 12-13; Cautions, 13-14; Qualifi- cations, 14-15; Benefits, 15-16; Topics, 17-18; Writers, 18-26. PE REIS TENCE OP GOD; S54) ey a se ve 2 42 Preliminary Observations, 27-28; Ten Propositions Stated and Defended, 28-40; Theistic Arguments in the Usual Form, 40-42. (Eur PEIEEE VM RONMNGOD,, « '. vs 4c shee) e's fee ete, (43 —87 Preliminary Considerations, 43-45; The New Testament History Credible, 45-53; Christ Jesus Infallible, 53-67; Promise of Inspi- ration to the Apostles, 67-73; The Old Testament Endorsed by Christ and his Apostles, 73-77; The Inspiration of the Sacred Writers Different from that of Ordinary Christians, 78-79; It made them Infallible Teachers, 79-81; Nature of their Inspiration, 81; Sources of their Knowledge, 82-83; Objections to this Doctrine ~ Considered, 83-87. Dee ERMECTION; OR? GOD! 656 Re) ify ee 88-107 Modes of God’s Existence, 88-92; Attributes of God, 92-96; Pur- pose of God, 96-99; Creation by God through the Word, 99-101; Preservation by God through the Word, to1—102; Providence of God in Christ, 102-104; Angels and their Service, 105-117. vi Index. THE DOCTRINE OF MAN, .. 94 5 54 6 « « = ne The Unity of Mankind, 118-119; The Essential Elements of Human Nature, 120-123; The Endless Existence of Man, 123- 125; The Moral Constitution of Man, 125-133; The Reality of Sin in Mankind, 133-136; The Nature of Sin in Mankind, 136-140; The Extent of Sin in Mankind, 140-143; The Degree of Sin in Mankind, 143-144; The Accountability of Men for their Sinful- ness, 144-151; The Penalty of Sin, 151-168; The Results of Sin, 168 — 170. ~ THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION, . 3... © 3) The Person of Christ: —The Deity of Christ, 171-190; The Humanity of Christ, 190-192; The Personal Oneness of. Christ, 192-194} Effect of the Incarnation on the Higher Nature of Christ, 194-204; Effect of the Incarnation on the Lower Nature of Christ, 204-207; The Work of Christ : —Propitiation by Jesus Christ, 207-230; Rev- elation by Christ, 231-234; Government by Christ, 234; Zhe Person of the Holy Spirit: — Deity of the Holy Spirit, 235; Personality of the Holy Spirit, 235-240; Identity of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God, 240-241; Work of the Holy Spirit, 241-242; Doctrine of Redemption: — The Nature of Regeneration, 242—246; The Author of Regeneration, 246-247; Relation of Christian Truth to Regener- ation, 247-252; The Error of Baptismal Regeneration, 252-2565*" Antecedents on the Part of Man to Regeneration, 256-258; The i 3 Doctrine of Election, 258-261; First Fruits of Regeneration in ~ F Experience, 261-263; The Nature of Justification, 264-266; The Author of Justification, 266-267; The Ground of Justification, 267 - 268; The Condition of Justification, 268-269; Reasonableness of this Doctrine, 269-272; Sanctification, 273-274; The Nature of Sanctification, 274; The Author of Sanctification, 274-276; The Means of Sanctification: A. Providential Discipline, 276-278; B. Religious Truth, 278-279; C. Christian Action, 279-285 ; D. Church Life, 286-288; E. The Lord’s Day, 288-292; The Period of Sanctifi- cation, 292-295; The Certainty of Sanctification, 295-299. Index. Vil CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ORDINANCES, . . . . « 300-344 Christian Churches, 300-312; Christian Ordinances: Baptism, 312- 333; The External Rite, 313-320; The Significance of the Rite, 320-323; The Subjects of the Rite, 323-326; Infant Baptism Unscriptural, 326-330; Relation of the Rite to John’s Baptism, 330-333; The Lord’s Supper, 333-344; The External Rite, 334- 335; The Import of the Ordinance, 335-337; The Proper Communi- cants, 337 — 344- DocTRINE OF THE Last THINGS,. . ...... 345-364 Natural Death, 345; The Intermediate State, 345-349; The Second Advent of Christ, 349-351; The Resurrection of the Dead, 351- 354; The Last Judgment, 354-358; The Final State of Unbelievers, 358-362; The Final State of Believers, 362-364. CHRISTIAN ETHICS. PAGES. ITRODUCTION, « 2.2 © 2 0 600s = « ) sn Definition and Position of the Science, 365; Ground of Right, 365-369; Rule of Right, 369-371; Imperfection of Man’s Ethical Knowledge, 371; Consequences of this Imperfection, 371 —372. CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO GoD, . . 373-376 Supreme Love to God, 373; His Honor the Highest Motive to Action, 373-374; Unceasing Worship or Prayer, 374; The Con- «~ duct of Public Worship, 374-375; Especially Prayer, 375-376. CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO ONE'S SELF, 376-381 Inference from the Second Command, Love to Man, 376; Moral Nature of Man, or Conscience, 376-377; Culture of Conscience, 377-378; Culture of Devout Affections, 379; Culture of Mental Powers, 379-380; Of the Senses and Sensibilities, is Of the Bodily Powers, 380-381. CHRISTIAN CONDUCT WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER MEN, 381-416 Examination of the Golden Rule, 381-383; Christian Conduct in Church Relations, 383-389; In Domestic Relations, 389-393; Duties of Masters to Servants, 393-399; And of Servants to Mas- ters, 399-400; In Social Relations, 401-403; In Business Relations, 403-406; Appendix on the Use of Money, 406-410; And in Civil Relations, 410-411; As Subjects of Government, 411-412; As Sup- porters.of Government, 412; As Officers of Government, 412— 415; As Reformers of Government, 415-416. y \ ‘ | MANUAL OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, INTRODUCTION. ‘ I. DEFINITIONS. In its primary and strict sense, Theology is the science of God; that is, an orderly exposition of the evidences of the existence and perfection of God. Used in this sense, it is the name of one Division of Systematic Theology, and is often called Theology Proper. But the term is also used as a sub- stitute for the expression, Systematic Theology, and will be so employed in this Manual.’ "Systematic Theology ts a scientific exposition of the various doctrines of the Christian religion, showing their true character, their proper foundations, and their mutual inter-dependence. + It presupposes a knowledge of Biblical Theology; it in- cludes Theology Proper and Apologetic Theology in part; and it provides materials for both Polemical and Comparative Theology. ; Religion, equivalent to veligio, from relegere or religare, is, first, piety, or a reverent and dutiful spirit towards God, manifested in conduct; and, secondly, the means by which this spirit is originated, sustained, and expressed, or the facts, principles, rites, and duties which are believed, observed, 1 Suicer’s “Thesaurus,” sub voce Seodoyia ; Turretin (F.) “Theologia,” &c. I. 1. i. q. i.; Gerhard (J.) “Loci Theologici;” I. Proem.; Fleming (W.) “Vo- cabulary of Philosophy,” s. v. Theology; Herzog “ Real-Encyklopadie,” s. v. “Theologie;” Thomas Aquinas, “Summa,” Pt. I. q. i. art. 2. “A Deo docetur, Deum docet, et ad Deum ducit.” 2 “Bib. Sac.” I. 178-217, 332-367, 552-578, 726-735; “Am. Bib. Repos.” for 1845, 457 sq.; “Chr. Rev.” xx. 492-506; xxi. 66-82; Hagenbach (K. R.) “Theologische Encyklopadie;” Herzog *‘ Real-Encyklopiadie,” s. v. “ Dogmatik.” fe) Manual of Systematic Theology or performed by him who has this spirit. In the definition of systematic theology, given above, it has of course the second meaning.’ Biblical Theology is used to sigrfify a critical exposition of . the religious doctrines taught by the successive writers of the Bible, or, in other words, a history of the development of religious doctrine among the Jews. It does not assume the inspiration of the seen: nor the substantial unity of their teaching.? Apologetic Theology is a scientific exposition of the evi- dences of Christianity. It pre-supposes a good knowledge of the Bible, and of the History of the Christian religion, if not of systematic theology. But it may be included in systematic theology, as defined above, since the “foundations” of belief in the doctrines of the Christian religion are to be examined in systematic theology.’ Polemical Theology is distinguished from Apologetic, by being, on the one hand, more aggressive, and, on- the other, more denominational. It is not a defence of the Christian religion as a whole, but rather an attack upon certain alleged perversions of it.* Comparative Theology is an exposition of the points of agreement and of difference between the great systems of religious belief and worship which prevail among men, with a 1 Cicero (M. T.) “De Nat. Deor.” ii. 28; Lactantius (F.) “Inst. Div.” iv. 28 ; Miiller (J. G.) in “Studien und Kritiken” for 1835; Herzog “Real-Encyklo- padie,” s. v. “ Religion; ” Bib. Sac. ix. 374-417; “Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theolo- gie und Kirche,” viii. S.715 ff.; x.S. 718 ff.; xi, S. 254 ff.; Redslob (G. M.) “Zur Etymologie des Wortes Religio, ” in St. u. Kr. 1841, 43. 2 Herzog “ Real-Encyk.” s. v. ii. S. 219 sq.; Reuss (E.) “History of Chris- tian Theology in the Apostolic Age; ” Schmid (C. F.) “ Theology of the N. T.;” Messner (H.) “Die Lehre der Apostel;” Weiss (B.) “Theologie des N. T.;” Oehler (G. F.) “Theology of the Old Test.;” Schultz (H.) “ Alttestamentliche Theologie ; ” “‘ Presby. Quarterly, and Princeton Rev.” for 1877, 5 sq. 3 Ebrard (J. H. A.) “ Apologetik, oder Wissenschaftliche Rechtfertigung des Christenthums ;” and works noticed in Part Second. 4 All controversial works of Roman Catholics against Protestants, Pedobap- tists against Baptists, Unitarians against Trinitarians, and vice versa, are embraced in this great branch of theology. Introduction. Tl view to ascertaining their origin, credibility, and influence. This. science is yet in its infancy.! In this treatise, all the doctrines of the Christian religion are supposed to be drawn from the Scriptures, and set forth in their logical order; so that they may stand before the mind as a system of religious truth. By limiting the doctrines of Christian theology to those which are either plainly taught or implied by the Scriptures, we (a) pay suitable respect to the Word of God; (4) guard ourselves from the danger of interpreting that Word into harmony with our independent speculations; (c) habituate our minds to a method of discussing Christian doctrines, safe in itself and adapted to the pulpit; (¢) obtain the clear- est and deepest views of religious truth; and (ce) derive the greatest spiritual benefit from our studies. The possibility of showing the mutual consistency and inter-dependence of the doctrines of the Christian religion may be said to depend (a) upon their truth, for truth is always self-consistent ; (6) upon the proportion of the re- vealed to the unrevealed doctrines of the system; (¢) upon the clearness with which the connection between different parts of the system is revealed; and (d) upon the kind of affinity which exists between natural and revealed religion. Many facts here put together are revealed but in part, and therefore their agreement with one another can be seen but in part. A perfect system pre-supposes perfect knowledge in him who describes it. Some degree of prominence must be given to the special theological questions of the day, though it is necessary to guard against the mistake of supposing that the leading questions of to-day will be such to the end of time. One is more apt to lay undue stress upon that which now agitates society than to withhold from it fit attention. 1 Clarke (J. F.) “The Ten Great Religions;” Moffat (J. C.) “A Comparative Viistory of Religions;” Hardwick (C.) “Christ and other Masters;” Miiller (Max) “Chips from a German Workshop ;” Legge (J.) “The Chinese Classics; ” Bigandet (P.) “The Life or Legend of Gaudama;” Johnson (S.) “Oriental Religions.” € 12 Manual of Systematic Theology. II. ASSUMPTIONS. The normal action of the mind must be trusted. For a denial of the general veracity of our mental action nullifies* itself; because we indorse the action by accepting the denial, since the denial itself is a mental act.' Evidence is that which tends to produce belief in the mind to-which it is offered; unless it would be better to say, it is that which tends to produce knowledge or belief in the mind. The value of evidence is always, therefore, to be measured by the power which it has to originate knowledge, or to produce belief in the mind of man. There is no other standard of its value known to mortals. Even God approaches men as those who can and must judge for themselves. He never demands faith without sufficient evidence. Evidence may be divided into several classes, as that which | is afforded (a) by primitive beliefs, judgments, and intuitions; _ (6) by distinct perception or recollection; and (c) by testi- mony or analogy.” Probable evidence rests upon testimony or analogy. Some persons reduce these to one, namely, Analogy. But this is scarcely correct; for the human mind seems to be naturally pre-disposed to accept the testimony of a fellow-man.° Probable evidence may be indubitable, satisfactory, or weak. Its force is determined by its effect on the mind, and is found to be of every degree, from just above zero to moral demonstration. 1 Compare the remarks of Hamilton (W.) in “Philosophy of Common Sense,” p. 21 sq. (Edition Igy Wight.) 2 McCosh (J.) “Intuitions of the Human Mind.” He speaks of Primitizs Cognitions, as of Body, Spirit, Substance, Power; of Prim. Beliefs, as of Space, Time, The Infinite; and of Prim. Judgments, as to Identity or Difference, the Whole and its Parts, &c. 3 Gambier (J. E.) “Guide to the Study of Moral Evidence;” Butler (J.) “‘ An- alogy,” Pt. Il. 67 sq.; Hopkins (M.) “ Lowell Lectures on the Evidences of Chris- tianity,” 23 sq.; Greenleaf (S.) “A Treatise on the Law of Evidence,” Pt. I. ec. I, IIL, IV.; Jabrbiicher, 1867, 583 sq-; Chlebes (W.) “Uber das Verhiliniss von Groner und Wissen,” in St. a. Kr. 1846, S. 905 ff. Introduction. - 13 As the judgment goes with the stronger probable evidence, so the conduct should obey the judgment and honor the evi- dence. Probability is the guide of life;.and the soundest mind is the one that can best perceive the force of probable evidence. ; : III. CAUTIONS. Human reason is finite, and therefore unable to compre- hend what is infinite. Indeed, it is unable to comprehend in full many objects that are strictly finite, as, for example, the ocean." Yet it can know, in part, that which is truly infinite as well as that which is indefinitely great. For a reality which is, in some respects, infinite and indefinable may be, in other. respects, definable. Thus, an infinite mind may be known as mind; that is, as intelligent, voluntary, benevolent, &c., but not directly as infinite. It can be classified as mind, but not comprehended as unlimited in power, knowledge, benevo- lence. Moreover, human reason may have convincing evidence that something infinite exists, though it has never compre- hended the infinite; just as it may have convincing evidence that many things exist which, though not strictly infinite, are known to transcend human knowledge. There is need of special caution in treating of the rela- tions of the infinite and the finite; for one of the terms is never fully known. Consider, for example, the fact that two points in space, though but an inch apart, may be made to ~ 1 Mansel (H. L.) “ Limits of Religious Thought,” and “ Philosophy of the Con- ditioned; ” Spencer (H.) “First Principles of a New System of Philosophy,” Pt. I.; McCosh (J.) “The Intuitions of the Human Mind;” Young (J.) “ The Province of Reason: ” Rogers (H.) “ Reason and Faith,” “The Eclipse of Faith,” ‘Defence of the Eclipse of Faith ;” Calderwood (H.) “ Philosophy of the Infinite ; ” “Bib. Sac.” VI. p. 673 sq.; “Am. Theol. Rev.” for 1860, p. I sq-—both articles by Prof. H. B. Smith; “Am. Presb. Rev.” for 1870, p. 1 sq., by Prof. H. N. Day; Boyle (R.) “On Things Above Reason,” and “On the Veneration which Man’s Intellect owes to God;” Hamilton (W.) “ Philosophical Testimonies to the Lim- itation of our Knowledge from the Limitation of our Faculties ” in “‘ Phil. Dis- cussions,” p. 591 sq.; Baptist Review, I. 1 sq. 14 Manual of Systematic Theology. approach each other forever without meeting. Here finite distance is matched with infinite motion in time, and seems to be its equal. So, too, finite wills seem to act freely, and even capriciously, under an infinite will, yet without obstruct- ing its action. 3 The study of theology is, throughout, a study of the rela- © tions of finite beings to an infinite Being; and therefore great caution is necessary. Better leave many blanks in the system than go beyond the warrant of facts. IV. QUALIFICATIONS. Mental: soundness of judgment and power of systematic thought.. For the questions to be considered are numerous and difficult; the evidence to be weighed is manifold and easily perverted; and a mistake at one point is sure to bring in darkness orerror at other points. Good sense, rather than genius, is needed in the study of theology.’ Moral: fairness of mind and deep reverence for truth. The doctrines of the Bible should be examined with perfect candor. Indifference is impossible; but docility and a love of truth that overcomes prejudice are within the reach of every honest student. “Non pigebit me, sicubi haesito, quee- rere; nec pudebit, sicubi erro, discere. Quisque audit hoc vel legit, ubi pariter certus est, pergat mecum; ubi pariter heesitat, quaerat mecum; ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat ad me;. ubi meum, revocet me.” (Aug. De Trin. 1, 2.) Religious: faith, love, humility, docility, fruits of the pres- ence of the Spirit of God in the soul. The importance of these is admitted by,nearly all theologians. ‘The Scrip- tures,” says Andrew Fuller, “exhibit a beauty and a life utterly incomprehensible to an unholy mind.” “We must love divine things in order to know them,” says Pascal. Says. Bernard of Clairvaux, “Tantum Deus cognoscitur quantum 1 Goddard (C.) “The Mental Condition necessary to due Inquiry into Reli- gious Evidence;” “ Duties of a Theologian,” in “ Bib, Repos.” for 1839, p. 347: sq: Introduction. 15 diligitur; orando facilius quam -disputando et dignius Deus cognoscitur et invenitur;” and Anselm, “Credo ut intelligam” (cf. “Cur Deus Homo?” c, 25). See JoHN vii. 17; 1 Cor. ii. Sitges Sa XX Genexix TS4, MX? Educational: knowledge of biblical interpretation and acquaintance with mental philosophy, with physical science, and with the history of religious thought. The first of these, interpretation, is far more important than either of the others. Hollaz mentions these conditions as pre-requisite to sound interpretation: (a) “Invocatio Dei, patris luminum; (4) Notitia idiomatis quo sacra Scriptura legitur; (¢) Attenta con- sideratio phrasium, scopi, antecedentium et consequentium ; (2) Depulsio preconceptarum opinionum et pravorum affec- tuum,” : " V. BENEFITS. The study of theology ought to improve and satisfy the mind of the student. For the mind was made for the appre- hension of truth as evidently as the lungs were made for the reception of air. Moreover, related truths belong to a sys- tem; they stand together and support each other. Hence a knowledge of their relations is required by the mind. ? Says Liicke: “I am of the opinion that the scientific in- terest which calls for systematic theology is for the most part different from that which calls for historical or critical theology. It is the systematic interest, and not the subordi- nate interest in the organic arrangement of given historical 1 Edwards (B. B.) “Influence of Eminent Piety on the Intellectual Powers,” in “Christian Rev.” for 1840, p. 1 sq.; Luthardt (C. E.) “ Die Lehre vom freien Willen,” S. 388 sq.; Augustini (A.) Opera, Vol. II. p. 453, ep. 120, ed. J. P. Migne; Anselm “Cur Deus Homo,” I. 2; Leathes (S.) “The Witmess of the Old Test. to Christ,” p. 140; Miiller (J.) “The Christian Doctrine of Sin,” I. p. 178 s. 2 Shedd (W. G. T.) “The Method and Influence of Theological Studies,” “Discourses and Essays,” p. 7 sq.; Sears (B.) “ An Educated Ministry,” in “ Chr. Rev.,”” Vol. XVIII. p. 567 sq.; Robinson (E. G.) “ Doctrine and Life,” in “Chr. Rey.” for 1859, p. 161 sq.; Hovey (A.) “The Study of Doctrinal Theology Use- ful to Pastors,” in “Chr. Rev.” 1863, p. 646 sq.; “The Christian Pastor; his Work, and the Needful Preparation;” Chalmers (T.) ‘Institutes of Theol ogy,” I. p. 353 sq-; Bonifas “The Relative Value of Christian Doctrine,” ia “Theological Eclectic” for 1870; Wayland (F.) “The Apostolic Ministry.” 16 Manual of Systematic Theology. material, the interest in so representing the doctrines of Christian faith and action in their absolute truth that all doubt and contradiction and internal incoherence of Chris- tian thinking may vanish away.” It should also purify and protect the conscience. For the doctrines of Christianity are sacred: perversion of them is a great sin; and therefore no teacher can innocently neglect the best knowledge of them within his reach. To teach them positively, and so effectively, without doing violence to conscience, he must study them thoroughly, with the best helps within his reach. It should, at the same time, deepen, as well as test, his religious life. Some of the truths, plainly taught in the Scriptures, and claiming the attention of a student of the- ology, are fitted to try his faith and humility severely. But, if he bears the trial, a great blessing follows. “Light is sown for the righteous.” Christian knowledge is favorable to deep piety. Ignorance is not the mother of real devotion. It should make his preaching more truthful and comprehen- sive. A man should preach what he intelligently believes. Beyond that he cannot go with safety to himself or to others. Not only in reaching the impenitent, but also and especially in edifying Christians, does a knowledge of theology serve a minister of the gospel. It should both augment and improve his influence over others for their good. A minister’s success is equal to the balance of good over evil in his influence, whether that influence be direct or indirect. A right, as well as a deep impression is to be made.? 1 Nitzsch (C. I.) “ Praktische Theologie,” III. I. S. 90 sq. 2 “Sunt qui scire volunt eo tantum fine ut sciant, et turpis curiositas est; et sunt qui scire volunt ut sciantur ipsi, et turpis vanitas est; et sunt item qui scire volunt ut scientiam suam vendant, verbi caus, pro pecunia, pro honoribus, et turpis quzstus est. Sed sunt quoque qui scire volunt ut edificent, et charitas est; et item qui scire volunt ut zedificentur, et prudentia est.” Again: “Ut lege- ret intelligendi fecit cupiditas; ut intelligeret oratio impetravit; ut impetraret vitee sanctitas promeruit. Sic cupiat, sic oret, sic vivat qui se proficere velit.” St. Bernard, Sermo XXXVI. super Cant. p. 604. Introduction. 17 VI. TOPICS. I. THe EXIsTENCE oF Gop. II. THE BIBLE FRom Gop. III. THE PERFECTION OF GoD. IV. THE Doctrine or MAN. V. THE DocTRINE OF SALVATION. VI. CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND ORDINANCES. VII. THE Doctrine or THE Last THINGS. Whether this arrangement of topics is the best possible must be left for the present undecided. Against it, one objection may be raised, to wit, that the first and third topics belong naturally together; but, in response, it may be said, that the second topic is in its place, because it pre- supposes the first, and is pre-supposed by the third. The arrangement of topics given above is practically fol- lowed by nearly all theologians, and is adopted formally by many; for example, Turretin, Hodge, Miiller, Wardlaw, and others. Calvin, Marheinecke, Martensen, and others, regard all Christian truth as embraced in the Doctrines of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The baptismal formula, and the early creeds may have suggested this view; but it gives no suitable and sufficient place to Anthropology. Liebner, Thomasius, Fuller, and others, would have the person and work of Christ embrace all Christian truth. This view, however, tends. to subordinate unduly the work of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, and to make the incarnation of the Word indispensable, even apart from sin. Oosterzee and, partly, Augustine, make the Kingdom of God the ruling idea of all theological truth. I. God: The King. II. Man: The Subject. III. Christ: The Founder of the Kingdom. IV. Redemption: The Character of the Kingdom. V. The Way of Salvation: The Law of the Kingdom. VI. The Church: Its Training School. VII. The Completion of the Kingdom. 18 Manual of Systematic Theology. Hase, in “ Hutterus Redivivus,’ makes Reconciliation, through Christ, the regulative idea. I. The Sources: Bible (and Nature). II. The Object: God. III. The Subject: Man. IV. The Means: Christ, &c. V. The Result: Réc- onciliation. VII. WRITERS ON SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, The following contains the names of a few men who dis- cussed particular doctrines only; but most of those men- tioned treated in their works of all the doctrines which they included in theology. 1. ATHANASIUS was born in Alexandria about A.D. 300, and died there in A.D. 373. His doctrinal writings are the following: 1. A Discourse respecting the Incarnation and the Logos. 2. An Exposi- tion of his Faith in the Trinity. 3. A Letter on the Decrees of the Nicene Council. 4. A Letter on the Doctrine of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. 5. Four Orations against the Arians. 6. A Letter to Serapion. 7. Another to Epic- tetus; and 8. A Treatise, in two books, against Apollinaris. All these works relate to the Divinity of Christ, or to the doctrine of the Trinity, in some of its aspects. Athanasius is a clear, logical, and earnest writer. No one of the Greek fathers is worthy of so careful study as a theologian. 2. AUGUSTINE was born Nov. 13, 353, and died Aug. 26, 430. His doctrinal works are very numerous; and, apart from his De Civitate Det, a work even more comprehen- sive and doctrinal than Edwards’s “ History of Redemption,” may be arranged in three classes. 1. Those which relate to the Trinity, in opposition to the Arians and Manichzans. 2. Those which relate to Anthropology, in opposition to the Pelagians ; and, 3. Those which relate to the polity and purity of the Church in opposition to the Donatists. These works evince fair scholarship, great depth and acute- ness of thought, a vigorous imagination, and oftentimes fervid piety. Introduction. 19 3. Joun of Damascus was born somewhat prior to A.D. 700, at Damascus. The time of his death is unknown; but it was between A.D. 754 and 787. His principal Treatise was entitled, “An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” It is the earliest work on systematic the- ology, but not strictly original. It is composed largely of quotations from the fathers of the Church, with connecting and explanatory remarks. 4. ANSELM of CANTERBURY was born in A.D. 1033, at Aosta, of Piedmont, and died a.D. 1109. His theological writings were as follows: 1. Monologium de Divinitatis essentia. 2. Proslogion de Dei extstentia. 3. De fide Trinitatis et de incarnatione Verbt. 4. Cur Deus Homo?* The second contains his famous @ priorz demon- stration of the existence of God, and the fourth is the earliest elaborate statement of the commercial theory of the Atone- ment. 5. PETER of LomBarDy was born near Novara, in Lom- bardy, about a.D. 1100, and died, according to some author- ities, in A.D. 1160; according to others, in A.D. 1164. His great work in theology was entitled Sententiarum Libri Quatuor. It resembles somewhat the Treatise of John of Damascus, but evinces much greater acutenéss. It quotes from the fathers, and attempts to reconcile their conflicting views. “The Sentences” was for a long time used as a text-book on theology in Catholic universities. Teachers lectured upon it, as they did on the works of Aristotle. 6. THomas AQUINAS was born in A.D. 1227, at Aquino, in Campania, and died in a.p. 1274. His principal work was entitled Swmma Theologica, and divided into three parts. In Part First, he treats of the Being and Attributes of God, of Predestination, Providence, and the Trinity; of Angels; of the Creation of our World; and of Man,—his nature, primi tive state, the origin of evil, free will, the penalty of sin, &c. 1 Translated in the “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. VIII. 2 Translated in the “ Bib, Sacra,” Vol. XI., XII. 20 Manual of Systematic Theology. In Part Second, he treats of the powers of the human soul, the nature and extent of moral law, and indeed of all ques- tions in Christian Ethics. In Part Third, he treats of the Person and Work of Christ, and of the Sacraments. "Aquinas belonged to the Augustinian school of theologians. 7. MELANCTHON (P.) was born at Brettin, in Baden, Feb. 16, 1497; spent most of his life at Wittenberg, as professor in the University, and died April 19, 1560. His chief theolog- ical work was entitled Loci Communes. It grew out of lectures on the Epistle to the Romans; and passing lightly over the doctrines of God, the Trinity, the Creation, and the Person of Christ, — doctrines which had hitherto occupied the prin- cipal place in systematic theology, —he gave the body of his work to the doctrine of Redemption. Depravity, the will, regeneration, justification, and similar themes, were fully dis- cussed. In the first edition, he reproduced the Augustinian system; but he afterwards adopted a substantially Arminian view. 8. CaLvin (J.) was born in Picardy, at Noyon, July 10, 1509, and died in Geneva, May 19, 1564. His commentaries are theological as well as exegetical. - But he also wrote a treatise on Christian Doctrine, entitled Institutio Christiane Religionis. The great features of his system are well understood. 9. HuTTER (L.) was born in January, 1563, at Nellingen, near Ulm, and died at Wittenberg, Oct. 23, 1616. His theological works are the following: 1. Lzbri Chrts- tiane Concordia Explicatio. 2. Compendium locorum Theolog- icorum, to take the place of. Melancthon’s Locz Communes, on account of the “crypto—Calvinism”’ of the latter.’ Locé Communes Theologict, more copious than the preceding. All these are Lutheran authorities. 10. GERHARD (J.) was born at Quedlinburg, Oct. 17, 1582, and died at Jena, Aug. 20, 1637. . His theological works are: 1. Doctrina Catholica et Evan- 1 Reproduced by Hase, “Hutterus Redivivus,” translated into English, and published in Philadelphia, 1868. Introduction. 21 gelica, 3 vols. 2. Loct Communes Theologici, 9 vols. This work may be considered a thesaurus of Lutheran theology. 11. Grotius (H.) was born at Delft, in Holland, in 1553, passed mest of his life in Holland and France, was a very distinguished scholar and writer, and died Aug. 29, 1645. Two of his works deserve notice. 1. His treatise, De veritate Religionis Christiane, a comprehensive and learned treatise on the truth of Christianity; and, 2, his Defensza fidet Catholice de satisfactione Christi adversus F. Socinum The Grotian theory of the Atonement is nearly equivalent to what is now called the Rectoral view. Grotius was a decided Arminian. 12. Episcopius (S.) was born at Amsterdam, in January, 1583, where also he died in 1643. His theological works were: 1. Confessio seu declaratio sententie pastorum Remonstrantium. 2. Institutiones Theolog- tc@, —lectures at Amsterdam, to his students. 3. Responsio ad questiones Theologicas, 64. Episcopius hesitated as to the divinity of Christ, and esteemed the doctrine of his super- natural birth of no consequence. 13. QUENSTEDT (J. A.) was born at Quedlinburg, in the year 1617, and died at Wittenberg, May 22, 1688. His chief work was entitled, Zheologia Didactico-polemica, sive systema Theologicum, in 2 vols. It is learned, compre- hensive, logical, though less attractive in style than the work of Turretin. 14. TuRRETIN (F.) was born in Geneva, Oct. 17, 1623, where also he died, Sept. 28, 1687. His chief work is entitled, Jvstitutio Theologie Elenctice. The first two volumes are very able, and for the most part correct. 15. BuppeEus (J. F.) was born at Anclam, June 25, 1667, and died at Jena, Nov. 19, 1729. Qf his writings we mention the following: 1. /vstztutiones Theslogie Moralis. 2. Theses de Athetsmo et Superstitione. 3. Institutiones Theologie Dogmatice, — a valuable treatise. 16. STAPFER (J. F.) was born at Brougg, in 1708, and died at Diesbach, of Berne, in 1775. 22 Manual of Systematic Theology. His theological works were: 1. Justitutiones Theologia Polemice, five volumes. The first volume of this work is ¢ masterpiece of its kind. 2. “Grounds of the True Religion,” twelve volumes. 3. “Christian Ethics,” six volumes. Some oi these works are diffuse, but they all evince logical power. 17. MosHeEtm (J. L.) was born at Lubec, Oct, 9, 1694, and died at Gottingen, Sept. 9, 1755. He is chiefly remembered as an Ecclesiastical historian ; but he wrote also on systematic theology. 1. His “ Ethics of the Holy Scriptures,” in five volumes; and, 2, “ Elements of Dogmatic Theology.” The style of this latter work is remarkably perspicuous ; and one who has but a slight knowl- edge of Latin can read it without difficulty. 18. MELCHIOR CANUS was born at Tarraco, Spain, about A.D. 1500, and died in 1560. His chief theological work was entitled, Locz Theologicz, in twelve books. It treats of the sources of Christian doctrines, namely, Scripture and Tradition, the Arrangement of these doctrines, and the proper Method of discussion. 19. BELLARMIN (R.) was born in Tuscany, Oct. 4, 1542, and died at Rome, Sept. 27, 1621. His work, entitled, Dzsputationes de Controversits Christiane jidet adv. hujus temporis hereticos, discusses all points then in debate between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. It is not intentionally unjust to the Protestants; and it lays open the papal system without disguise. 20. JANSENIUS (O.) was born, Oct. 28, 1585, at “Accoy, near Leerdam, North Holland, and died May 6, 1638. His principal work was entitled, Augustinus seu doctrina St. Augustint de humane nature sanitate, egritudine, medicina, adversus Pelagianos, &c. It is a work of great ability, and sets forth the Augustinian theology with precision and vigor. He is said to have read the writings of Augustine against the Pelagians twenty times, and the rest of his writings ten times through. 21. Bunyan (J.) was born in 1628, at Elstow, near Bedford, and died Aug. 31, 1688. Lntroduction. 23 Of his writings, the following may be mentioned as theo- logical in substance, if not in form: 1. “ Justification by an Imputed Righteousness.” 2, “The Work of Christ as an Advocate.” 3. “Saved by Grace.” 4. “The Law and Grace unfolded.” 5. “Some Gospel Truths opened; Divine and Human Nature of Christ.” 6. “Defence of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith.” 7. “ Election and Reprobation.” 22. GILL (J.) was born at Kettering, Nov. 23, 1697, and died at Horsleydown, Oct. 14, 1771. He is chiefly known as a commentator, and was very familiar with Rabbinical works. His “ Body of Divinity” is a highly Calvinistic work, evinc- ing considerable ability. 23. FULLER (A.) was born Feb. 6, 1754, at Wicken, and died at Kettering, May, 7, 1815. His works, like those of Bunyan, are for the most part theological. The following, however, may be specified: 1. “Letters on Systematic Divinity.” 2. “The Gospel its own Witness.” 3 “ The Gospel worthy of all Acceptation.” 4. “The Calvinistic and Socinian Systems compared.” 5. “ Dialogues, &c., between Crispus and Gaius.” 6. “ Con- versations between Peter, James, and John.” The writings of Fuller are remarkably clear, discriminating, and sound. 24. Dace (J. L.) “ Manual of Theology and of Church Polity,’ a sound and useful work. The second part is espe- cially valuable. 25. RrpGELy, THomas, was born in London, about a.pD. 1667, and died March 27, 1734. His chief work is entitled, “A Body of Divinity,” &c., and consists of Lectures on the Assembly’s Larger Catechism. It is carefully written, and evinces much ability and piety. 26. Dick (J.) was born in Aberdeen, Oct. 10, 1764, and died Jan. 25, 1833. His “ Theology” is a work of considerable value. 27. CHALMERS, THOMAS, was born in East Anstruther, a village of Fife, March 17, 1780, and died at Edinburgh, May a1, 1647. Of his works, we may specify: 1. “Christian Revelation.” 24 Manual of Systematic Theology. 2. “Institutes of Theology.” This latter work gives the matured views of Chalmers on theology. 28. EDWARDs (J.) was born at East Windsor, Ct., Oct. 5, 1703, and died at Princeton, N. J., March 22, 1758. Of his numerous writings, we mention the following: 1. ‘‘Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will.” 2. “The Great Doctrine of Original Sin defended.” 3. “The History of Redemption.” 4. “Nature of True Virtue.” 5. “Concern- ing Religious Affections.” 6. ‘Qualifications for Full Com- munion in the Visible Church.” Edwards is a very powerful writer; acute, exhaustive, spiritual. 29. BELLAMY, JOSEPH, was born at New Cheshire, Ct. in 1719, and died at Bethlehem, Ct., March 6, 1790. ‘ Of his works, the following deserve special notice: 1. “True Religion Delineated.” 2. “The Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin” (four sermons). 3. “Theron, Paul- inus, and Aspasio, on Love, Faith, Assurance,” &c. Bellamy was a powerful preacher, a vigorous writer, and a sound theologian. 30. Hopxins (S.) was born at Waterbury, Ct., Sept. 19, 1721, and died in Newport, R. I., Dec. 20, 1803. His theological views are contained in a work entitled, “A System of Doctrines contained in Divine Revelation,” &c. He was a clear thinker and able writer, though not an attrac- tive preacher. Hopkinsianism. 31. Woops (L.) His theological works are distinguished for good sense, great caution for the most part, and perspic- uity of style. 32. Finney (C. G.) “Lectures on Systematic Theology,” valuable for the view which they give of their author's opinions; but somewhat logical, dry, and wanting in refer- ences to Scripture. | 33. TayLor (N. W.) 1. “Lectures on Moral Government.” 2. “ Revealed Theology.’’ These volumes give, of course, a definite statement of Dr. Taylor’s system. They are ably, though somewhat diffusely written. 34. BRECKINRIDGE (R. J.) “Christianity Objectively Con- Introduction, 25 sidered, and Christianity Subjectively Considered.” Old School; verbose, but not without vigor. 35. Hopcr (A. A.) “Outlines of Theology,” a compact exhibition of the Princeton theology. 36. Barrp (E. J.) ‘The Elchirn Revealed in the Creation and Redemption of Man.” Augustinian. -37. WESLEY (J.) was born at Epworth, June 17, 1703, and died March 2, 17901. The following works deserve examination: 1. ‘“ Predestina- tion calmly Considered.” 2. “Thoughts on Imputed Right- eousness.” 3. “What is an Arminian?” 4. “ Serious Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints.’”’ 5. “ Plain Account of Christian Perfection.” 6. “A Treatise on Bap- tism.” 7. “ Doctrine of Original Sin.” The following may also be noted; some of them are of great ability : — 38. Hopce (C.) ‘Systematic Theology;” a comprehen- sive and able discussion of nearly all the topics belonging to Systematic Theology. 39. WARDLAW (R.) “Systematic Theology ;” also an able and valuable work, distinguished for its reverent use of the Scriptures. 40. STORR and Fiatr. “An Elementary Course of Bibli- cal Theology.” 41. VAN OoOSTERZEE (J. J.) “‘ Christian Dogmatics ;’ com- prehensive and evangelical. 42. MARTENSEN (H.) “ Christia&i Dogmatics ;”’ fresh and interesting. 43. Reuss (E.) “History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age.” 44. Scumip (C. F.) “Biblical Theology of the New Testa- ment.” 45. Wetss (B.) “Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments.” Very useful. 46. MESSNER (H.) ‘Die Lehre der Apostel.”’ Valuable. 47. OEHLER (G. F.) “Theology of the Old Testament.” 48. Scuuttz (H.) “Alttestamentliche Theologie.” ’ 26 Manual of Systematic Theology. 49. THomasius (G.) ‘Christi Person und Werk.” 50. Puiyippi (F. A.) ‘ Kirchliche Glaubenslehre,” 51. SCHLEIERMACHER (F.) “Der Christliche Glaube.” 52. EBRARD (J. H. A.) ‘“ Christliche Dogmatik.” Reformed. 53. Herre (H.) “Die Dogmatik der Evangelisch-refor- mirten Kirche.” Reformed. 54. Lutnuarpt (C. E.) ‘“ Kompendium der Dogmatik.” Brief and clear. 55. SCHENKEL (D.) “ Die Christliche Dogmatik vom Stand- punkte des Gewissens aus dargestellt.” 56. BireDERMANN (A. E,) “ Christliche Dogmatik.” Skep- tical. 57. Kaunis (K. A.) ‘ Lutherische Dogmatik.” Historical and Systematic. 58. Hormann (J.C. K.) “Der Schriftbeweis.” Original. 59. PERRONE (J.) ‘‘ Preelectiones Theologicz.’”’ Catholic. 60. HrinricH (J. B.) “Dogmatische Theologie,” Catholic. 61. WINER (G.B.) “A Comparative View of the Doctrines and Confessions of the Various Communities of Christen- dom.” 62. NiemMEvER (H. A.) Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis publicatarum. 63. Hase (C. A.) Libri Symbolict Ecclesie Evangelice. 64. RIcHTER (A. L.) Canones et Decreta Concilii Triden- tint. 65. M6HLER (J.A.) “Symbolism;” that is, of the Doctrines in controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants, 66. Gurricke (H.E. F.) ‘Allgemeine Christliche Sym- bolik,” &c. 67. Hormann (R.) “ Symbolik,” &c. 68. DENzINGER (H.) Luxcheiridion Symbolorum et Defint- tionum que de Rebus Fidei et Morum a Concilits Occumenicts et Summits Pontificibus emanarunt. The Existence of God. 27 PART FIRS F: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. THE word, God, is now used to denote a supreme Being, or Mind, —a Mind on which all other beings and things are dependent. The Perfection of this Being will be considered in Part Third, where the testimony of Scripture can be adduced with more effect. It is wiser to question Nature as to the existence of a supreme Being than as to the existence of a God who is absolutely perfect; for it is possible that Nature may not reveal to us the infinitely holy and benevo- lent God of the Bible as clearly as it does a supreme Mind; and it is certainly better to prove less than we might than to attempt proving more than we can. Before considering the reasons which justify our belief in the existence of a supreme Being, it may be well to mention some of the leading forms of belief which are entertained by men who deny the existence of a personal God. It will not, however, be necessary to refute the arguments which they bring forward in support of their opinions; for this will be virtually done in stating the reasons for theism.’ (1.) Materialism. To state the doctrine of materialism as its advocates would do at the present time may be difficult; but the following is an attempt: Matter is self-existent and the source of all things. Through the law of “natural selec- tion,” or of the “survival of the fittest,” molecules that are centres of force, acting and reacting upon one another 1 Hodge (C.) “Sys. Theol.” pp. 245-334; Buchanan (J.) “On Atheism; ” Laudenbach (F. C.) “Eine liberale Polemik gegen Atheismus ;” Dabney (R. L.) “The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century;” “ Boston Lectures,” 1870: “Christianity and Skepticism;” Rogers (H.) “The Eclipse of Faith; ” ‘Defence of the Eclipse of Faith;” “Reason and Faith and Essays.” 28 Manual of Systematic Theology. through the ages of eternity, have built the cosmos. Order, life, sensation, instinct, reason, conscience, devotion, are the products of atoms originally without life, order, or intelli- gence. Behold creatures infinitely wiser than their Creator! (2.) Puntheism. If this word be interpreted strictly, it means that “the universe is God, and God is the universe.” But this general statement has been explained by three dis- tinct theories: (a) That of Materialistic Pantheism, which has been sufficiently described above. (4) That of Idealistic Pantheism, which supposes the all-including Entity to be spiritual. And (c) that of Dualistic Pantheism, which as- cribes to the One and All both thought and extension. With these theories in mind we proceed to consider the reasons which justify our belief in the existence of a su- preme Mind, the cause of all other existence. For we be- lieve with Christlieb,.that “the idea of God develops itself — (along with those of our own personality and the Cosmos) through contact with the outer world of xecessity, from the inward predisposition of our mental and moral constitution.” The reasons which may be alleged in support of theism may be set forth in various ways; and the following proposi- tions are given as one of these ways, and one that is suggested by the habits of scientific men at the present time :— 1. [tts more reasonable to suppose that thére is but one orig- inal and self-existent Being or Force, than to suppose that there are more than one. In support of this statement it may be remarked, (a) that the tendency of scientific speculation is towards unity of source for all things Many students of Nature believe that source to be matter, including force; others believe it to be spirit, or intelligent force; and others still believe it to be something which possesses the properties of both matter and spirit. Prof. Huxley intimates that “the existing world lay potentially in the cosmic vapor; and that a sufficient intelligence could, from a knowledge of the properties of the molecules of that vapor, have predicted, say the state of the Fauna of Britain in 1869, with as much certainty as one can The Existence of God. 29 say what will happen to the vapor of the breath in a cold winter's day.””* Mr. Wallace (A. R.) holds that “the whole universe is not merely dependent on, but actually zs, the W2// of higher intelligences, or one supreme Inéelligence.”? And Stuart (B.) says, “‘The one substance, with two sets of properties, two sides, the physical and the mental, a doublefaced unity, — would appear to comply with all the ex- igencies of the case, not confounding the persons nor divid- ing the substance.” § (6) That the tendency of philosophical and religious thought is also towards unity of source for all things. All pantheistic theories illustrate this tendency, that of Spinoza in particular. Says Romanes (G. J.), “Just as we are by the laws of thought compelled to lodge the attribute of self- existence somewhere, so we are by the same laws precluded from lodging it in more than one substance.’ * Even Dr. Hickok, in his “ Rational Cosmology,” seems on the verge of Pantheism, so completely does he resolve everything into force, and force into the action of God. Still, it would be unjust not to add, that he is positively a theist instead of a pantheist. And Herbert Spencer uses the following lan- guage: “Weare no more able to form a circumscribed idea of Cause than of Space or Time; and we are consequently obliged to think of the Cause which transcends the limits of our thought, as positive though indefinite. Just in the same manner that, in conceiving any bounded space, there arises the nascent consciousness of space outside the bounds; so, when we think of any definite cause, there arises a nascent consciousness of a cause behind it; and in the one case, as in the other, this nascent consciousness i$ in substance like that which suggests it, though without form. The momen- tum of thought inevitably carries us beyond conditioned ex- 1 Hodge (C.) “Syst. Theol.” I. p. 281. ? Wallace (A. R.) “Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection,” p. 368. 3 This language ought perhaps to be accredited to Prof. Bain, though it is adopted by Stuart. 4 “Christian Prayer and General Laws,” p. 113. 30 Manual of Systematic Theology. istence to unconditioned existence; and this ever persists in us, as the body of a thought to which we can give no shape.” (“First Principles,” p. 93, cf. Jon, iv. 12 sq). 2. It 1s more reasonable to suppose that Matter ts a product of Mind than to suppose that Mind ts a product of Matter. For (2) mind is known to be a self-acting force, while matter is not. Mind can be said to originate motion, while matter.can only receive and transmit it. We admit that mind is not known by consciousness to be, in the strict sense of the word, creative; but it is known to be active: and pri- mary action is a sort of creation,— it is something origznated. (6) It is easier to believe that a higher principle originates a lower one than to believe that a lower principle or power originates a higher one. A free cause may produce what is less than itself; but it is difficult to think that any cause can originate what is greater than itself. A self-acting force may be supposed to put forth only a part of its energy, but not to put forth more energy than it actually possesses. (c) To suppose matter, the one original and originating power, is to suppose an infinite series of changes in finite and dependent objects; and this is a supposition wholly un- satisfactory to reason. Says Prof. Whewell, “On the hy- pothesis of an infinite series, we pass from effect to cause, and from that to a higher cause, in search. of something on which the mind can rest; but, if we do nothing but repeat this process, there is no use in it. Our question is not an- swered, but evaded. The mind cannot acquiesce in the des- tiny thus presented to it, of being referred from event to event along an interminable vista of causation and time: it takes refuge in the assumption of a First Cause, from an employment inconsistent with its own nature.” (See Bib. Sac. VI. 613 sq.; VII. 613 sq.) ; Moreover, the development hypothesis leads to another difficulty. If we suppose the universe to be uncreated and eternal in substance, and to be passing, by a constant pro- 1 Ulrici (B.) “Gott und die Natur,” S. 506 sq.; Princeton Theol. Essays, First Series, “Cause and Effect,” p. 694 sq. The Existence of God. 31 cess, however slow, from inanimate nature to animate, and from the lower forms of animal life to the higher, why has it not made greater progress? Or, if further progress is impossible, why was not the present stage reached gous before it was reached? The movement has been in a line, not in a circle; and each stage of it has required but a limited period of time, however long that limited period may have been. Hence, the periods requisite to bring the universe to its present stage of development must have been repeated a countless number of times in the eternity past; and we must have existed ozs ago, as well as now. 3. Lt ts more reasonable to suppose that the wonderful order of the material universe is due to the action of a Supreme Mind than to suppose it due to the action of forces cooperating together without purpose.* For (a) such order is what might be expected from the action of a supreme mind; since all that is known of mind leads us to think of it as able and likely to produce a cosmos, if it produced a universe at all. Any expansion or proof of this statement would be superfluous; for it is supported by the best of all evidence, that of consciousness; by the clearest of all knowledge, that of one’s own mental action in one’s most rational moments. (6) The same cannot be said of matter. For it is not known to think or foresee or plan. It appears to be blind, unconscious, and without freedom, exercising its force with no reference to an order which it cannot appreciate, a beauty wnich it cannot admire, or a moral excellence which it can- 1 Ulrici (B.) “Gott und die Natur,” S. 505 sq.; Whewell (W.) “ Astronomy and General Physics treated in Reference to Natural Theology;” Buckland (W.) “Geology and Mineralogy considered in Reference to Natural Theology ;” Prout (W.) “Chemistry, M‘neralogy, and the Function of Digestion considered in Reference to Natural Theology;” Babbage (C.) “The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise ;” Trendelenburg (A.) “Logische Untersuchungen,” Bd. II. “Der Zweck;” Spencer (H.) “ First Principles of a New System of Philosophy; ” Burr (E. F.) “Ecce Colum ” and “ Pater Mundi; ” Cooke (J. P.) “Religion and Chemistry ;” Liefchild (J. R.) “The Higher Ministry of Nature viewed in the Light of Modern Science.” 32 Manual of Systematic Theology. not love. If, therefore, its properties sometimes tend to order, instead of confusion, we spontaneously ask: How came it to have these properties, together with the motion necessary to secure their working toward a desirable end? In other words, so far as it is known to us, matter is not rational, and cannot be supposed to obey the laws of reason, unless it is under the control of an agent distinct from itself. Hence, it is not surprising that the writers of Genesis, of Job, of the nineteenth Psalm, and of the Epistle to the Romans, attributed the order of the cosmos to a supreme Being. Many pagan philosophers did the same. Says Thomas Aquinas, “ We see that some things without knowl- edge, to wit, natural bodies, work toward an end; for either always or generally, they operate in the same way to secure that which is best. And from this it is evident that they come to that end, not by accident, but by intention. But things without knowledge do not tend towards an end, unless they are directed by some one who has knowledge, as. an atrow by the archer. There is, then, some intelligent being by whom all natural objects are arranged with a view to some end; and this being we call God.” Trendelenburg remarks, ‘that, so far as design is realized in the world, thought, as its ground, has preceded it.”* The same view is defended by Sir William Hamilton, who maintains, that, in the order of nature, final causes precede efficient causes. But against it an objection has been raised, namely, that there are some things in the cosmos which appear to work evil, rather than good; and these are best accounted for by supposing the universe to be a result of the action or inter- action of blind forces. ; In reply to this, it may be said, 1, That, on the whole, a maximum of good with a mznzmum of evil, is secured by the order which prevails in the cosmos. 2, That many things which at first sight appear to result in evil are found, upon further examination, to bring to pass more good than evil. 1 “Summa,” I. 2; “Logische Untersuchungen,” II. 28. The Existence of God. 33 3. That the known sinfulness of man is to be taken into account as a modifying circumstance, not only as working -evil, but as calling for punishment. And, 4, that, as human intelligence increases, the adaptation of all things in Nature to some good end is likely to be regarded as more and more probable. 4../t is more reasonable to suppose that the vegetable world ts a product of Mind, organizing Matter, than to suppose it a product of Matter organizing itself. It is admitted by all, that the existence of vegetables was preceded by that of inorganic matter, and that the appear- ance of the former constituted an era in the history of the -world. But how was this new and higher kind of being originated ? If the cosmos was created by a Supreme Intelligence, there is .no difficulty in accounting for the introduction of mundane Flora as soon as the world was in a condition to perpetuate the same. But if protoplasm is a result of chem- ical action; if the phenomena of vegetable structure and growth are due to fortuitous combinations of lifeless mole- cules, it is surprising that these combinations happened to ‘take place at the very juncture which called for them. Should one suggest that they may have taken place before, but had perished for want of a suitable habitat, we reply that they appear to have a suitable habitat now, yet there is no evidence of their taking place. In fact, spontaneous genera- ‘tion has never been proved, and the best physicists do not ‘think that it ever will be proved. Matter, it has been said, is measured by weight; energy by work ; and intelligence by adaptation. But neither weight ‘nor work is sufficient to account for the vegetable world: 1 Roget (P. M.) “ Animal and Vegetable Physiology considered in Reference »to Natural Theology; ” McCosh and Dickie, “Typical Forms and Special ;Ends in Creation ;” Beale (1. S.) “Protoplasm; or, Life, Matter, and Mind;” -also, “Theories of Life: their Influence on Religious Thought;” Sterling (J. H.) “As Regards Protoplasm in Relation to Prof. Huxley’s ‘ Essay on the Physical Basis of Life.” 34 Manual of Systematic Theology. for in it are to be seen evidences of exquisite adaptation. Mind accounts for this adaptation; matter does not. Three points are worthy of particular attention, namely: (a) The amazing difference between the phenomena of vege- table life and those of chemical action. (6) The fact, ad- mitted by nearly all naturalists, that living organism is never born of that which is lifeless. And (¢) that adaptation is manifest, not only in the time when vegetable life was origi- nated, but also in the endlessly diversified forms which it displays. 5. /¢ 7s more reasonable to suppose that the animal world is a product of Mind imparting a higher organizing principle to vegetable elements, than to suppose it a product of vegetable forces acting alone. The transition from vegetable to antnidl life seems to us less marked than that from inorganic Nature to organic. Yet animal life must be pronounced different zz 4iud from vegetable life. It affords indications of conscious feeling, if not of consecutive thought. In many of the nobler animals, a certain kind of intelligence is manifested; very different, indeed, from that possessed by man, yet worthy of-admira- tion as compared with floral life. Taken as a whole, the Fauna which inhabit this earth have an existence far richer and more varied than that of vegetables,— so much higher, it may be truly said, that we can pronounce the latter to be related to the former as means are related to ends. The argument for. design in Nature can be studied with great advantage in the structure of the numberless varieties of animals that fill the earth. For (a) the particular organs of every animal are adapted to one another; so that from a single bone of an unknown animal its entire construction and 1 Agassiz (L.) “Essay on Classification,” &c.; Kirby (W.) “The Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God as manifested in the Creation of Animals;” Miller (H.) “Footprints of the Creator;” Durkheim (H.) “Théologie de la Nature ;” Beale (I.. S.) “Bioplasm: An Introduction to the Study of Physiology and Medicine,” p. 207; Ragg (T.) “Creation’s Testimony to its God;” Bib. Sac XXXIII. pp. 448-493 “ The Divine Method of Producing Living Species.” The Existence of God. 35 habits of life may sometimes be inferred. (6); The whole structure of an animal is adapted to the climate, soil, and products of the region to which it belongs. (c) The means of self-defence, self-preservation, and reproduction are adapted to the place where an animal is expected to live. Thus ‘the whole vegetable and animal world has been constructed on one comprehensive plan. As there is a relation of one organ of a given plant or animal to all others and to the whole, so the whole race of plants and the whole race of animals are related.” ? With reference to the evidences of design in the animal world, Prof. Agassiz says, “I know those who hold it to be very unscientific to believe that thinking is not something inherent in matter, and that there is an essential difference between inorganic and living and thinking beings. I shall not be prevented by any such pretensions of a false philoso- phy from expressing my conviction that, as long as it cannot be shown that matter or physical forces do actually reason, I shall consider any manifestation of thought as evidence of the existence of a thinking Being as the author of such thought, and shall look upon an intelligent and intelligible connection between the facts of Nature as direct proof of the existence of a thinking God, as certainly as man exhibits the power of thinking when he recognizes their natural relation.” ? 6. lt ts more reasonable to suppose that man as a rational being is a product of Mind, giving a higher principle of life to animal being, than to suppose him a product of mere vital Sorces acting without reason.® 1 Hodge (C.) “ Systematic Theology,” I. p. 222. 2 “Contributions to the Natural History of the United States,” p. ro. 3 Hill (T.) Bib. Sac. XXXI. pp. 593-614; XXXII. 1-18; 303-319; Wright (G. F.) XX XIII. 657 -694, “ Objections to Darwinism and the Rejoinders of its Advocates ;” Darwin (C.) “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, ” 6th ed.; “The Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestica- tion ;” “ Descent of Man,” 2d ed.; Lyell (C.) “ Principles of Geology,” 11th ed.; Dana (J. D.) “Manual of Geology,” 2d ed.; Agassiz (L.) “Contributions to the Natural [History of the United States,” Vol. I. ; Argyll (Duke of) “ The Reign of Law ;” “ Primeval Man;” Art. in Contemporary Rev. Vol. XXVI. pp. 352-3763 36 Manual of Systematic Theology. If we look at human reason, and compare it with the intel. ligence of any other being on earth, the interval between the two will be found immeasurable. Much as may be said in praise of instinct or animal sagacity, it appears to be differ- ent in kind from the understanding of man; and the biblical narrative, which permits us to regard the physical nature of man as perhaps akin to that of other animals, is perfectly right in tracing his spiritual nature to a higher source. It cannot be fairly accounted for as a chance improvement on merely animal intelligence. Even the size of the human brain, and especially of that portion of it which seems to be the organ of reason, is so much greater than that of beings endowed with instinct merely, as to render any natural development of the one from the other extremely improbable. No one can expect to set forth in words the whole differ- ence between reason and instinct ;7 but this, at least, may be said, that reason is master of principles, of general concepts, and of language,— her most noble servant; while instinct is a stranger to all these: that reason is reflective, inventive, inquisitive, and ever growing; while instinct is perceptive, executive, and artistic, in a high degree, but within narrow limits : that reason seeks to explore the universe, and look into eternity in search of causes and motives; while instinct gives no sign of interest in anything much beyond the range of experience through sensation. Human reason may need the counsel which Raphael is represented as giving to Adam,— “ Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid; Leave them to God above; Him serve and fear! Heaven is for thee too high To know what passes there. Be lowly wise; Think only what concerns thee and thy being ; Dawson (J. W.) “The Story of the Earth and Man; ” “Nature and the Bible ;” “North British Review,” Vol. XLVI. pp. 277-318; Southall (J. C.) “The Re- cent Origin of Man, as illustrated by Geology and the Modern Science of Pre- historic Archzology;” Dana (J. D.) “Man’s Zodlogical Position,” and “On Cephalization,” New Englander, 1867, p. 283 sq. and 495 sq. 1 Chadbourne (P. A.) “Instinct in Animals and Men;” Paine (M.) “The Soul and Instinct;” Bascom (J.) “ Instinct,” in the “ Bib. Sacra” for 1871, p. 654 sq-; Janet (P.) “Final Causes,” p. 75 sq. The Existence of God. 37 Dream not of other worlds, — what creatures there Live, in what state, condition, or degree; Contented that thus far hath been revealed Not of earth only, but of highest heaven; ”? but instinct is in no danger of rash excursions in pursuit of knowledge without limits. Indeed, the interval which sep- arates man from the lower animals appears to be almost as wide as that which separates the living vegetable from the lifeless stone. Any satisfactory explanation of the appear- ance of man on earth must include the action of a Supreme Mind as the cause of his rational nature.? 7. tts more reasonable to suppose that man, as a moral being, 1s a product of a Supreme Mind, itself moral, than to suppose him a product of vital forces that have no moral insight. For it is to be observed, (a) that man, by his constitution, is a moral being. His power to recognize in action a moral quality is not a result of education, but an original endow- ment or possession, for it is universal and indestructible. It may be perverted, but it cannot be annihilated; for if it were, man would be no longer man. (6) That the cognition of right or wrong in action is not resolvable into any other function of the mind. This is admitted by the ablest writers on moral science, and is as certain as any other fact of men- tal analysis. See the various works on Moral Philosophy. (c) That this cognition cannot. be accounted for as the effect, or product of any action possible to merely vital forces. The weakest part of Darwin’s work on the “Descent of Man,” is that in which he attempts to explain the origin of conscience or moral judgment, and it is surprising that any careful stu- dent of nature or of mind should be satisfied with it. 1 “Paradise Lost,” VIII. C. 167. sq. 2 Said Tyndall (J.) in 1868: “ The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable;” See Bell (C.) “The Hand, its Mechanism and Vital Endowments, as evincing Design;” Murphy (J. J.) “ Habit-and Inteiligence in their Connection with the Laws of Matter and Force;” Bain (A.) “Mind and Body;” Mivart (St. G.) “On the Genesis of Species ;” Potter (A.) “Nature, Man, and the Bible, witnessing to God and to Religious Truth.” 38 Manual of Systematic Theology. It may be added, 1, that the consciousness of moral obli- gation involves a belief in a law outside of ourselves to which our conduct ought to be adjusted. 2. That with this con- sciousness of obligation, and belief in a moral law, is connected an instinctive and profound conviction that there is, back of that law, a “ Power, not ourselves, which makes for righteous- ness.” And, 3, that this Power cannot be regarded as des- titute of reason and moral character: it must be a Supreme Mind, to whom all created beings are accountable. This argument for the existence of God was recognized as conclusive by Immanuel Kant and by Sir Wm. Hamilton. The former relied upon it sclely, while the latter associated with it the mental law by which motive is seen to precede action, or final causes to go before efficient causes. In other words, by the normal action of reason and conscience, man is constrained to believe in the existence of God. “Con- science,” says Ullmann,“ in its deepest nature, i.e., considered as an original power in man which can never be entirely de- stroyed, is not so much productive as receptive; not origina- tive so much as acquiescent; not commanding, but rather acting in obedience to a law higher than itself. This truth is attested by the common consciousness of all men: it finds its expression in the fact that the dictates of conscience have, at all times, been acknowledged to be the voice of a Lawgiver and a Judge who is above man.” [Szzlessness of Christ, Pp. 32.] 8. lt is more reasonable to believe that man, as a religious being, is a preduct of a Supreme Mind, than to believe him a product of mere vital forces.’ As it is impossible to imagine a moral being who is not also rational, since moral judgment is itself an act of. the highest intelligence, so, likewise, it is impossible to imagine a religious being who is not at the same time moral, since homage to the Supreme Ruler is the first duty, as well as the 1 Gould (S. B.) “Origin and Development of Religious Belief”; Max Miiller, “Science of Religion”; Hardwick (C.) “Christ and other Masters ”; Leathes, {S.) “The Religion of the Christ,” Lec. 1. ~ ‘The Existence of God. 39 greatest privilege, of such a being. In considering the relig- ious nature of man, it is, therefore, proper to bear in mind : — (a) That he has a deep feeling of dependence. Schleier- macher regarded this sense of dependence as the distinctively religious element or action of man’s nature. This may have been due to his strong leaning to Pantheism; certainly, it was a very imperfect estimate of what belongs to the religious nature of man; yet it contained a part of the truth. (4) That he has a vague but inextinguishable sense of accountability. This is often conceded by men who reject the authority of God; and a simple assertion of this truth, by one who believes it, has a wonderful power over the consciences of evilmen. They feel that there ought to be, and that there must be, a holy Sovereign who will punish sin. (c) That he has a tendency to worship, anda certain longing for communion with a Supreme Being. This appears in all branches of the human race. The rudest and the most culti- vated manifest the same tendency. They feel the need of God, and if they do not worship the true God, they are quite likely to bow down in superstitious fear before a false god. If, like Comte, they deny the Lord that made them, their religious nature is apt to avenge its wrongs by leading them to worship a creature, instead of the Creator. “With the first development of consciousness,” says Mansel (p. 120), “there grows up as part of it the innate feeling that our life, natural and spiritual, is not in our own power to sus- tain or prolong; that there is One above us on whom we are dependent, whose existence we learn and whose presence we realize by the same instinct of prayer.” This sense of depend- ence, it may be added, is supposed by many German theolo- gians to be the specifically religious element of human nature, and to be in itself an adequate proof of the existence of God. If, then, we can trust the action of our own souls, there is reason to believe in the existence of God. 9. lt zs more reasonable to suppose that the Biblical writers were enlightened’, as they claim to have been, by a Supreme Mind, than to suppose that they were either deceivers or self-deceived. 40 Manual of Systematic Theology. Yet these are the only hypotheses conceivable. The first meets all the conditions of the problem, and fairly accounts’ for the existence of the Scriptures; but neither of the others can be said to do this. For the writings themselves bear witness, in a remarkable manner, to the general good sense and clear rationality of their authors. Considering the period when they were written, the people for whom they were first written, the number and training of the probable writers, and the substance of religious and historical teaching which they contain, they must be considered preéminently reasonable, and it is absurd to look upon their authors as self-deceived. Nor is it less absurd to look upon them as deceivers. If deceivers, they were the worst of men; but these writes could not have been produced by such men. - 10. Jt zs more reasonable to suppose that a Supreme Being, the Creator of religious beings, would give them a spiritual constitution that could be satisfied forever with Him as an object of worship, than to suppose that he would give them @ spiritual nature that could not be satisfied thus. Hence, if the nature of man requires perfection in the object of worship, it is reasonable to suppose that the Supreme Being is perfect. It is only by considering this demand of man’s religious nature that one can infer the absolute and infinite being of God from the things that he has made. For the created universe cannot be proved to be infinite; nor can a finite effect, considered merely as a product of force, be said to prove the existence of an infinite cause. But the arguments for the existence of God have generally been brought under the following heads :— (1) The a priort argument. This is founded upon certain necessary conceptions or beliefs of the mind, and is supposed by some to be demonstrative, though it is not. (2) Anselm says, that ‘God, as we believe, is something than which nothing greater can be thought. When the fool hears this he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the intellect. . But surely that, than which nothing greater — can be thought, cannot be in the intellect alone; for if it is e The Existence of God. 41 in the intellect alone, it can be thought to be also in reality, which is greater.” Subtle, but inconclusive; for by it the idea of a thing is confounded with a belief in its existence.! (6) Des Cartes says, “a perfect being is possible; otherwise: it belongs to the nature of being to be imperfect, and the per- fection of being would consist in its imperfection; which is absurd. But if a perfect being is possible, it is actual; for any being hereafter brought into existence would not be per- fect.” No more conclusive than the foregoing; for that which is abstractly or conceptually possible, is confounded with that which is practically possible. (c) Dr. Samuel Clarke says, that “the ideas of eternity and infinity are necessary to the mind; but eternity and infinity are attributes or modes of existence ; hence they must inhere in some being whois eternal and infinite.” Unsatisfactory, — because we do not conceive of eternity and infinity as being, necessarily, attributes of a real being.’ (Z@) Cousin teaches, that “truth, beauty, and goodness are attributes, not substances. But attributes belong toa subject; hence absolute truth, beauty, and goodness, of which we nec- essarily have a conception, must belong to an Absolute Being.” Inconclusive, — because our minds do not affirm the necessary existence of absolute truth, beauty, and goodness, though the conception of them may be necessary. For “the sphere of thought is far wider (as well’ ag narrower) than the sphere of reality; and no inference is valid from the correctest thinking of an object to its actual existence.” That the 4frzori argument has been satisfactory to so many able thinkers shows that a belief in the existence of God is congenial to the human mind. (2) Zhe Cosmological Argument. The substance of this 1 Anselm, “ Proslogion ” c. 11; Thomas Aquinas, Pars 1. Queestio 2 ; 2 « Bib. Sac.” VIII. p. 532;\also p. 529. 8 Clarke (S.) “‘ Discourse on the Being and Attributes of God,” p. 16; Cud- worth (R.) “Intellectual System of the Universe,” II. p. 141; Waterland (D.) Works, III. p. 323. 4 Cousin “Lectures on The True, The Beautiful, and The Good,” p. 359. 42 Manual of Systematic Theology. may be thus given. Something must be self-existent and eternal, to wit,—either Godorthe world. But the world, asit is, is evidently mutable and dependent. It must, therefore, be the last link thus far in an infinite series of dependent worlds, which is absurd, since the series would depend on nothing; or it must be dependent on God, which is reasonable. Hence there isa God. This argument is by no means demon- strative ; yet some force may be conceded to it, as showing the existence of God to be probable. (3) The Teleological Argument. It may be thus stated: Indications or evidences of design point back to a designer; an end sought, to a mind seeking it. The world affords inconceivably numerous evidences of design or adaptation, and, therefore, justifies our belief in the existence of a wise author and ruler. This argument is simple, comprehensive, and valid. The marks of order and adaptation which appear on every hand, and fill with delight the most careful observer, cannot be rationally attributed to any other source than a Supreme Mind. . (4) The Anthropological Argument. This embraces three particulars: (a2) the sense of dependence; (4) the sense of accountability ; and (c) the tendency to worship. This, also, appears to justify a belief in the existence of God, and indeed, as has been shown, of a God absolutely perfect. : (5) Zhe Christological Argument. This rests upon the following pillars: (a) the Bible as an existing phenomenon which must be accounted for; (4) the fulfilment of Prophecy in so many instances; (c) the evidence of well attested mira- cles; (d) the evidence of the supernatural Person of Christ; and (e) the influence of the Christian religion in the world.* 1 Besides the works already referred to, the following may be named as worthy of being consulted. Cudworth (R.) “Intellectual System of the Universe,” II. p. 141 sq.; Stillingfleet (E.) “‘Origines Sacre,” b. III. ch. I.; Dodge (E.) “Evidences of Christianity,” Introduction; Nitzsch (C. I.) s. v. “Gott” in Her- zog Real-Encyklopadie; Peabody (A. P.) “ Christianity the Religion of Nature”; Chadbourne (P. A.) “ Natural Theology”; Duke of Argyll, ‘The Reign of Law,” and the “Primeval Man”; Princeton Review, 1870, p. 55 sq., A Review of “The Reign of Law”; and a great number of works on Natural Theology in the English and other languages. The Bible from God. 43 PART SECOND. ‘THE BIBLE FROM GOD. Before looking at the various reasons, which go to prove that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were written by men divinely inspired, and have, therefore, divine authority, it is proper to show that a supernatural revelation of God’s will is neither impossible, incredible, nor improbable.’ (a) It ds not impossible: for the Creator of nature and of . man must be able, if he please, to act upon the nature which he made, whether it be matter or spirit, and to secure thereby new effects in the same. If there is a personal Creator, it is surely absurd to deny that he can deal in a sovereign way with his creation. (6) Jt zs not incredible: for if God is able to make a revela- tion of his will to men, by some means additional to the forces and laws of nature, it is surely possible, from a moral point of view, that he should do this. It would require super- human knowledge to justify any one in saying, that no cir- cumstances would warrant such a revelation. And, (c), /¢ ts not improbable : for 1. Thoughtful men feel their need of a supernatural revela- tion. Without it, their spiritual wants seem to be overlooked in comparison with those of the body. They are conscious of needing clearer light than nature affords, especially in view of their sinful state. 2. Most men are predisposed to believe in the reality of revelations from God. And as this predisposition exists in the best as well as in the worst of mankind, it should be regarded as constitutional and therefore indicative of the probability of a supernatural revelation. 1 Krauss (A. E.), “Die Lehre von der Offenbarung;” Butler (J.), “The An alogy of Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature,” Part Second. 44 Manual of Systematic Theology. 3. All men need such a revelation in order to accomplish the design of their moral and religious nature. For whatever may be said of the knowledge within their reach, they will not avail themselves of it in their actual condition without the addition of supernatural light and grace. If then there is any reason to believe that God is merciful, and not simply just, there is reason to believe that he has made, or will make, a special disclosure of his will. Assuming, then, that a supernatural revelation of religious truth is not antecedently improbable, it may be remarked that such a revelation may be made, either by a direct communica- tion of the needed truth to every person of our race, or by a communication, properly authenticated, for the use of all. The latter method is believed to have been chosen by the Most High. But against this method three objections have been raised, — (a) That zt does not treat all men alike. For some have the revelation, and others have it not. If the revelation is needed by any, it is needed by all, and should be given to all alike. But this objection, reduced to its principle, assumes that God is under some kind of obligafion to do as much for one sinner as he does for another. And, if this principle is correct, men in all lands, and in all times, should have the same or equivalent privileges. But no one can make it even probable that they do have them.’ (0) That it does not afford the means of salvation to all. For knowledge of the truth is a means of salvation, and it is plainly incompatible with the goodness of God to make salvation depend on knowledge that is not given to all. But to this it may be replied, — 1, that there would be no wrong done to sinners if they were left to suffer the just penalty for their sins; 2, that grace, or undeserved favor to one, does not originate a claim to it on the part of another; and, 1 Says Augustine: “Cur non omnes docet Deus? Quia omnes quos docet, misericordia docet: quos autem non docet, judicio non docet,” De Predest. Sancto. c. 8; Butler (J.) “ Analogy,” Part II. ch. 3 and 6. The Bible from God. 45 3, that salvation does not depend absolutely on a knowledge of truth supernaturally revealed, —the light of nature is suffi- cient, if sinners would vse it. (c) That it necessitates miracles as the only sufficient slowthers Sor the truth of the revelation. And miracles are antecedently improbable. God cannot be supposed to work them, unless it be for a great moral end, otherwise unattainable. But in answer to this it may be said, — 1, that, for aught we know, the other method would require something of a miraculous nature to certify the truth in question to every separate mind; and, 2, that a supernatural event in the world of sense is entirely congruous with such an event in the world of mind, and therefore not, in the case supposed, improbable. I. THE New TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES ARE WORTHY OF FULL CONFIDENCE AS HISTORICAL RECORDS. This statement is meant to affirm the general correctness of the New Testament writings, but not the absence of all minor inaccuracies. They are perfectly credible, as compared with the best works of history, though it is not now affirmed that they are wholly free from unintentional errors. Whether the latter be also true, will be considered in the sequel. The trustworthiness of primary, historical records mainly depends, (a) on the opportunities which the writers had to learn the truth; (4) on their disposition to learn and declare the truii.; and (¢) on their powers of observation and of memory. To what extent were these conditions fulfilled in the writers of the New Testament? Had they suitable opportunities to learn the truth? Had they good powers of observation and recollection? Had they a disposition to learn and to make known the truth? In answer to these questions it can be shown, — I. That as a historical religion Christianity took its rise with the public ministry of Fesus Christ in Palestine near the end of the third decade of our era. For, in the first place, there are no traces whatever of the existence of this religion defore that date, and in the second 46 Manual of Systematic Theology. place, one hundred years /ater, it had already spread itself over large provinces of the Roman Empire. And by the testimony of Pliny the Younger, in Pontus A.D. 103, we learn, that some had abandoned Christianity as long as twenty years before, that is, in a.D. 83; while Tacitus? asserts that Christ suffered death in Judea under Pontius Pilate, who was procurator ten years,—from about A.D. 26 to a.D. 36.3 Moreover, all the early Christian writers, who speak of this point, agree in testifying that Christ was crucified at that time. II. That the several books of the New Testament were written before the close of the first century.* Indeed, most of them were written between A.D. 50 and A.D. 80; that is, within fifty years after the death of Christ. For — (1) The testimony of early Christian writers places the origin of these books in the first century. In this respect they all agree. There is not, within my knowledge, a single passage in any Christian writer of the second, third, or fourth cen- turies after Christ, which puts the date of any book of the New Testament after the year of our Lord 100. This is strong evidence. (2) Christian writers of the second century quote from a 1 Epist. X. 97, cf. X. 98. 2 Annals XV. 44, cf. Sueton. Vit. Neron. § 16, and Vit. Claud. § 25; also Juven. Sat. I. 155, 157, and Euseb. H. E. IV. 9. ~ 3 “Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, quesitissimis penis, adfecit, quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos adpellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per Procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in prasens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, non modo per Judzam, originem ejus mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.”’ 4Lardner (N.) “Credibility of the Gospel History”; Norton (A.) “On the Genuineness of the Four Gospels” ; Tischendorf (C.) “When? were our Four Gospels Written?”; Tregelles (S. P,) “Canon Muritorianus,”’. etc.; Westcott (B. F.) “History of the Canon of the New Test.”; “Introduction to the Study of the Four Gospels”; Gaussen (L.) “The Canon ae the Scriptures”; Olshausen (F.) “Die Echtheit der vier Canon. Evangelien”; Sanday (W.) “The Gospels in the second Century”; Horne (T. H.) “Introduction to the Critical study of the Scriptures, ” last edition; Rawlinson (G.) “Historical Evidences,” Lects. VI., VIL. VIII. The Bible from God. 47. large part of these books as authoritative. This, they would be unlikely to do, if the books were written in their own time; and this, they do not do, in the case of books. which are known to have been produced in the second century." (3) Zhese writers of the second century show in their style the formative influence of the New Testament. The influence of the Septuagint alone is hardly sufficient to account for their style, though it must be borne in mind when weighing the present argument. (4) The early adversaries of Christianity, heretical and heathen, appealed to the New Testament writings as authorita- tzve. The investigations of the last twenty years have added much to the value of this kind of evidence, and it cannot now be overlooked by those who seem most ready to reject the New Testament. 1% (5) ZLhey purport to have been written before the close of the jirst century. Their writers speak, as eye-witnesses, of the ministry of Christ, or as those who were personally acquainted with such witnesses. The only portions which may be esteemed totally silent as to their date, are the Second and Third Epistles of John; and these must have been written by the beloved disciplé, or by one who purposely and skil- fully copied his style. They do therefore, also; in a certain sense, claim to have been written before A.D. I00. (6) The style of the New Testament Scriptures indicates their origin in the first century of our era. Christianity made its appearance in Judea during the fourth decade of that century. _ It came with new and mighty power, breathing fresh life into the people. And the New Testament writings must have been originated in just such a creative epoch. There 1s an air of freshness, freedom, and reality about their 1 See the writers named in the preceding note, and the following :— Gieseler (J. C. L.) “ Historisch, kritische Versuch iiber die Entstehung, . . . der schriftlichen Evangelien”; Thiersch (M. J.) “Versuch zur Herstellung des his- torischen Standpunktes”; Bleek (F.) “Einleitung in das N. T.”; Guericke (H. E. F.) “Gesammtgeschichte des N. T.”; Reuss (E.) “Histoire du Canon des Saintes Ecritures dans l’Eglise Chretienne*®; Hug (J. L.) “Introduction to the N. T.”$; Credner (K. A.) “Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Canon.” 48 Manual of Systematic Theology. language, which forbids us to think of them as the fruit of critical research. (7) The references to persons and events of that age prove them to have been written in the first century. These refer- ences are singularly numerous, natural, incautious, and yet accurate. No writer of the second century could have made them, except by inspiration; and no inspired man would have made his writings appear to be of an earlier date than they were. These reasons are believed to be perfectly conclusive. There is abundant evidence in the New Testament itself, that its writers were familiar with Palestine in the time of Christ.. This evidence will be confirmed by all that is ta be given in support of the next statement. III. That the books of the New Testament were written either by apostles of Christ, or by associates of apostles. For:—(1) The early Christian writers affirm this. Their testimony is positive and unanimous as to the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Paul, one of Peter, and one of John, comprising eight-ninths of the New Testament; and, in the main, though with some hesitation on the part of certain writers, they bear witness to the same fact respecting the other books of the New Testament. We cannot exhibit the evidence in detail, but must refer to works on the canon of the New Testament, and introduc- tions to its various books. See the writers cited above. (2) Many of the New Testament Scriptures claim, either directly or indirectly, to have been written by apostles or their associates. This is true of the third and fourth Gospels, of the Acts, of thirteen Epistles of Paul; of the Epistles of — James, Peter, and Jude; and of the Apocalypse; while the First Epistle of John purports to have been written by one who. had been an eye-witness of our Saviour’s ministry, and who could speak with apostolic authority. Such evidence is not to be rejected without careful scrutiny. Nothing short of statements in the writings which could not have been made by the pretended authors, or statements of those who first \ The Bible from God. 49 received the writings, is sufficient to nullify this testimony. But such statements do not exist. (3) The contents and style of the New Testament books prove that they were written by apostles or their associates. In support of this statement we appeal (a) to the simplicity, vividness, particularity, and objectiveness of the narrative parts; for these qualities point to writers who were under the extraordinary personal influence of Christ. (0) To the freshness and power of thought which characterize these writings, — qualities which may be accounted for by their writers’ acquaintance with Christ, and in no other way so well, if at all. (c) To the silence of history in respect to any other men able to produce them. The authors of these books could hardly have passed away, without leaving other traces of their influence. For they were zany, —not one, —and ze- : markable, not common men; and they wrote with compara- tive independence of one another. It is simply absurd to suppose the New Testament Scrip- tures written by certain unknown men outside of the apostolic circle, — by persons in the first or second century, who have left no other traces of their existence. These writers, if not apostles, must have been peers of the apostles in influence. Where did they live and labor that their names were never known to the ages that followed? The four great letters ascribed to Paul must, as even Baur admits, have been written by him.1. But if these were written by Paul, the other nine must have been also. No man who could have produced them can be supposed capable of ascribing them falsely to the apostles; nor, indeed, can any one else be reasonably supposed to have come so near the apostle in thought and style. Of modern opponents ? to this view of the authorship of the New Testament, two persons may be named as most 1 Compare Farrar (F. W.) “The Witness of History to Christ,” p. 76. 2 Of their writings, the following may be mentioned: Riggenbach (C. J.) “Zeugnisse fiir das Evangelium Johannis”; Ililgenfeld (A.) “ Der Kanon und die Kritik des N. T.”; Davidson (S.) “Introduction to the New Test.” last 50 Manual of Systematic Theology. conspicuous, viz.: D. F. Strauss and F. C. Baur. The former attempted to resolve the gospel narratives into popular “myths” or legends; and the latter, to find their origin in the “spirit of the age.” Both were pantheists, denying the possibility of miracles. And both have been answered by such scholars as Neander, Ullmann, Ebrard, Schaff, Meyer, Godet, Fisher, Pressensé, Luthardt,! and others, too nu- merous to mention. ; After the severest scrutiny, the evidence will be founu ample and conclusive as to xearly all the New Testament writings; and were those of a slightly doubtful origin set aside, the theological system would itself remain unchanged. But there is no adequate reason for believing that any book of the New Testament is unworthy of its place in the canon. IV. That these writers were manifestly competent, upright, and, therefore, trustworthy.” (a) They were competent. For (1) They were men of good judgment. They do not write like enthusiasts or fanatics, but like men of sound sense and practical aim. (2) They were men of more than average intelligence. This is evident from their writings, which are greatly superior in freshness, force of thought, and perspicuity of style, to any similar productions of that age. (3) The facts which they relate are, for the most part, such as could be fairly attested by the edition; De Wette (W. M. L.) “An Historical Critical Introduction to the Can- onical Books of the N. T.” in many respects valuable, translated by F. Frothingham. 1 Neander (A.) “Life of Christ,” and “Planting and Training of the Ap, Church”; Ullmann (C.) “ Historisch oder Mythisch ?” Ebrard (J. H. A.) “ Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte”; Fisher (G. P.) ‘Essays on the Supernatural Origin of Christianity”; Luthardt (C. E.) “ Authorship of the Fourth Gospel ”; Sears (E. H.) “The Fourth Gospel, the Heart of Christ”; Sanday (W.) “The Fourth Gospel: Was John its Author?” Alexander (W. L.) “Christ and Christianity.” 2 Greenleaf (S.) ‘“‘ Harmony of the Gospels; Introductory Essay”; West (G.) “On the Resurrection of Christ”; Macpherson (R.) “ The Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” etc.- Lyttleton (L.) “On the Conversion of the Apostle Paul”; Paley (W.) “Hore Pauline”; Smith (J.) “The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul,” etc.; Paley (W.) “A View of the Evidences of Christianity ;” See also Blunt (J. J.) “Undesigned Coincidences in the writings of both the Old and New Testaments”; Birks (T. R.) “Horz Evangelice ”; “Tor Apostolic.” The Bible from God. 51 senses. They could be seen or heard, or verified by taste or smell. Scientific training, or philosophical, was not needed to qualify men to bear witness to such events as are related by the evangelists. (6) They were upright. This may be inferred 1, From the tone of sincerity and earnestness which pervades all their writings. 2, From the spirituality of the religious doctrines which are inculcated. 3, From the character of the motives which are appealed to. . 4, From the purity and perfection of the moral principles which are taught. 5, From the style of narrative which is employed,—a style which is dis- tinguished, (a) For szmplicety: It seems to be a completely natural, unadorned expression of what was believed to be true. If the composition of the Gospels is a work of art, it is art so perfect as to seem like nature. (6) For posztzveness : The writers keep to the facts like men under oath, making almost no inferences or conjectures. This is strikingly manifest in the first three Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles. (¢) For frankness: Nothing seems to be kept back because it was of doubtful wisdom. The hard sayings of Christ, the apparent’ contradictions of his language, the sins and errors of his disciples, — all appear in the record without preface or apology.’ (d) For mznuteness: The nar- ratives are particular, circumstantial, life-like, giving names of persons, places, diseases, and the like, as would be natural in the account of an eye-witness. (¢) For objectiveness: The writers go through their work as if they had taken no part in it, and had nothing at stake in the matter. One could scarcely infer from their language that they had forsaken all for Christ, and were ready to lay down their lives for his sake. They never eulogize his character, and rarely his teaching. They scarcely allude to many questions which awaken the utmost curiosity in men addicted to religious speculation. “In its grand, childlike, and holy simplicity, the narrative passes by such questions of the intellect, just as a child * 1 Compare Farrar (F. W.) “The Witness of History to Christ,” p. 76; a striking passage. 52 Manual of Systematic Theology. moves among the riddles of nature and of life, as if they existed not.” 6, From the perfection of Christ's character, —a character which must have been real. For so unique and perfect, so truly human and yet manifestly divine is this character, that we cannot suppose it to be an idea! creation. The four distinct records are diverse, yet harmo- nious. So marked are the differences, even in relating the same events, that some have rashly inferred contradiction; yet so deep and pervading is the harmony, that others have inferred transcription. It is impossible to suppose the life and character of Christ an zdeal originated by ome of the Evangelists, since this view would not account for the freedom and diversity in the narratives; and it is equally impossible to suppose the zdea/ originated by more than one of them, since the zzzty of impression would not be accounted for. But if there was such a person as Jesus Christ, whose history the Gospels contain, we have no difficulty whatever in accounting for the wonderful harmony in diversity which they exhibit; since we have, as it were, four portraits of the same original, though taken by different artists and from different points of view. All this will be yet more evident, if our four canonical Gospels be compared with the Apocry- phal Gospels, referred to below.! 7, From the lack of motive to write as they did, if they were dishonest. Well may Dryden ask concerning the sacred writers, and especially those of the New Testament, “How, or why, Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie? Unasked their pains, ungrateful their advice, Starving their gains, and martyrdom their price.” There are many good remarks on this topic in Lord Lyttle- ton’s treatise on “The Conversion of St. Paul.” If the 1 Da Costa (I.) “ The Four Witnesses”; Westcott (B. F.) “Introduction to - the Study of the Four Gospels”; Neander (A.) “Life of Christ”; Ellicott (C. J.) “Life of Christ”; Andrews (S. J.) “The Life of our Lord upon the Earth”; Young (J.) “The Christ of History”; Lange (J. P.) “ Life of Jesus ”; Farrar (F. W.) “Life of Christ”; Seeley (J. R.) “Ecce Homo”; Parker (J.) “Ecce Deus”; Alexander (W. L.) “Christ and Christianity”; Keim (T.) “The History of Jesus of Nazara.” See also Cowper, “The Apocryphal Gospels.” ee The Bible from God. 53 writers of the New Testament bore false witness in respect to the life and teachings of Christ, they did it with no prospect of personal gain in this life, or in that which is to come. (c) They were trustworthy. This follows from their com- petency and uprightness. As competent, they were able to utter the truth; as upright, they were sure to do it. But we cannot, it is said, determine the character of witnesses, without subjecting them to cross-examination. Says Greenleaf on Evidence, i. 138, “It is found indis- pensable, as a test of truth, and to the proper administration of justice, that every living witness should, if possible, be subjected to the ordeal of a cross-examination, that | it may appear what were-his powers of perception ; his opportunities for observation ; his attentiveness in observing; the strength of his recollection; and his disposition to speak the truth.” This is doubtless a correct statement, in respect to living witnesses. But the comment of J. H. Newman is also correct: “It has been said, that no testimony can fairly be trusted, which has not passed the ordeal of a legal examina- tion. Yet, calculated as that mode of examination un- doubtedly is, to elicit truth, surely truth may be elicited by - other ways also. Independent and circumstantial writers may confirm a fact as satisfactorily as witnesses in court. They may be questioned and cross-questioned, and, moreover, brought up for re-examination in any succeeding age.” Our examination of the New Testament records has been of this nature; and the result is plain, —a@ conviction of thetr historical trustworthiness. They are entitled to full. credence, when stating clearly matters of fact ; and a discovery now and then of minor, unintentional errors would not invalidate this conclusion. The result now reached may appear small, and the process of reaching it slow; but it is all-important for the investigation which is to follow. II. THESE WRITINGS PROVE THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS AN INFALLIBLE TEACHER. By an “infallible teacher” is meant one who teaches truth 1 “Essays on Miracles,” p. 74. 54 Manual of Systematic Theology. without any mixture of error; or one whose instruction, in whatever form it may be given, will prove, if rightly appre- hended, to be wholly correct. Such a teacher need not be strictly omniscient; but if he is not omniscient, he must clearly perceive the limits of his knowledge, and confine his teaching within those limits. The teaching of prophets and apostles could only be infallible by restricting it to what the Holy Spirit moved them to say. A teacher from God may be presumed to know the work entrusted to him. If he defines his work, it will be safe to make his definition the basis of study in attempting to ascertain the nature of that work. And it would plainly be unsafe to ascribe to him any attribute or authority which he disclaims. Our discussion of the point now in question may, therefore, begin with a survey of the claims put forth by Jesus Christ as a Teacher. Taking his own words for our guide, What did he know, and how did he teach? 1 What did he claim to know ? (2) He claimed to know heavenly things directly. — John Vill. 38; lili. 11=13, (2) He claimed to know the Father fully and exclusively. — Matt. xi. 27; John vii. 28-29; viii. 55; vi. 46; X. 15; Xvii. 25 —26. < (c) He claimed to be one with the Father.——John x. 30- 38; xvil. 10-22. And, by claiming this unity, he virtually declared his teaching divine. (d).He claimed that his words were his Father's words. — John vii. 16; viii. 28; xii. 49; xiv. 10-24; xvil. 8. (ec) He claimed that his words were immutably true. — Mark xiii. 31; John xiv. 6. This, in brief, was the claim of Christ; and it amounts toa claim of infallibility, or entire correctness in his teaching. Did his manner correspond with this verbal claim ? 2. How did he teach? (a) He spoke almost always in the first person singular, with language of great authority. There are but two or three exceptions to the former part of this statement on record, The Bible from God. Be (4) He spoke as if he were the final and perfect Teacher. — Matt. v. 17 sq.; xix. 8, 9. (c) He represented salvation as depending on the treatment of his words. — Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; John xii. 47; xiv. Bee UxV. 7, (d) He always spoke as one perfectly master of his theme and of the occasion, — never confessing that he was mistaken on any point, and never seeming to work his way up from a lower to a higher view. He always looked down upon his subject.” This, in brief, was the manner of Christ; and, on any fair interpretation of it, it was in perfect harmony with his claim to infallibility. It may, therefore, be-said that his whole spirit and bearing as a teacher support, in a measure, his definite claim. Or, if any one prefer another form of state- ment, the two were in such perfect accord as to constitute a double claim to infallibility. They make it almost certain that his sense of perfect knowledge as to all that he taught was constant, natural, and controlling. And the following circumstances justify our assent to the correctness of this claim. I. His immediate disciples were convinced of its rightfulness. They were intimatcly associated with him for a period of nearly three years. They did not always understand his words, nor were they always satisfied with his course of action. Some of them appear to have been critical and unsympathetic. Yet, (1) They ascribe to him perfect knowl- edge. — Matt. ix. 4: “And Jesus, knowing their thoughts, Said, ete: (cf Marki, 8; Johr ul. 24,25; Acts i.24; Rev, ii. 23; John xvi. 30; xxi. 17; Vi. 64; xviil. 4). (2) They declare him to be full of truth, and the source of truth.— John i. 14: “And dwelt among us full of grace and truth,” (cf. i. 16). (3) They preach his doctrine as pre-eminently the truth. —2 Cor. iv. 2 sq.: “ By manifestation of the truth commending our- selves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God,” (cf. 1 See Parker (J.) “‘ The Paraclete,” p. 63 sq., for a similar thought. 56 Manual of Systematic Theology. Gal. 11.5; Eph. iv. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 15). And certaimiy the fact that Jesus Christ convinced his most intimate friends of the rightfulness of his claims is some confirmation of them. Yet they might be mistaken; and their belief is not therefore of itself decisive. Il. Ais moral character appears to have been perfect.‘ In support of this statement we appeal : — (2) To his estimate of himself, (1) As meek and lowly in heart. — Matt. xi. 29; (cf. xxvi. 42; John Vv. 303 vi. 38; iv. 34; vil. 18). (2) As doing always his Father's will. — John Vill. 29-46; xv. 10. (2) To his disciples’ estimate of him. — 1 Pet. ii. 22 ; “Who did no sin.” — Ro. xv. 3;*Phil.-ii. 8; 2 Cor. v)2nguiemeeam 15; vil. 26; 1 Johnii. 29; ii. 7; Acts. i. 14; Vile 2am 1 Cor. i. 2; John v. 23; andthelike. And his disciples were not likely to mistake the character of Christ in this respect. Had he been proud or unsubmissive, he would have betrayed this spirit to his followers; they would have felt its presence, and would not have been able to think of him as without sin. (c) To the total impression made by the record of his life. The value of this as evidence cannot easily be over-rated. It does not depend on minute points of criticism which only a scholar can understand. It depends upon the broader features and general tone of the narratives, and can be appre- ciated by every upright mind. The eye of an unlearned but thoughtful reader is almost sure to'take in the great features of the picture, and judge them correctly.’ Reference may also be made, at this point, to the impres- sion which. his bearing made upon Judas, Pilate, and the wife of Pilate, all of whom appear to have been assured of the moral integrity of Jesus. — Matt. xxvii. 4; 24, 19. 1 Ullmann (C.) “The Sinlessness of Jesus an Evidence for Christianity” Bushnell (H.) “ The Character of Jesus forbidding his possible classification with Men”; Schaff (P.) “The Person of Christ”; Dorner (J. A.) “The Sinless Per- fection of Christ ” in Am. Presby. and Theol. Rev. for 1863; Seeley (J. K.) “Ecce 1lomo”; Parker (J.) “Ecce Deus”; Hovey (A.) ‘‘ Madison Avenue Lectures,” p. 12. sq-; Row (C. A.) “The Jesus of the Evangelists.’ 2 Leathes (S.) “ Witness of the Old Test. to Christ,” pp. 172-173. The Bible from God. 57 It may also be remarked that the evangelists do not appear to have chosen their materials with any special view to proving the moral perfection of Christ—See Matt. xix. 17; vill. 28-34; Mark xi. 12-14; Luke xxiv. 28. Ill. Azs doctrines agree with his claim to infallibility.' (1) lz their simplicity, A child can understand them. What he says of God’s care and love, of man’s duty and happiness, is perfectly direct and intelligible. To love God with all the heart; to forsake all for Christ; to be watchful, prayerful, obedient, humble; to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, even if that neighbor be a stranger or a foe; to be loyal subjects, faithful husbands, bountiful givers; in a word, to be like Christ himself in love to God and man, —all this is set forth in the clearest speech imaginable. The chief thought, the essential doctrine, is placed before the mind in its naked verity and beauty. (2) Lz their self-consistency. ‘This is no less remarkable. Every man knows how hard it is to state one truth of a system correctly, without putting it in connection with several others. The human mind is not many-sided and comprehensive enough to hold all the relations, and see all the phases, of a truth at once, so that a wrong statement of it would be next to impossible. But the mind of Christ did this. His various teachings are in deepest harmony with one another. His views of God and of man, of piety and of morality, of life here and judgment hereafter, are always self-consistent. (3) Jz their moral purity. This is absolute. A higher standard cannot even be conceived. There is no real virtue which they do not inculcate in its best form, and no vice which they do not condemn in its earliest germ. Says Dr. Peabody, of the ethical teaching of Jesus, “Who can add to it? Who can take from it? What imaginable case of 1 Erskine (R.) “ Internal Evidence of the Truth of Christianity ”; Jenyns (S.) On the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion”; Harris (S.) “The Demands of Infidelity satisfied by Christianity,” Bib. Sac. XIII. pp. 272-314; Peabody (A. P.) “Immutable Morality,” Address at Brown University; Bayne (P.) “The Testimony of Christ to Christianity.” 58 Manual of Systematic Theology. obligation does it not meet? In what imaginable case is departure from it safe? We can conceive of no other prin- ciples than those which it embodies.” (4) lu their comprehensiveness. This is wonderful. The precepts of Christ are principles. They apply to innumerable instances. They expand as we study them. Sometimes one of them is seen to comprise all duty. Such, for example, is the golden rule, properly understood; and the same may be said of the first commandment of the law. (5) lu their practicalness. They were uttered for the purpose of leading men to God and duty; not as theoretical views interesting to the philosopher and student, but as precepts of life, for the good of the suffering and the guilty. Jesus was not a philosopher, but a Saviour; and all the principles which he taught had a direct bearing upon the salvation of men. (6) Lu their good influence. This was marked even during his life; but it has increased with the lapse of years, and is now probably greater than ever before. A large part of the intelligence and virtue, not to say piety, which now blesses mankind, is due to the religion of Christ ; and no small part of the power of his religion for good may be traced to the doctrines which he taught. In a sense, all of it may be traced to them. IV. Many predictions made by him have been fulfilled. Not every one who utters a true prophecy is infallible in all his speech: but a knowledge of future events, concealed from human view, is good evidence that God is with him who possesses it; and a permanent possession of such knowledge is evidence of the permanent presence of God with the possessor. Now (1) Christ predicted his own death. — Matt. xii. 40: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (cf. xvi. 21-23; xvii. 22, 23; xx. 17—I10, 22, 23; xxvi. 1, 2; Mark x 38, 39; Toga 44; Xil. 50; xill. 33; xvil 22, 25; John il, 19— 225 xen 32 - 34). The Bible from God. 59 (2) He predicted his disciples conduct. —Mark xiv. 18-21: “One of you that eateth with me will betray me,” sq. (cf. John xiii. 11, 18-26; Matt. xxvi. 31-34; Mark xiv. 72.) (3) He predicted other events affecting them. — John xxi. 18. “ But when thou art old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and shall carry thee whither thou wouldst not” (cf. Matt. xx. 23; Mark xiv. 13-16; Matt. x. 17—22; John xv. 20). (4) He also foretold the destruction of Ferusalem. — Matt. xxiv. 2: “Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down”’ (cf. xxiv. 4, 5, 23-26; Mark xiii. 14; Luke xxi. 12, 16, 20, sq.). Now, in view of all the circumstances, the exact fulfilment of these predictions is a good reason for believing that all his teaching was true. To this!it is objected by some, that one of his predictions has failed; for he foretold his own return to earth before the generation then living had passed away. — Matt. xxiv. 34. -In reply to this objection, it may be remarked, (1) That the word yeved may possibly be equivalent to yzvog, and signify a particular race or kind of men. This is maintained by Dorner, Storr, Auberlen, Alford, and others.* (2) That the reference is not to a visible return of Christ, but to the destruction of Jerusalem, —a type of the final overthrow of the wicked. — Bengel, Robinson, and others. V. GREAT MIRACLES WERE WROUGHT BY HIM. Miracles are changes in nature, which must be ascribed to supernatural agency; or events in the world of sense, which, according to sound principles of reason, should be ascribed to extraordinary action on the part of God.’ 1 Grimm (C. L. W.) “Lexicon Greco Latinum in Libros N. T.” s. v. yeved 2. “b. translate; genus hominum ingeniis, studiis, moribus sibé simillimorum, et ‘ quidem malo sensu ferversum genus; Matt. xvii. 17; Mark ix.19; Luke ix. 41; xvi. 8.” See Bib. Sac. VII. pp. 452-478; IX. pp. 329-354, 449 - 4607 ; Dorner (J. A.) “De Oratione Christi eschatologica, Matt. xxiv. 1-36, asseverata”’; Robinson (E.) “The Coming of Christ as announced in Matt. xxiv. 29-31.” Bib. Sac. 1834. 2 Hume (D.) “ Of Miracles,” vol. II. of “Essays”; Powell (B.) “On the Study nf the Evidences of Christianity,” in “ Essays and Reviews”; Farmer (H.) “On 60 Manual of Systematic Theology. A supernatural revelation is, therefore, a miraculous revela- tion. But the revelation, if made to one person for the benefit of others, needs attestation or ratification; and this ratification must be (1) something addressed to other men, and (2) something which must in reason be referred to the source of the revelation. Healing the paralytic, in proof of authority to forgive his sins, is a case in point. The miracles of Christ served a double purpose, (1) to reveal his character and spirit, in which light they are part of his teaching; and (2) to attest the truth of his claims, in which light they are equivalent to the seal or signature of God, indorsing his authority. — Ex. iv. 1-9; 2 Kings i. 10; Matt. xl. 3-5; Mark ii. 10, 11; John il. 23; ii. 2; vijgGpeaee 16, 30 - 333 x. 25, 38; xl. 4, 40, 423 Xil. 305 ive yee 30, 31; Acts iil. 22; x. 37-43; Heb. ii. 3,4. Inethed@ormecr respect, as well as in the latter, they were superhuman, divine, and so confirmatory of his teaching. Thus, doctrine confirms miracle, and miracle, doctrine. Indeed, doctrine, miracle, life, resurrection, and the effect of all on the world, support one another.* But against the occurrence of miracles many objections have been pressed, of which the following deserve particular attention : — Miracles’; Campbell (G.) “Treatise on Miracles”; Douglass (J.) “A Letter on the Criterion of Miracles”; Wardlaw (R.) “On Miracles”; Mozley (J. B.) “On Miracles”; Cumming (J.) “On our Lord’s Miracles”; Warington (G.) “Can we believe in Miracles?” Hovey (A.) “The Miracles of Christ”; Westcott (B. F.) “Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles”; Bushnell (H.) “ Nature and the Super- natural”; McCosh (J.) “The Supernatural in the Natural”; Mansel (H. L.) “On Miracles as Evidences of Christianity,” in “ Aids to Faith”; Heurtley (C. A.) “ Miracles,” in “Replies to Essays and Reviews”; Skinner (T. H.) “ Mn- acles the Proof of Christianity” in Am. Presb. and Theol. Rev. for 1863, p. 177 sq. 1 Steinmeyer (F. L.) “Die Wunderthaten des Herrn”; Westcott (B. F.) “ Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles”; Trench (R. C.) “On Miracles”; Fisher (G. P.) “On the Christian Miracles” in “Essays on the Supernatural Origin of Christianity”; Fitzgerald (W.) “ Miracles” in “Smith’s Dict. of the Bible,” Am. ed.; Seelye (J. H.) “ Miracles,” in “ Boston Lectures, Christianity an. Skepticism”; Miiller (J.) ““Disputatio de Miraculorum Jesu Christi natura,” etc.; Késtlin (J.) “De Miraculorum que Jesus et primi ejus discipuli fecerunt natura et ratione.” The Bible from God. 61 1. Human testimony for miracles is nullified by man’s predisposition to believe in them. Says Lecky: “It is, how- ever, the fundamental error of most writers on miracles, that they confine their attention to two points, — the possibility of the fact, and the nature of the evidence. There is a third ele- ment, which, in these questions, is of practical importance, — the predisposition of men in certain stages of society towards the miraculous, which is so strong, that miraculous stories are invariably circulated and credited, and which makes an amount of evidence that would be quite sufficient to establish a natural fact altogether inadequate to establish a supernatural one.” The same thought is emphasized by David Hume in his famous attack upon the evidence for miracles, though with special reference to miracles which are said to have been wrought for religious ends. But the tendency of mankind referred to has a double bearing. For it is not limited to men “in certain stages of society,’ but is almost universal. Indeed, the frequency with which persons who reject the testimony for the miracles of Christ accept the evidence which is offered for spiritual manifestations, and the like, has shown that skepticism and credulity often dwell together in the same mind. And the predisposition insisted upon by Hume and Lecky is, in reality, both an argument for caution in accepting the claim of any event to a supernatural character, and a reason for believing that miracles are included in God’s plan of govern- ing the human race. For, speaking generally, the spurious presupposes the genuine; the counterfeit imitates the true. If God has inclined us, by a secret and well-nigh ineradicable tendency of our religious nature, to almost expect miracles in certain emergencies of human history, the ready assent given by multitudes to pretended miracles is at once explained; for nothing is more characteristic of man, in his present condition, than the habit of following blindly a constitu- tional bias of his nature. Yet nothing is more certain than the fact that every normal bias points first in the direction 62 Manual of Systematic Theology. of truth, and, if followed wisely and cautiously, will lead to truth.! 2. The observed uniformity of nature ts incompatible with the occurrence of mtracles at any time. This may be called the objection of the present day to miracles. It was the chief pillar on which Hume’s argument against the credibility of miracles rested. For he said, —(a@) That our belief in the laws of nature rests on a “uniform, firm, unalterable expe- rience.” (6) That our belief in human testimony rests on a “variable experience.” (c) That a miracle is an event “con- trary to uniform experience, when the circumstances are the same.” ‘That a dead man should come to life is a miracle, — because that has never been observed in any age or country.” (2) That the best human testimony in favor of miracles can only justify doubt. (e) That such testimony may be imagined as would justify examination and, perhaps, belief, if the miracle alleged had no connection with religion. But if it had such connection, no human testimony would deserve the least attention. But this argument is unsound, (1) Because it ignores the moral government of God. (2) Because it confounds experience and testimony. (3) Because it fails to discrimi- nate between different kinds of testimony.” (4) Because it begs the question by the definition which it gives to the word “miracle.” (5) Because it discriminates against miracles connected with religion, and so against religion itself. It may be observed that Hume not only begs the question by defining a miracle, an event “that has never been observed in any age or country,” but also renders a second miracle impossible; for a second event of the kind could not, by this definition, be a miracle, —that is, an event “that has never been observed in any age or country.” 1 See Butler (J.) “ Analogy,” Part II. ch. 7. “It is objected further, that, however it has happened, the fact is, that mankind have, in different ages, been strangely deluded with pretences to miracles and wonders. But it is by no means to be admitted, that they have been oftener, or are at all more liable to be deceived by these than by other pretences.” 2 Chalmers, “The Miraculous and Internal Evidences, etc.,” pp. 70-146. The Bible from God. 63 It raay be remarked also, (a) that one of the chief ends for waich miracles are said to have been wrought forbids their indefinite multiplication. Customary events are not the fittest credentials for an extraordinary messenger. (0) That the fact that few events are miraculous no more proves that none are miraculous than the fact that few mountains are volcanoes proves that none are volcanoes. (c) That man himself, within certain narrow limits, is free, having power to act upon the forces and sequences of material nature, — to disturb them, to resist them; to combine them, to guide them, to re-enforce them, — how much more, then, may God, the Infinite Mind, control, supplement, overpower, or super- sede the forces of nature, to accomplish a high moral ‘purpcse! The introduction of new races proves that he does this. 3. The true view of God’s perfection is inconsistent with the occurrence of miracles at any time. For, if God interposes to disturb the laws of nature, he repudiates his own work. A miracle, therefore, supposes imperfection in the work of God. In reply to this, it may be remarked, — (@ It is by no means self-evident that a world, independent of God, complete in itself, and needing no care or help in any emergency, would bea better world than one dependent on him, and needing his care and help. The oak is not neces- sarily better than the vine.’ The greatest independence of the creature conceivable might not be the best thing for the universe, embracing both Creator and creatures. And, if a universe comprehends in itself created beings who are morai, and are to be trained by moral influences, it cannot be shown that a need of divine interposition, making natural forces bend to the exigencies of moral order, would be an imperfec- tion. 1 Butler (J.) “Analogy,” Part II. ch. 3. “Justas if,” says John Foster, “the order of nature had been constituted by some other and greater Being, and zz trusted to the Almighty to be administered, under an obligation never to suspend, for a moment, the fixed laws.” — “Christian Morals,” p. 216. 64 Manual of Systematic Theology. (6) The Christian doctrine of miracles assigns them a place in the eternal plan of God. He is supposed to introduce them whenever, and only when, the highest order and good of the universe require them. “They are consequents pal- pable to the eye, but whose antecedents belong to the infinite laws of order which you cannot measure, since they are out of sight. The same consequents were never given before, because the same antecedents were never given.”? Hence, moral law or reason, instead of mere physical force, bears rule in all worlds. “ Lex est perpetua voluntas Dei,” observes Zwingle. Once admit the existence of a personal Creator, all-wise and most-merciful, and this appears to be the only natural view of his relation to the universe. (c) Miracles do not violate the essential order of nature, — the law of cause and effect. They only suppose that an invisible power, for an important end, sometimes directs, assists, or overcomes the forces of nature. The action of the human will does this on a small scale; and there can be no absurdity in supposing that the action of the divine will may do the same on a larger scale, for a sufficient reason. No force of nature is dishonored by being overcome by a greater” force; and no one can doubt that moral order is a higher good than physical order.* 4. The view that God ts a blind force tmmanent in nature renders the idea of miracles absurd. This statement is unanswerable. If there is no personal God,‘ miracles are incredible. If nature is all, then the forces of nature will always have their way. Hence, Baur and Strauss, resting on their denial of any God but nature, were consistent in deny- ing the possibility of miracles. Pantheism is fer se a rejection of the Christian religion; but Pantheism is false, and infer- ences from it are worthless. It should be recollected that the objections against mir- 1 Sears (E. H.) “ The Fourth Gospel, the Heart of Christ,” p. 24. 2 Chalmers (T.) “Institutes of Theology,” I. p. 170, note; Channing (W. F.) “Dudleian Lecture on the Evidence of Revealed Religion,” Works III. p. 105 sq-; Smith (H. I.) “Am. Presb. and Theol. Rev.” for 1864, p. 143 The Dible from God. 65 acles, if valid at all, are conclusive against a supernatural revelation of the divine will in any form, and that the occurrence of a single miracle establishes the worthlessness of these objections. If Christ really existed as a supernatural being, or if he rose from the dead, according to the Gospels, the objections which we have been reviewing have no force at all. In evidence of the fact that such a person as Jesus Christ lived in Palestine, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, we may appeal to the entire New Testament, and, indeéd, to the existence of Christianity. The fact is not now denied. In evidence of the fact that Jesus Christ was a supernatural being, we may appeal, in like manner, to the plain testimony of the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament. The fact can only be denied by mutilating the Gospels, by arbitrarily rejecting their testimony on certain points, while it is admitted on others. — See “ Part V. ch. 1. The Deity of Christ.” In evidence of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, our appeal is also to the New Testament. This evidence has been most strenuously assailed, but without success; for it is invulnerable. We hold, therefore, that all objections to occasional miracles for a high moral end are futile; but we concede the propriety of carefully scrutinizing the evidence for an alleged miracle before admitting its reality. For it is perfectly true that a miracle,viewed as a mere phenomenon of nature, is improbable. Were it not, it would be useless in connection with a supernatural word from God. ‘So far as a miracle, in itself, and apart from its relations to a special divine intention, is probable, just so far does it lose its usefulness as a sign of God’s interest in that word.’ What, then, can be said of the testimony offered by the evangelists to the wonderful works of Christ ? (1) The number of witnesses is ample. (2) Their integrity is above suspicion. (3) Their powers of observation and memory were excellent. (4) The phenomena which they 1 Park, in Smith’s “ Dict. of the Bible,” Am. ed. 66 Manual of Systematic Theology. attest were sensible. (5) Their testimony itself is positive. (6) Their testimony is independent. (7) Their testimony is substantially harmonious. (8) Their testimony makes the teaching of Christ grow naturally out of his miracles. (9) The aim of Christ’s miracles was Godlike. (10) The refer- ences to attendant circumstances are numerous and accurate. Now, it is perfectly evident that this testimony is decisive, provided miracles are not rationally impossible or absurd; for it is of the very best kind, and there is no rebutting testimony. No one who was present pretends to deny the events recorded by the evangelists; and only a person who was present could bear witness that such events did not then and there take place. But, as we have seen, miracles are not absurd; they are not even, in all circumstances, improbable. Says Paley, ‘Miracles are no more improbable than these two proposi- tions: (1) That a future state of existence should be destined by God for his human creation; and (2) That, being so destined, he should acquaint them with it.” Says Mill, “ The only antecedent improbability which can be ascribed to the miracle is the improbability that God would interfere with the regular course ot events to perform it.”’? It appears, therefore, that if the welfare of his creatures can be promoted, on the whole, by miracles, God, as wise and benevolent, may be supposed to work them, and to work as many of them as will, in the highest degree, promote this end. Beyond that limit, he cannot be supposed to go; unless, indeed, his own glory may be conceived of as another end to be secured by miraculous interposition. Perhaps it is un- necessary for us to attempt any separation between these ends; they may exactly coincide: whatever tends to secure one of them may equally tend to secure the other. Conclusion.—In view of the facts which we have thus drawn froin trustworthy records of Christ’s life, we must prenounce him INFALLIBLE, and receive all his words as 1 See also Professor Harris (S.) in Bib. Sac. XIII. p. 279, and Professor Lewis (T.) “ Divine Human in the Scriptures,” p. 149. The Bible from God. 67 true ; for these facts cannot be reconciled with the hypothesis that he was either a deceiver or self-deceitved. They are intelligible and credible only on the supposition that he was what he claimed to be,—a humble, holy, INFALLIBLE Being. III. THESE RECORDS PROVE THAT CHRIST PROMISED THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLy SPIRIT TO HIS APOSTLES, BY WHOM, WITH SOME OF THEIR ASSOCIATES, THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN. ; In this statement the word “inspiration” is used as a theological term, to signify a work of the Spirit upon the mind, rather than upon the heart; upon the intellect, rather than upon the affections. In other words, it denotes a work of illu- mination, rather than a work of conviction or of sanctification. The promise referred to in this statement may be found in jenmesivw15—17, 20; xv. 26, 27; xvi. 7-15; Acts i. 5,8; Matt. x. 19, 20; Luke xii. 11, 12; and it may be said, — (1) To embrace several particulars. Thus the Holy Spirit was promised,—(@) As one who would abide with the apostles as a permanent Helper (John xiv. 16); (4) as one who would recall to their minds the words of Christ (John xiv. 26); (c) as one who would make known to them truth not fully taught by Christ (John xvi. 12); (d@) as one who would reveal future events to them (John xvi. 13); (e) as one who would guide them into the whole doctrine of Christ (John xiv. 26; xvi. 13; Acts v. 8); and (f) as one who would give them wisdom and utterance in times of danger (Matt. x. 19, 20; Luke xii: 11,12): (2) To refer primarily to the apostles. For, (a2) It was addressed to them, with no express reference to a wider application (except in John xiv. 16; xvi. 8-11). (6) In certain particulars, it was obviously limited to them (John xiv. 27; xvi. 12). (¢) In others, it referred to their special duties (John xv. 26; Actsi. 5, 8). (Z) In one case, it had in view their approaching trials (Matt. x. 19, 20; Luke xii. II, 12). (e) In some of its phraseology, it pointed to a work of the Syirit which was specially needed by the apostles, that is, a work of divine illumination, — (a) by designating 68 Manual of Systematic Theology. the Spirit three several times as “the Spirit of the Truth” —a title nowhere else given to him (except in 1 John iv. 6); (0) by describing him as a teacher of new truth; and (¢) by making him a revealer of things to come. Diversities of gifts were needed by the church; and the gift which the apostles needed more than any others at that time, or since, was extraordinary divine illumination. It may be remarked, that certain expressions inethe last discourse of Christ with his disciples are true of all Christians, because the conditions of discipleship were the same for them and for others. Moreover, certain expressions in Matt. x. show that Christ adapted his words to the circumstances and needs of the apostles after his own death. Their temporary mission was typical of their permanent work. It may also be remarked, that Paul was a “called apostle,” and, therefore, entitled to a fulfilment of Christ’s promise to the eleven. For, (a) he claimed to be an apostle (Rom. i. 1; 1 Cor.i. 1;ix. 1; andoften). (4) His claim was recognized by other apostles (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16; 1 Pet. i. 12; Gal. ii. 6-9). (c) Miracles were-wrought at his word (Acts xiv. 3; xix. II, 12; XX. Q—I2; xxviii. 3-6; 2 Cor. xii. 12). That the promise in question was specially meant for the apostles may also be inferred from several other considera- tions; for example, — (a) From their own interpretation of it (Acts il. 16-33; iv. 8; v. 32; X. 19; xi. 12; xill. 9; xv. 28; xvi. 6 7 see sq. 3 Gal. i, 11, 12; Revi. sq. su dime (2) From their professing to speak the word or command of God (1 Cor. ii: 13; 1 Thess. il. 13; iv. 15; 2 Dhessaiieny 2 Cor. i. 18 sq.; Col. iit. 16; 1 John’ ii. 14; (eee Titus i, 3; 1 Cor. vii. 25; Rom: xvi. 26; x. 17;@eveeeene Ey Pet a. 23,3-Eph. iil. 3 5) ,0; tGdlalae 1 iulo)e (c) From the authority with which they speak, —as if they knew the will of God. Thus Paul, in 1 Thess. iv. 2; 2 Thess. li. 15; ili. 4, 6, 10, 12, 14; 1 Cor. vil. 17; Vv. 3—=5queeee 8-9, claims inspired authority; which, however, as he in- timates, only puts him on a level with the older apostles. The Bible from God. 69 (2) From their recognition of the divine authority of the Old Testament, while putting their own teaching on the same plane with it (1 Pet. i. 10-12; 2 Pet. i. 1I9g—21; 2 Tim. iii, 16-17; (cf. Rev. xxi. 14); Acts ii. 15 sq. ; and Eph. ii. 20; Heb. ii. 4; 2 Pet: iii, 15, 16). (e) From the plentitude of spiritual gifts which they pos- sessed, enabling them to direct even inspired teachers (Matt. xvi. 17-19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23; Eph. ii. 20; Rev. xxi. ea; Acts vill. 16=—19; 1 Cor. xiv. 18, 36, 37; 2 Tim. i. 6 (cE y Tim. iv. 14); 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Eph. iv. 11). It is, therefore, evident that the promise made by Christ to his disciples was intended primarily and, in part, excluszvely for them. It is not then directly, and in all its language, applicable to Christians of every age. Yet all Christians may have the full benefit of it mediately; for all may have the assistance of the Spirit in studying the inspired truth of Scripture. But our third proposition adds, “dy whom, with some of their associates, the New Testament was written.’ And in proof of this, it may be observed, that the best Christian scholars admit that all the books of the New Testament, — except the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of James and Jude, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, — were written by apostles, and that these were written by associates of apostles. We have proved that the former are inspired, by proving that their writers, the apostles, were inspired; but what shall be said of the latter ? 1. That the books written by associates of the apostles must have had, if necessary, the sanction of the apostles themselves} 1 See the Articles on Mark, Luke, James, and Jude, and on the books at- tributed to them, in Smith’s “Dict. of the Bible;” McClintock and Strong, “ Dic- tionary of Historical, Ecclesiastical, and Doctrinal Theology”; Fairbairn (f.) “Imperial Bible Dictionary”; Kitto (J.) “Bible Cyclopedia,” ed. by W. L. Alexander; Winer (G. B.) “ Biblisches Real-wérterbuch” ; Herzog “ Real-Ency- klopadie”; Schenkel (D.) “ Bibel-Lexicon”; Wetzer und Welte, “ Kirchen-Lex- icon”; “Nouvelle Encyclopédie Theologique; Dictionnaire des Prophéties, et des Miracles ” (vols. xxiv. and xxv.). 70 Manual of Systematic Theology. They could have had that sanction by submitting them to the correction of the aposties ; for John, at least, lived twenty or thirty years after they were written. And early tradition asserts that they were, some of them, indorsed by apostles, — as Mark’s by Peter, and Luke’s by Paul. James and Jude were sons of Mary and brothers of Christ. (1) Mark is reported by the early Christians to have been the amanuensis, or interpreter, of Peter (cf. 1 Peter v. 13), and to have based his Gospel on Peter’s teaching. There is no reason to doubt the substantial truth of this early tradi- tion. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark appears to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the apostle John survived that event almost thirty years; and this Gospel could hardly have been circulated without his sanction: the use of it was, however, very early and unquestioned. (2) Luke is reported by the early church to have been long a companion of Paul, and to have written the Third Gospel and the Acts during his life; and therefore, we may surely assume, with the benefit of his supervision (cf. 1 Tim. v. 18; Luke x. 7). Moreover, both these were, without doubt, in circulation twenty years before the death of John, and must naturally have been approved by him. (3) The Epistle to the Hebrews was probably written by the direction and under the eye of Paul (whether by Luke or by some one else we cannot tell), and’ was sent to those ad- dressed as a letter from that apostle. (4) The Epistle of James was probably written by James, a brother of Christ, who was pastor of the church at Jerusa- lem, and possessed apostolic influence. (5) The author of the Epistle of Jude was probably a brother of Christ, and an associate of the apostles; and his letter was in this case, we can hardly doubt, indorsed by them. (6) The Second Epistle of Peter was probably written by the apostle: if not, it is spurious, —the work of some unknown writer, and wholly unworthy of a place in the canon. But there is too much evidence, both external and internal, of The Bible from God. 7I _ its genuineness, to permit us to hesitate in receiving it as a part of the sacred record. 2. That these associates of aposties, namely, Mark, Luke, Fames, and Fude, were probably themselves inspired. For (a) many associates of the apostles were inspired (Acts ii. 17, 18; xi. 27, 28; xxi. 9; I Cor. xi. 4; xiv. 24-34); and, therefore, (0) it is extremely probable that these men were thus qualified for their werk. Indeed, it seems to us more probable that these writers were inspired than that they looked to the apostles for an indorsement of their writings. But, loving the truth and anxious to have it delivered to the people in its purity, it is unreasonable to suppose they would have neglected to submit their work to the superior knowledge of apostles, if they were not themselves conscious of divine illumination ‘guarding them from error. It has now been shown that the New Testament Scriptures ‘were either written or sanctioned by men divinely inspired ; it is, therefore, certaim that they deserve our respect and confidence as a proper revelation from God. Nay, we may speak of them with propriety as the word of God. Having reached this conclusion in respect to the New Testament Scriptures, we might proceed at once to make use of them in proving the divine authority of the Old Testament. But it will be better to notice, at this point, certain objections which are sometimes urged against the conclusion stated above. I. Though the writers of the New Testament knew the will of God by the illumination of his Spirit, they may not in all cases have taught faithfully what they knew. Fear, flattery, or ambition may have led them to modify or withhold the truth. Indeed, this appears to have been done by Peter at Antioch, to the great grief of Paul (Gal. ii. 11 sq.). In reply to this objection, we remark : — (z) That the general character of the apostles forbids us to suppose that they deliberately taught what they knew to be erroneous. If this be not evident from the tone of their Dscte Acts R112, 253 Xl. 5, 13;'Xv. 37, 39; Col. iv..10; 1 Tim. iv. 11; Philemon, 24; 1 Pet. v. 13, and Acts xvi. 10; xx. 5; xxi. 173 XXVil. 13 xxviii. 16. 72 Manual of Systematic Theology. writings and from what is known of their lives, nothing in the past can be evident. (4) That it is, on the whole, easy and necessary to distinguish between the private conduct and the public teaching of inspired men. This distinction is as old as Augustine, — perhaps older; and no one should hesitate to apply it to the holy apostles, as well as to the ancient prophets. Perfection of character has never been supposed indispensable in order to correctness of teaching. Remember Balaam, Jonah, and even Moses. (c) There is no evidence that Peter taught any thing inconsistent with the gospel except, in a certain sense, by his example. And it is even possible that he hoped to win over the brethren from Jerusalem to better views, by going with them for a time. His fear of displeasing them may have been accompanied by a hope of conciliating and gaining them. (2) There is some evidence, in the use which Paul makes of the occurrence, that Peter admitted the justice of his fellow-apostle’s remonstrance, and from that timé onward acted in harmony with his own knowledge and conviction of duty. (ce) There is no evidence or probability that the Holy Spirit would have granted further assistance to any apostle who, in his teaching, had rejected the light of that Spirit, or that he would have suffered the other apostles to recognize such an one as their peer. We must, therefore, suppose that all apostatized, and yet persisted in claiming what they knew they had forfeited; or else that all proved faithful in their work, and enjoyed the promised illumination of the Spirit therein. The latter is the only reasonable view. 2. In certain instances the New Testament writers appear to have erred in their language through carelessness or passion. Thus, it has been said that Luke antedates the census or enrollment under Cyrenius (Luke ii. 2; Acts v. 37; Josephus Antt. xvi. i. 1); that Stephen exaggerates the time of Israel’s bondage in Egypt (Acts vil. 6; Gen. xv. 13; The Bible from God. 73 Ex. xii. 40; Gal. iii. 17), and ascribes an act to Abraham which was done by Jacob (Acts vii. 16); and that Paul spoke ignorantly and in wrath before the Sanhedrin (Acts xxiii. 5). But, (2) Luke was probably correct in his statement about the time of the registration which he had in mind.’ (6) Stephen probably called the whole period from Abraham’s entrance into Canaan until the exodus (in round numbers 400 years, but more exactly 430 years, Ex. xii. 40) the period of servitude in Egypt, from its leading and characteristic portion.” (c) In Acts vii. 16, the language of Stephen may be explained as elliptical, but intelligible to his hearers, who knew traditionally what had not been placed in the sacred record; or an error may have crept into the text by transcrip- tion. (d) The words of Paul in Acts xxiii. 5: “I wist not, brethren, that he was high priest,” may be understood, with Calvin, Alexander, Meyer, and others, as indignant irony.* 3. Paul is thought to admit that some of his teaching was not inspired, for example, 1 Cor. vii. 6, 12, 25, 40; 2 Cor. xi. 17; (cf. Rom. iii. §; vi. 19; Gal. iii. 15.) In reply, it must be said, that he makes no such admission. For, (a) In the first passage, he merely says that he is giving his readers a permission not acommand. (4) In the second, he gives instruction on a point that Christ bad not expressly noticed. (c¢) In the third, he says he has no command uttered by Christ to give them, but rather, and only, his apostolic advice. (d) In the fourth, he gives his advice again, adding, “and I suppose that I aiso have the Spirit of God.” (e) In the fifth, he acknowledges that he has been compelled to answer foois according to their folly. IV. BotH CHRIST AND HIS INSPIRED APOSTLES INDORSED THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES AS FROM GoD. To establish the truth of this proposition, it must be shown 1 Fairbairn (P.) “‘ Hermeneutical Manual” et Appendix; Tholuck “ Bib. Sac.” [. 443: “ New Englander ” for 1870, Woolsey (T. D.) 2 Hackett, Alexander, e¢ alii. 3 See Hackett, Wordsworth, and “Bib. Sac.” for 1879, pp. 516, 517- 4 See particularly the note of Meyer. 74 Manual of Systematic Theology. that the Old Testament Scriptures existed in the time of Christ as a well known collection of sacred writings; for some of the books found in the Old Testament are not referred to separately, in the New Testament. Hence we remark : — 1. That our present Old Testament Scriptures, the Apocrypha excluded, were all written some centuries before Christ. In support of this statement, we can do no more than appeal to the standard Introductions to the Old Testament; for the presentation of this evidence in detail belongs to the biblical department of instruction." . 2. That they were well known at the time of his advent asa collection of sacred writings. This might be proved by the words of our Saviour and his apostles; but it may also be proved by the testimony of uninspired men. In the preface of the “Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach,’’ we have the words, “Since so many and great things have been given to us by the law and the prophets, and the books which followed after them, so that it is necessary to praise Israel for learning and wisdom, . . . my grandfather Jesus having applied him- self for a long time to the reading of the law and the prophets and the other ancestral books, and having secured great skill in these, was moved also himself to compose something per- taining to learning and wisdom.” A little below, the preface speaks once more of “the law and the prophets and the rest of the books.” Again: Josephus, in his work against Apion, remarks that the composition of the Jewish sacred books had not depended ~ 1 Horne (T. H.) “Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” last ed.; Havernick (H. A. C.) “Handbuch der Historisch- kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament”; Keil (C. F.) “Manual of His- torico-Critical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the O. T.”; Bleek (F.) Einleitung in das Alte Testament: translated also; DeWette (W. M. L.) “ Kin- leitung in die Biicher des A. T.” translated imperfectly; Stuart (M.) “Crit..and Hist. Defence of the Old Testament Canon”; and the articles on “@anon of the O. T.” and on the several books of the O. T., in Herzog, Winer, Smith, Fair- bairn’s Kitto, Alexander, McClintock and Strong, and other dictionaries of the Bible. The Bible from God. 75 upon every one’s caprice, but upon “the prophets, who had learned the most exalted and most ancient things according to the inspiration of God, and had recorded the events occur- ring in their own times wisely as they happened;’”’ and then (ch. vill.) proceeds thus: “For there are not among us myriads of discordant and conflicting books, but twenty-two only, containing a register of the entire time, which are justly considered divine; and, of these, five are of Moses. From the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians, who succeeded Xerxes, the prophets subsequent to Moses recorded in thirteen books the things which were done in their own times; and the remaining four embrace hymns to God, and moral suggestions to men. And, from Artaxerxes to our own time, some have indeed been written; but they have not been thought worthy of like faith with those preceding them, because there was no strict succes- sion of the prophets.” He adds, in respect to the Sacred Scriptures, “Neither has any one ventured to add any thing, or change them; and it is innate in all Jews, straight- way from their earliest origin, to consider these the doctrines of God,—to abide by them, and, if need be, gladly die for them.” The language of Josephus shows, (a) That the Jews had books which they did not consider inspired or sacred. (0) That a prophetic origin or approval was esteemed necessary to render a book sacred. (c) That they did not tamper with their sacred books. (d) That these books were regarded as a completed whole. (e) That none of them were written after the time of Artaxerxes (or Esther). And it may be remarked, that his use and citation of the . Old Testament are said to agree with the canon cited by him. On the other hand, the words of Jesus, the son of Sirach, show very clearly that the Old Testament was divided into three parts, —the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. This division is recognized by Christ. 3. That they were recognizcd collectively or severally by 76 Manual of Systematic Theology. Christ and his apostles as the word of God.' In proof of this statement, we appeal, (1) To the words of Christ (Matt. xxi. 42; (cf. Mark xii. 10); Matt. xxii. 29; (cf. Mark xii. 24); Matt. xxvi. 54,56; (cf. Mark xiv. 49); Luke iv. 21; xxiv. 46; John V.. 39; Vil. 38; x. 35; xiii. 18; xvii. 12; Matt. ven jee 12; xxii. 36-40; Luke xvi. 17; xxiv. 44; xi. 49). (2) To the words of the New Testament writers (Luke xxiv. 27, 32, 45; John ii. 22; xix. 24, 28, 36, 37; xx. Oo; Actsuiaien 32, 353 xvii. 2; xviii. 28; Rom. iii. 2; 2° Timi From these and similar passages, it is sufficiently evident that no one can reasonably accept the New Testament as God’s word without accepting the Old Testament as being equally so. In confirmation of this evidence, we remark, (1) That the Old Testament Scriptures have been found trustworthy as historical records. Indeed, they are distinguished for the impartiality with which they record the faults and sins and disasters of the chosen people, and its heroes. A divine conscience seems to hold them to the strict line of honest history and biography.*? (2) That some of them have been proved to be inspired by the fulfilment of prophecy. We refer to the predictions respecting Babylon, Nineveh, Jeru- salem, the Jewish nation, and the Messiah, with their fulfil- ment as described by sacred or profane historians. In the first ages of Christianity, great use was made of this argu- ment.’ (3) That some of them were authenticated by the 1 Lechler (D. G. V.) “The Old Testament in the Discourses of Jesus,” Chr. Rey. vol. XXIV. pp. 368-390, 543-574; Fairbairn (P.) “ Hermeneutical Manual of the N. T.” p. 390 sq.; Davidson (S.) “‘ Hermeneutics,” ‘‘ Quotations from the Old Test. in the N. T.” 2 Rawlinson (G.) “ Historical Evidences of Christianity.” 3 See Gifford (E. H.) “ Voices of the Prophets”; Smith (R. P.) “ Prophecy a Preparation for Christ,” and “The Messianic Interpretation of the Prophecies of Isaiah”; Keith (A.) “On the Fulfilment of Prophecy”; Fairbairn (P.) “ Prophecy. its Distinctive Nature, its Special Function, and Proper Interpretation”; Hof- mann (J. C. K.) “Weissagung und Erfiillung”; Knobel (A.) “ Der Prophet- ismus der Hebrzer”; Tholuck (A.) “Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen ” ; Davison (S.) “Discourses on Prophecy”; Patton (Wm.) “The Judgment of Jerusalem.” The Bible from God. 77 working of miracles. We refer, of course, to such miracles as were wrought at the word of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, and others. The argument from miracles is less trustworthy and convincing when founded on those recorded in the Old Testament than it is when founded on those attested by the apostles; but the argument from the fulfilment of prophecy is far more extensive and important as related to the Old Testament than it is as related to the New. (4) That the doctrines of the Old Testament are such as must be referred to a divine source. In respect to God and his relation to man, as well as to all things visible and invisible, their teach- ing is superhuman." The conclusion which has now been reached is this, — that the sacred writers were moved and assisted by the Holy Spirit to put on record all which the Bible, apart from errors in the text, now contains. As to the Old Testament, this is taught by the Saviour and his apostles; and, as to the New Testament, it is established by evidence previously given. But it is important for us to consider more carefully the nature and extent of inspiration in the sacred writers.” And, in doing this, we assert, — 1 See also, “The Religion of the Christ,” by Stanley Leathes, an excellent volume of the Bampton Lectures. * See Dick (J.) “ An Essay on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” &c.; Parry (W.) “An Inquiry into the Nature and Extent of the Inspiration of the Apostles,” &c.; Haldane (R.) “The Books of the Old and New Testaments proved to be Canonical, and their Verbal Inspiration Maintained and Established;” Carson (A.) “The Theories of Inspiration of the Rev. Daniel Wilson, Rev. Dr. Pye Smith, and the Rev. Dr. Dick proved to be Erroneous;” Gaussen (I. R. L.) “Theopneusty; or, the Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures;” Banner- man (J.) “Inspiration: The Infallible Truth and Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures ;” Garbett (E.) “God’s Word Written; The Doctrine of the Inspi- ration of the Holy Scripture Explained and Defended;” Lee (W.) “The Inspiration of Holy Scripture; its Nature and Proof;” Woods (L-) “ Inspiration of the Scriptures,” Works Vol. I. Lecs. IX. to XIV. incl.; Row (C. A.) “The Nature and Extent of Divine Inspiration, as stated by the writers, and deduced from the Facts of the N. T.;” Warington (G.) “The Inspiration of Scripture; Its Limits and Effects;” Lewis (T.) “The Divine Human in the Scriptures;” Curtis (T. F.) “ The Human Element in the Inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures ;” Macnaught (J.) “ The Doctrine of Inspiration,” &c.; Rothe (R.) “ Zar Dogmatik ; * 78 Manual of Systematic Theology. V. THAT THE INSPIRATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS WAS DIFFERENT IN KIND FROM THAT OF ORDINARY CHRISTIANS. This is denied by many at the present time. They assert that inspiration has always beerf proportioned to the spiritual attainments of the subject, and hence that many good men at the present time have even a higher degree of inspiration from God than the ancient prophets or apostles. In opposi- tion to this modern view, and in support of our proposition, we appeal, — 1. Zo the impression which the Scriptures as a whole make on the reader's mind. ‘This is certainly unique, and generally favorable to the claims of the writers ; and, when it is so, they are admitted to have had an inspiration altogether peculiar. If those claims are denied, the writers are supposed to have been deceivers or deceived. 2. To the common belief of Christians in every age since the first. The adherents of the Papacy claim for the Pope, not an original inspiration for the communication of new truth, but simply a jwdicial inspiration, enabling him to recognize and indorse old truth,—the teachings of Christ and his apostles. 3. To the manifest superiority of the Sacred Scriptures to other religious writings of the same period. From Peter to Clement, from Paul to Ignatius, from John to Polycarp, from James to the Shepherd of Hermas, the descent is steep and long. 4. To the equality, at least, of the Sacred Scriptures to Christian writings in any age. This seems to us very remark- able. Itis not so with other branches of knowledge. Ancient works on moral science and political economy, not to speak of natural science, are now worthless, except for history. Philippi (F. A.) “Xirchliche Glaubenslehre: Erstes Kapitel;” Turretin (F.) “De Scriptura,” Vol. I. Loc. II. Quezstiones XVI., XVII.; Gerhard (J.) “ Loci Theoiogici, Tom. I. Loc. I. De Scriptura Sacra;” Oosterzee (J. J. van) “ Chris- tian Dogmatics,” I. p. 194 sq.; Herzog, R. E. s. v. “Inspiration;” Jalaguyer (P.) “L’Inspiration du N. T.”; Guizot (F. P. G.) “Meditations,” I.; Schmidt (W.) “ Zur Inspirationsfrage ” ; Dietzsch (A.) “Die Lehre von der Inspiration der Schrift,” in Stu. u. Kr. 1869 S. 428 sq. The Bible from God. 79 5. To the knowledge of future events possessed by many, uf not all, the writers. In this it is perfectly plain that prophets and apostles differed from ordinary Christians. Indeed, the most eminent men of God, since the apostolic age, have been destitute of this knowledge, not being able even to understand some of the biblical prophecies which are to be fulfilled here- after. 6. To the miracles which attested the authority of apostles and prophets as teachers of truth. This peculiar attestation points to something peculiar in their inspiration. Christ appealed to it, Paul relied upon it; and there is no evidence more suitable to convince the mind of a proper revelation from God. But we are prepared to go yet further, and assert, — VI. THat THE INSPIRATION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETS MADE THEM INFALLIBLE TEACHERS OF TRUTH. And, by “infallible teachers,’ we mean those who set forth by voice or pen the will of God in the best manner practi- cable, —whose teaching the reason of man has no right to modify or reject, but only to ascertain and obey. Rightly interpreted, their teaching is correct so far as it goes. Mr. Campbell very pertinently and forcibly remarks, “It is one thing to say that, because of human limits, what God can reveal of himself to man is to be held to be less than what God is; and it is quite another thing to say, that what God sees it good to reveal of himself to man he cannot truly and effectually reveal through man, —that the medium must more or less color and distort the light passing through it. This, consistently held, makes a revelation to man and a revelation through man impossible. If man cannot transmit light with- out distorting it, then neither can he receive light without misconceiving it.” In support of this proposition, we appeal, — + 1. Zo their marvellous accuracy of statement in matters which can be tested. This is most evident in respect to the New Testament. Of the hundreds of particulars referred to in 1 Campbeil (J. McLeod) “ Thoughts on Revelation,” a suggestive work. 80 Manual of Systematic Theology. that volume, not one can be proved an error. This is a very bold statement, no doubt; and of course it refers to the writings as they came from the hands of inspired men, and not as we have them now in the best editions of the New Testament. 2. To the remarkable originality and consistency of the Scripturcs in their teaching. For example, (1) In respect to the character of God — his personality, supremacy, righteous- ness, and benevolence; (2) In respect to the Moral Law; (3) In respect to the sinfulness of man; (4) In respect to the way of human salvation. 3. To the divine authority which the apostles and prophets claimed for their teaching. Nothing is more certain than that they professed to speak for God. The prophets of the Old Testament, and the apostles of the New, declared their word to be final,—a message from the living God, which all should hear and obey. 4. To the supernatural evidence which proved thetr authority to speak for God. This evidence consisted in the working of miracles and the fulfilment of predictions uttered by them (Deut. xviii. 20-22; xiii. I-3). Yet it must be conceded that the evidence for infallible correctness in the expression of religious truth is much stronger than the evidence for such correctness in references to secular affairs. For not only are a vast majority of the passages in which adivine authority ts expressly claimed such as reveal or enforce religious truth, but the admitted object of divine communications from first to last is religious. Beyond question, then, the zeaching of the Bible is almost wholly religious. All other instruction is ancillary to this. Yet it is difficult to see how inaccurate representations of history can give just views of divine providence or of human character. And, therefore, upon examination, it will be almost impracticable to draw a line between secular and religious truth in the Bible. Indeed, all events that have found a place in the sacred record appear to have found it by virtue of their relation to the moral government of God. 4 The Bible from God. 81 Looking, then, at the claims of the sacred writers, and at the object for which they were inspired, the argument for their infallibility as teachers of religion is far stronger than that for infallibility in speaking of ordinary affairs; but look- ing at the way in which they teach,—that is, by frequent reference to ordinary affairs, —it is hard to see how mistakes in the latter will not vitiate the former. We are therefore. led to zzfer the correctness of their references to secular matters from their divine authority in teaching religious truth, As to the psychology, or human side, of inspiration, three remarks are submitted: (2) The words which they were to employ appear to have been sometimes given to the sacred writers by inspiration. Prophets and seers of visions were addressed through their spiritual senses. (4) The mental powers of the sacred writers were raised and cleared and guided, but not suspended, by inspiration. ‘The action of their bodily senses may have been arrested in cases of ecstasy, but not the action of their mental and moral powers. (c) The apostles as well as the prophets received the truth by inspiration gradually, and as they needed it for their work, and not all at once. These are the elements of our belief on the subject; and it will be seen that they point towards what is called the theory of dynamical inspiration. But no one of the prophets or sacred writers has attempted to describe the relation of his spirit to the Spirit of God in times of inspiration. Perhaps he could not. The words which Peter Bayne puts into the mouth of Elijah may be true: — “ Ask not how I know; No prophet knoweth how he knoweth God, Or how he knows that God’s breath moveth him. I know not how I live, yet cannot doubt That here Iam. The light that showeth God Burns up both doubt and proof, as the full sun Quencheth both moon and stars in blaze of day.” 1 Days of Jezebel,” pp. 189, 190. Késter (A.) “ Wie verhalt sich in der heil. Schrift die Offenbarung Gottes zu der freien Geistesthatigkeit der heiligen Schriftsteller?” St. u. Kr. 1852, 875 ff. 82 Manual of Systematic Theology. The sources of knowledge open to the minds of inspired men may be specified as follows : — 1. Revelation. To this may be referred all their knowledge of future events, and much of the doctrinal truth which they taught. 2. Observation. To this may be traced the larger part of the history cuntained in the Old Testament and in the New; and the value of this part. of the Bible depends, in a great measure, on the fact that the minds of inspired men were in a normal state. 3. Experience. To this may be traced much of the Psalms, as well:as the Lamentations and Ecclesiastes. That the feelings which the sacred writers have expressed, for example, in the Psalms, were right in the circumstances may be inferred : — (a) From the general character of the Psalms. The views which they express of God, of man, of sin, of righteousness, are manifestly of divine origin; and the religious emotions which they utter have pale forth a response from the best Christians in every age.’ (6) From the quotations of the Psalms in the New Ti yes a They are quoted very often, and in no case with any hint of their being marred by human imperfection. (c) From the want of any criteria by which the right and wrong sentiments supposed by some to be in them can be dis- criminated. For the psalms are separate productions, every one complete in itself, and no one laying down rules by which others are to be judged. In every case the materials for correct interpretation are to be sought in the psalm itself.? , 4. Study. This was evidently a source of knowledge to some of the sacred writers. From the preface to Luke’s Gospel, we learn that he obtained his accurate knowledge of our Saviour’s history by careful investigation. He may have heen inspired to collate and select the testimony; but he un- 1 Chambers (T. W.) “The Psalter; a Witness to the Divine Origin of the Bible.” 2 Edwards (B. B.) “Imprecations in the Scriptures,” Bib. Sac. I. pp. 97-110: Owen (J. J.) “Imprecatory Psalms,” Bib. Sac. XIII. pp. 551-563; Park (E. A.) “Imprecatory Psalms,” Bib. Sac. XIX. pp. 165-210. The Bible from God. 83 questionably obtained his information from others and by faithful inquiry. The same may be said of other sacred _ writers. In view of what has now been stated, we claim that our theory of inspiration accounts for all the phenomena of the Bible better than any other, —for its varieties of style as well as numerous writers; for its verbal discrepancies, as well as essential harmony; for the personal feelings and tastes which are revealed by its writers; and for a thousand traces of high yet free spiritual action on their part. How any one can read the New Testament, the Book of Revelation excepted, and doubt whether its writers speak with conscious freedom, and also with conscious authority, passes our comprehension. The letters of Paul are intensely xatural and equally saper- natural: the Word was made flesh without losing its heavenly truth and power. Before leaving the present topic, we must refer to.a few objections to our view. The Bible, it is said, cannot be the infallible word of God: — I. Because a belief in its infallibility leads to bibliolatry. This is a mistake. The student of nature believes her testimony to be infallible, yet he is not led by this belief to pay religious homage to nature. And the same is true of those who accept the teaching of the Bible as infallible; they recognize the duty of worshipping God, and him only. Il. Because this belief retards the progress of science. Men, it is said, are rendered by it suspicious of the discoveries of science, and slow to give it their support. This is also a mistake. Believers in the truth of the Scriptures believe in the’truth of nature also, and encourage the highest schools of learning. They may be slow to receive scientific views which appear to be inconsistent with what they suppose the Bible . teaches ; but they have no fear of true science, no desire to prevent men from studying the works of God in nature. Ill. Because infallibility in the original Scriptures requires 1 Birks (T. R.) “The Bible and Modern Thought.” 84 Manual of Systematic Theology. Sor tts complement infallibility in all copies, translations, and, some would say, interpretations of them. For otherwise, we are told, the benefit of infallibility is lost to all but the primitive readers. But this, again, is a mistake; for the errors from transcription, translation, &c., are such as can be detected, or at least estimated, and reduced to a mni- mum; while errors in the original revelation could not be measured. IV. Because it has much obscure language. The object of a supernatural revelation is to make known important truth: hence words will be used, not to hide, but to express thought; and we have a right to expect the clearest language possible. This objection is plausible, but unsound; for the obscure language of Scripture may be due (1) To a transcendent element in the objects or events referred to; (2) To its truth to nature and history; (3) To its adaptation to the first recipients; (4) To its adaptation to special ends, distinct from that of teaching; (5) Adaptation to man at every stage of human history; (6) Adaptation to man as under proba- tion. V. Because it sometimes uses*unsound arguments. It is admitted by some that the leading ideas of Christianity were supernaturally revealed to the sacred writers; but the sub- ordinate ideas, and the arguments used, are said to be the fruit of their unaided reason, and so not the word of God. This, however, is a mistake. Neither Christ, nor any one of his apostles, can be shown to have argued sophistically. Sometimes, indeed, an argument may not be stated in full; for example, Matt. xxii. 23, sq. ; but it is never unsound. — See also Gal. iii. 16. VI. Because it admits to some extent false interpretation. Many passages of the Old Testament, it is said, are incor- rectly interpreted by writers of the New Testament: hence their words are not infallible. But it is to be observed (1) That the language of the Scriptures is confessedly ob- scure in many places; (2) That some of these are the very passages said to be misinterpreted in the New Testament; The Bible from God. 8s and (3) That the New Testament writers believed in the divinity of the Old Testament, and interpreted it accordingly. VII. Because tt teaches scientific errors. In reply to this charge, it may be remarked, that all references to matters of science in the Bible are (1) Merely incidental and auxiliary ; (2) Clothed in popular language; and, (3) Confirmed by consciousness, so far as they relate to the mind. Remember- ing these facts, we say that the Bible has not been shown to contain scientific errors. — Astronomy, geology, ethnology. VIII. Because it teaches historical errors. On the supposed historical errors of the Bible, we remark, (1) They relate, for the most part, to matters of chronology, genealogy, numbers,? &c. (2) Transcribers are specially liable to mistakes in copying numbers, names, &c. (3) Different names for the same person, and different termini for the same period, are quite frequent. (4) Round numbers are often employed for specific. Making proper allowance for these facts, we deny that historical errors are found in the Bible. IX. Because it contains contradictory statements. On this we remark, (1) That statements may be contradictory in words, but not in sense. #“ Answer not a fool,’ &c. (2) They may seem to be contradictory in sense when they are not: for example, the unity of God and the Trinity; Paul and James on justification. (3) They may be contradictory in sense, but not in moral bearing; for example, rest on’ the Sabbath, yet extra work for priests. Muses and Christ on divorce. Bearing in mind these facts, it will be impossible for us to find in the Bible any contradictions which mar its excellence.® Barrows (E. P.) “The Quotations of the N. T. in their relation to the ques- tion of Inspiration,” Bib. Sac. xxx. pp. 305-322; Fairbairn (P.) “ Hermeneu- tical Manual,” Part Third; Scott (J.) ‘ Principles of N. T. Quotation established and applied to Bible Science”; Reinke (L.) “Zur Erklarung des A. T.”’ Bd. II. und Iv. 2 Bib. Sac. XXX. p. 323. sq., Gardner (F.) “The Chronological value of the Genealogy in Gen. V.”; Reinke (L.) “Zur Erklarung des Alten Testaments ” Bd. I. 3 Haley (J. W.) “An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.” 86 Manual of Systematic Theology. X. Because it contains false prophecy. There is none in the Bible uttered by those who are recognized as true prophets. But it is to be noted, (1) That, for obvious reasons, prophecy is more obscure than almost any other kind of writing; and (2) That it is sometimes expressly and sometimes tacitly conditional. XI. Because it teaches bad theology. God, it is said, is represented in the Scriptures as changeful, jealous, revenge- ful, and, in a word, human. To this we reply, (1) It is due in part to the imperfection of human language and the limits of human thought. (2) It is also due in part to the end sought by the Bible, determining its style. (3) It is so modified by other representations, as to give a fair mind the right impression of God. XII. Because it teaches bad morality. Deception, treachery, revenge, cruelty, lust, are said to be sanctioned by the approved or unreproved conduct of good men. This charge rests on two mistakes: (1) A mistake as to the real character of certain acts; (2) A mistake as to the indorsement of other acts by the Bible.’ In establishing the divine autherity and inspiration of the Scriptures, we have established the truth of the Christian religion. Says Bishop Butler, “In the evidence of Christianity there seem to be several things of great weight, not reducible to the head, either of miracles, or the completion of prophecy, in the common acceptation of the words. But these two eare its fundamental proofs.... Thus the evidence of Christianity will be a long series of things, reaching, as it seems, from the beginning of the world to the present time; of great variety and compass, taking in both the direct and the collateral proofs, and making up, all of them together, one argument.’ And Davison on Prophecy, remarks: “If con- trivance or accident could have given to Christianity any of its apparent testimonies, its miracles, its prophecies, its 1 Hessey (J. A.) “Moral Difficulties of the Bible,” First and Second Series; Reinke (L.) “ Zur Erklarung des A. T.” Bd. I. The Bible from God. 87 morals, its propagation, or its founder, there could be no room to believe, or even imagine, that a// these appearances of great credibility, could be wsted together, by any such means. If successful craft could have contrived its public miracles, or the pretence of them, it requires another reach of craft to adapt its prophecies to the same object. Further, it requires not only a different, but a totally opposite art to conceive and promulgate its admirable morals. Again, its propagation, in defiance of the powers and terrors of the world, implied still other qualities of action. Lastly, the model of the life of its founder is a work of such originality and wisdom, as could be the offspring only of consummate powers of invention, or rather never could have been devised, but must have come from real life. The hypothesis sinks under its incredibility. ach of these suppositions of con- trivance being arbitrary and unsupported, the climax of them is an extravagance.” 88 Manual of Systematic Theology. PART THIRD. THE PERFECTION OF GOD, Having considered some of the evidence which sustains our belief in the existence of a Supreme Being who is called God, and some of the evidence which justifies our confidence in the Bible as a revelation made by him, we are now to look at the evidence of his perfection, which is offered to us by the Bible and by nature — including the soul of man. This should be done with profound reverence, —for the Maker of the universe is a being greater and better than we can ever hope to comprehend, — but, at the same time, with holy freedom, because he has made us in his own image, capable of knowing him in part.’ Nor do we limit God by assigning to him certain dis- tinguishable attributes, — for example, knowledge, goodness, power ; for infinite power may be exercised for the worthiest object, as apprehended by perfect intelligence.? MODES OF GOD'S EXISTENCE. I. Unity. God exists as a single essence or substance. In this respect he is one; and there is no second being of the 1 Calderwood (H.) “The Philosophy of the Infinite”; Porter (N.) “The Human Intellect,” Pt. iii. c. 8. and Pt. iv. passim; McCosh (J.) “The Intuitions of the Human Mind”; Miiller (J.) “The True Idea of God,” Book iii. c. 4. in “The Christian Doctrine of Sin”; Nitzsch (C. I.) Article “Gott,” sec. iii, “ Eigenschaften,” in Herzog, “Real-Encyklopadie”; Thomasius (G.) “Christi Pcrson und Werk,” Bd. i. secs. 7-17; Martensen (H.) “ Dogmatics ” sec. 46. sq.; Woods (L.) “ Lectures,” &c., vol. 1. lec. xvi.; Oosterzee (J. J. van) “Christian Dogmatics,” First Division, vol. 1. p. 234 sq.; Charnock (S.) “On the Divine Attributes.” 2 Against Bruch (J. F.) “Die Lehre von den géttlichen Eigenschaften”; Mansel (H L.) “The Limits of Religious Thought”; Spencer (H.) “ Yirst Prin- ciples of a New Philosophy”; Schleiermacher (F.) ‘‘ Der Christliche Gaube.” The Perfection of God. 89 same nature. Hence, Dualism, Tritheism, Polytheism, and Pantheism are all inconsistent with Theism. The unity of God is established by the testimony of Scripture (Deut. vi. 4; Bream, Vil. 22; Ps, Ixxxvi, 10; Isa, xiii. 10;*Matt. xix: 17; mcor, vill, 6; Gal. ti, 20; 1 Tim, i, §;) and by that of human reason, — one God, or no God. Il. /udependence. This is affirmed of God in respect (1) To his exéstence, which is underived and absolute. He is the Exister; he has life in himself (Ex. iii. 14; John v. 26). (2) To his knowledge (Heb. iv. 13, and passages under Om- niscience, infra). (3) To his actzon (Gen. i. 1; Acts xvii. 24). (4) To his happiness (Eph. i. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16). The independence of God is also included in the perfection of his being, which may be inferred from the constitution of the humar soul. Ill. Lammutability In his being, God remains what he is. The idea of his nature is always fully realized, without change or development (J. Miiller), He is forever the same in essence, in knowledge, in character, in purpose, in blessed- mess (Mal. ii, 6; James i, 17; Isa. xl. 28; Ps. cii. 28; Heb. 1. 12; xiii. 6). The obvious meaning of these passages must not be denied on account of other expressions which speak of change in God; for the latter are adaptations of thought to our weakness. ‘This view is sustained by just inference from the perfection of God — “ He cannot change for the better, because he is best; nor for the worse, because he would thereby cease to be perfect.” Some have supposed that God is mutable in happiness and in action. But, as to the former, it may be said that om- niscience precludes fluctuations of feeling. As to the latter, it may be said, that the mode of God’s action is above the grasp of our understanding. It may be without succession, in him. -1 Dorner (J. A.) “Ueber die richtige Fassung des dogmatischen Begriffs, ler Unabveranderlichkeit Gottes,” Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologic, Bde. I., Il, III. ete) Manual of Systematic Theology. IV. Eternity. By this is meant existence without begin- ning or end.— (See Gen. xxi. 33; Deut. xxxii. 40; Ps. xc. 2; Isa. xli. 4; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Peteriil. 8; Rewiageeeee far all theists, are agreed. But many also embrace the idea of timeless being in the word eternity as affirmed of God. And this appears to be suggested (1) by such passages as John iii.'13; viii. 58; James i. 17; (2) by the difficulty of seeing how temporal succession could be experienced by a self-existent being; and (3).by the imperfections or limitations which seem in- separable from existence in time. On the other hand, ‘it must be admitted that the Scrip- tures generally speak of God as if his life were divisible into periods, —for example, the past and the future, —and that the faculties of the human mind are absolutely unable to conceive of real existence independent of time. If God is a perfect being, however, he cannot grow wiser by growing older. Can he grow older without growing wiser? V. Omnipresence. There is no point in the universe where. God is not (1 Kings viii. 27; 2 Chron. vi. 18; Isa. xliii. 2; Ixvi. 1; Jer. xxiii: 23; Amos ix. 2; Ps. cxxxix) G=iguueueee xvii. 27, 28; Matt. xxviii. 20). In many places of Scripture God is represented as filling immensity; but in other places he is represented as simply present everywhere. The omni- presence of God is best understood in the light of his spirit- uality, to which we now pass. VI. Spirituality. (1) Positively: God is a real being, and one that acts as well as exists. He is therefore something more than a condition of being, like space or time, and more than simple action—actzo purissima; he is an agent, an actor, a fous actionis. Moreover, he is a living being; for spirit is always in a certain sense life (John vi. 63; Gen. i. 2; Luke viii. 55; 1 Cor. xv. 45; 2 Cor. 11. 6; Revgaeee (2) Negatively: God is an immaterial being (Ps. cxxxix. 7; John iv. 24; Ex. xx. 4; Isa. xl. 25; Rom. i. 20; Colima 1 Tim.i. 17). The language of Ps. cxxxix. 7, and of John iv. 24, appears to account for the omnipresence of God, by the. The Perfection of God. Ol fact of his spirituality. And this is reasonable; because matter by its very properties presupposes the existence of space as a condition of its own existence; while spirit does not. There seems to be no evidence that spirit fills any part of space, or that the infinite Spirit is in any way dependent on space. VII. Personality, God is a personal being, one who knows, feels, and wills. This is proved (1) By the direct testimony of Scripture. Every, attribute and action of a personal being is ascribed to him. (2) By the indirect testi- mony of Scripture; which is to this effect, that man was made in the image of God, and man was personal the first day of his life. Besides, personal life is the highest life. VIII. Zrinzty. God is a tri-personal being; for the Scrip- tures reveal (1) The deity of the Father, of the Son, and ef the Holy Spirit, respectively (John i. 1; Acts v. 3, 4). (2) Their mutual knowledge and love (Matt. xi. 27; 1 Cor. ii. Tome eate die 175) John ii. 35; iv. 34; v.30; Rom. viii. 27). (3) Their distinct, yet relative offices (1 Cor. xii. 4-6; Eph. ii. 18—20). “Remarks. (a) A distinction is to be made between what is above and what is agazvst human reason. (0) The words “ person”’ and “ personal”’ are modified by the essential unity of the Godhead, and only signify that the distinction is of a personal nature. (c) There is no manifest contradiction between an assertion that God is one in essence and an assertion that the Godhead is tri-personal. (@) The doctrine of the tri-personality of God assists us to comprehend in some measure his self-sufficiency and his love.’ “God from eternity is love. But if love is communion, if its nature is self-surrender, he cannot exist without having an object to which he gives himself. If he were self-satisfied, self would rule in his nature; and he would be the principle of all egoism. He needs another self to whom he may give himself. But what self could satisfy him,—could be one 1 Weisse (C. H.) “Zur Vertheidigung des Begriffes der immanenten Wesens- trinitat,” in St. u. Kr. 1841, 345 ff.; Koster (F.) ‘“‘Nachweis der Spuren einer Trinitatslehre vor Christo,” in St. u. Kr. 1846, 436 ff. 92 Manual of Systematic Theology. whom he could make a sharer of all his glory, and in whom his life could find its all? To be satisfied, love longs for an equal. As God has not his equal, he can, therefore, in an original and perfect way love only himself; but, himself, not in his own, but in another self, —in a self which is like himself, and in concrete nature one with himself. This is the Son. But the Son, because spirit and equal with the Father, is, like the Father, love. Whom does the Son love? Whom, but the Father? The Father loves the Son, the Son the Father. Their love is mutual. "But it is‘a law that true mutual love unites in a third. One would be bound up in another, and lose itself in him, if in self-surrender it found its allin him. Both remain free in their perfect self-surrender, if a third, equally dear to both, comes in. The bond of friendship is consecrated, if the two friends seek a common end. And, the higher this end, the nobler and firmer the bond. However inward the mutual love of husband and wife, it tends to pass beyond them to a third, and, indeed, to a third like themselves, — personal, on which their common love may rest. First in the child, the peculiar family blessing, does the marriage life become com- plete. And the same law rules in divine love. The mutual love of the Father and the Son only becomes perfect self- communication in a third. And, since it is the highest love, it demands the highest object, one that is no less than divine. Can it be the common, divine nature, in which their love rejoices? Love is only satisfied perfectly in an ego. And so the love of God is not without a third ego in the com- mon concrete nature, —is not without the Holy Spirit,’’? ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.” In considering the attributes of God, it will be convenient to follow the ordinary analysis of man’s spiritual powers — intellect, conscience, sensibility, and will. 1 Slightly condensed from Schéberlein (L.) “Die Grundlehren des Heisl entwickelt aus dem Princip der Liebe,” s. 22 sq. 2 Jackson (T.) “A Treatise on the Divine Essence and attributes ;” Maccul- loch (J.) “ Proofs and Illustrations of the Attributes of God.” The Perfection of God. 93 I. Omniscience. God knows all objects and events that ever have been or ever will be, either actual or possible. His understanding is infinite. In proof of this statement, our appeal may be made (1) To the testimony of Scripture Oyere Kings vill. 39; Ps, cxxxix, 2, 11, 12; Jer: xvi. 173 Miike xvi. 15; Rom. viii. 27; Heb, iv. 13. (6). Isa. xlit,- 9; foci. 1S Sq.) Jer. 1.5 ;°Ps!-exxxix. 16; ¥-Sam. xxiii, ro—14. (2) To the testimony of reason. For omniscience is presup- posed by the perfection, and assured by the eternity and omnipresence of a personal being. It may also be remarked, (2) That the knowledge of God is intuitive, independent, complete, and timeless; and, (6) That it is consistent (1) with a real though derived energy in physical causes; (2) with a real though limited freedom in voluntary causes; and (3) with purpose and election on the part of God. Cicero denied the second position thus: “If all future events are foreknown, they will occur as they are foreknown ; and, if they will occur in this order, the order of events is certain to the foreknowing God; and, if the order of events is certain, the order of causes is certain ; for nothing can take place which is not preceded by some efficient cause. But, if the order of the causes of all events is certain, all events come to pass by fate. If this be so, there is nothing in our power, and there is no choice of will.” — (“De Fato et Divinatione,” ii. 5-7). And to his argument, Augustine thus replies: “It does not follow, that, if the order of all causes is certain to God, nothing depends on the choice of our will; for our volitions themselves are in the order of causes, which is certain to God, and foreknown by him, inasmuch as human volitions are the causes of human deeds. Hence, whoever knows all the causes of events cannot be ignorant of our volitions, as being also among those causes. So, then, we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the foreknowledge of God, to remove choice of will, or, retaining choice of will, to deny God’s foreknowledge of future events; but we embrace both, — one, that we may believe well; the other, that we may 94 Manual of Systematic Theology, live well.” — (“De Civ. Dei,” v. 9, 10.) This reply may not be wholly satisfactory ; yet it probably states the truth with sufficient accuracy. II. Righteousness. God’s moral nature or conscience is perfectly right, both in tendency and action, and is the source of moral law to all created moral beings. Some writers prefer to call it holiness; and the only objection to this is the circumstance that the term holiness appears to be used in certain passages of Scripture to denote the sum total of moral perfections in God, and is therefore equivalent to righteousness and benevolence. In proof of God's righteousness, we appeal (1) To the Word of God, (2) Ps. xi. 7; xv.-1; xxxili. 5; xlv. 8; Deven Isa. vi. 3. (8) Deut. xxxil. 4; Ps. xcvii. 2; exlveengeeeene ii. 13; vii. 12, (2) To reason; for this attribute is compre- hended in our idea of perfection. (3) To conscience; for we are often reminded by this inward monitor that God is displeased with sin. (4) To our religious instinct; which requires righteousness in the object of worship. It may also be remarked, (2) That the justice of God is his righteousness, as expressed in moral government. (6) That righteousness cannot be sacrificed to benevolence. (c) That, from different points of view, the righteousness and benevolence of God may in all cases seek the same things, and, thus acting, neither of them be any check upon the other. (d) That the words, anger, fury, vengeance, &c., when ap- plied to God, denote no effervescent. passion, but an eternal and unchangeable hatred of moral evil. (e) That such expres- sions do not exaggerate God’s hostility to sin—(Lac. De Ira V. 9). And (f) That temporal calamities do not generally prove that those who suffer them are specially guilty in the sight of God (Job i.; Luke xiii. 2-5; John ix. 1-3; Heb. xii. 6.) III. Benevolence. By this, we mean that God desires the welfare of his creatures, with a desire most powerful and most pure. In proof of this may be alleged (1) The testi- mony of Scripture (Ps. lvii. 11; cxlv. 9; cili. 11-13; Cxxxvi. 1—26; Isa. xlix. 14-16; Matt. v. 45; vii. 11; Luke xi 7; John iii. 16; 1 John iv.-8, 18; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Cor, xe The Perfection of God. 95 Ezek. xviil. 23; Xxxili. 11). (2) The testimony of reason. The moral perfection of God, and the predominence of hap- piness over misery in the animal world, may be insisted upon in this connection. It may now be remarked, (2) That the grace of God is his benevolence as exercised towards the guilty or the undeserv- ing. (4) That the mercy of God is his benevolence, as ex- ercised towards those who are miserable, as well as guilty. (c) That the patience of God is his benevolence, as exercised in forbearing to punish the guilty without delay. (d) That the wisdom of God is his omniscience, exercised with right- eousness and benevolence in securing the best ends by the best means. IV. Omnifotence. God can effect whatever power can effect, under the influence of perfect holiness and love. In proof of this, we may appeal (1) To the testimony of Scripture (Matt. xix. 26; Luke i. 37; Eph. iii. 20; 2 Cor. vi. Peaech.wxvin. 14+ Jer. xxvii. 5; Isa, xl. 26; (cf. Job. xli. ;) Ps. cxxxvi. 4; Jer. xxxli. 17). (2) To the testimony of reason. The perfection of God, and the creation of the universe, suggest omnipotence in God. The perfection of God may also be indicated by the follow- ing affirmations and negations : — I. That he is a “vémg Being or Spirit, having (a) a perfect intellect, which gives in action omniscience. (4) A ger fect conscience, which gives in action absolute righteousness. (c) A perfect sensibility, which gives in action all right feeling and desire. (d) A perfect will, which does all that power can do, under the direction of perfect knowledge, holiness, and love. 2. That he is an zuzfizzte Being or Spirit, and so (a) [nde- pendent of any other being or force, — uncreated himself, and the creator of all else.’ (4) Unconditioned by time or space, 1 Mosheim says: “ Deus est illa natura, que ipsa independens est, et ex qua reliqua omnia pendent”; and, from the independence of God, he proceeds to infer all his other perfections,— unity, spirituality, immensity, eternity, immu- tability; while from the dependence of all other things upon him are inferred his life, intelligence, and freedom. 96 Manual of Systematic Theology. which condition all finite being; that is, eternal and omni- present. (c) Unchangeable in essence, in knowledge, in char- acter, and in blessedness. Query: Is conscience a separate faculty, or simply a peculiar exercise of intellect and feeling?’ PURPOSE OF GOD. The word “purpose”’ is often used to denote the resolve or determination of the mind to seek a particular object. But it cannot be wise for an omniscient Being to make any thing an end of action, unless it is known to be attainable; and, if it is known to be attainable, the means or mode of attaining it must also be known. Accordingly, the purpose of God, embracing both end and means, must comprehend whatever he has determined to do or to permit.* This is evident from many portions of Scripture, (for example, Acts xv. 18; xvii. 26; Rom. viii. 28; 1x. 11; Eph. i. 4, 11; 2 Thess. il. 13; 2 Tim. 1.9; 1 Cor. i. 7 ieee 34; Acts il. 23; iv. 27, 28; Ps. Ixxvi. 11; Provo vie From these and similar passages, it appears that the purpose of God (a) antedates creation; (4) springs from his own good pleasure; (c) embraces all the events of time; and, (2) goes into effect in every instance. Contemplated from the divine side, such a purpose seems to be reasonable and necessary. How a perfect Being could undertake the work of creation without such a purpose is inconceivable. But, contemplated from the human side, it appears, at first sight, to be inconsistent with moral freedom and accounta- bility. Whether it is so or not depends, however, upon the 1 See an elaborate and, in many respects, excellent analysis of the Divine Attributes, as attributes of Being, of Knowledge, and of Will, in Haseay “ Hut: terus Redivivus.”— Pt. 11. sects. 58, 59, 60. 2 Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” 1. c. ix.; “The Decrees of God”; Balmer (Robt.) “Remarks on the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees,” in “Theol. Tracts,” iii. 207-17; Baird (S. J.) “The Eternal Plan,” in “The Elohim Re- vealed,” ch. 11.3; Chalmers (T.) “Institutes of Theology,” vol. 11. Pt. 11. ¢. 3; “ Predestination”; Oosterzee (J. J. van) “ Christian Dogmatics,” vol 11. p. 44 sq.; Princeton Theol. Essays, First Series, ‘‘ The Decrees of God,” 60 sq. The Perfection of God. 97 way in which the purpose is accomplished. It may interfere with human freedom no more than does perfect foreknowledge. The same reply must be made to those who assert that such a purpose on the part of God renders the use of means needless and vain. For there is every reason to believe that this purpose is to be accomplished, in a great measure, by the use of means. Says Canon Liddon, in a discourse on “ Prayer, the Charac- teristic Action of Religion,” “God orders all that happens to us, and, in virtue of his infinite knowledge, by eternal decrees. But he also says to us, in the plainest language, that he does answer prayer; and, that practically his dealings with us are governed, in matters of the greatest importance, as well as of the least, by the petitions which we address tohim. What if prayers and actions, to us at the moment perfectly sponta- neous, are eternally foreseen, and included within the all- embracing predestination of God, as factors and causes, working out that final result, which, beyond all dispute, is the product of his good pleasure? Whether I open my mouth, or lift my hand, is, before my doing it, strictly within the jurisdiction and power of my personal will; but, however I may decide, my decision, so absolutely free. to me, will have been already incorporated by the all-seeing, all-controlling Being, as an integral part, however insignificant, of his one, all-embracing purpose, leading on to effects and causes beyond itself. Prayer, too, is only a foreseen action of man; which, together with its results, is embraced in the eternal predestination of God. . . . That which is to us a free self- determination may be not other than a foreseen element of his work.” — Prayer-Gauge Debate, p. 300. In considering the purpose of God as logically antecedent to his action ad extra, it is natural to inquire after the chief end- sought by him in that action; for a reasonable being always acts with a view to the accomplishment of some end or ends which are deemed worthy.’ : 1 Edwards (J. Sen.) “A Dissertation concerning the End for which God created the World,” “ Theol. Tracts,” 11. 293 sq-; Martin (J.) “The Glory of God as the Great End of Moral Action,” in “ Theol. Tracts,” 111. 221-42; Baird (S. J.) ““God’s Object was to reveal himself,” in the “ Elohim Revealed,” p. 8. sq. 98 Manual of Systematie Theology. The Scriptures suggest two distinguishable, if not opposite ends, for the attainment of which God undertook the work of creation and moral government, namely, the manifestation of his own glory, and the communication of good to his creatures. Of the passages which suggest that the end for which God created the world was his own glory, the following may be cited: (Prov. xvi. 4; Rom. xi. 36; Col. 1, 16;0)temeeeeon Isa. xlvili. 11; xlitt. 6, 7; Ix. 21; lxi. 3;. Ephieaeeeeee xvii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 10-12; 1 Peter iv. 11; Rev. xiv. 6, 75 1 Cor. vi. 20; x. 31; 1 Cor. i. 26—30; Eph. i) =e Of those which suggest that the end for which he created the world was the good of his creatures, the following deserve attention: (Ps. ciii. 9; Ezek. xvill. 32; xxxil 9D jo eae 33; 2 Pet. i. 9; John iii. 16; Eph. i. 4; 1 Johmeameeee 16; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. v. 20; Deut. vii. 7, 8; PSvaeveeaeene 17; xliv. 26; 1 Cor. ili, 22, 23; 2 Cor. iv. 15> eee 4-9.) It is possible to unite fhese ends, and suppose that the one supreme end and reason for God's action ad extra is the manifestation of his glory in the communication of good to other beings. And the fact that we become like him by being animated with love to others leads to a belief that his purpose to manifest his own glory is intrinsically the same as his purpose to create other beings, and impart to them the greatest possible good, and wice versa. But is not the existence of evil, and especially of moral evil in the world, incompatible with this identification? By many, it is asserted to be so; by others, it is denied to be so; and, by still others, it is said that, owing to his limited knowledge, man is unable to determine whether it is so or not.’ If a universe which contains in it a.race of beings able to do wrong as well as to do right is on the whole better, not- withstanding the presence of sin, than a universe without 1 Ballantyne (John) “On the Origin of Evil”; Bellamy (Jos.) ‘‘ The Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin”; Young (John) “Evil not of God”; Barnes (Alb.) “Sin and Suffering in the Universe,” in the Am. Presby. Rev. 1869-70 Ernesti (H. F. T. L.) “ Ursprung der Siinde.” The Perfection of God. 99 such a race of beings, the question may be answered in the negative; and this view is required by the scriptural and rational doctrine of God’s perfection. It may then be said that God purposed to originate a uni- verse which would contain beings who could do wrong as well as right, and to use none but moral means in preventing them from doing wrong. His purpose included a permission of moral evil in this sense only —that he would not effectively exclude it from the universe, but not in the sense that he authorized any one to commit sin, or left any moral being in doubt respecting his hatred of sin. The doctrine of the divine purpose tends to fill the soul with adoring thoughts of God, and humble thoughts of self. Yet it is so apprehended by many as to make them feel that God is a “hard master.” It should, therefore, be studied with the utmost reverence and trust, and taught with the greatest care, in order that misapprehension may, if possible, be prevented. “ And not alone the natures are foreseen Within the mind that in itself is perfect, But they together with their preservation. For whatsoever thing this bow shoots forth Falls foreordained unto an end foreseen, Even as a shaft directed to its mark.” Bante Paradiso, VIII. 100. CREATION BY GOD THROUGH THE WORD. The first act of God in carrying into effect his purpose was that of creation. And by the act of creation is meant an act that originated being, and thereby increased the sum total of force in existence. For while neither the essence nor the power of God was diminished by that act, new being and power, in some sense outside of himself, were brought into existence by it. This statement is favored (1) By the language of Scrip- ture (2) John xvii. 5, 24; Eph. i. 4; (6) Matt. xix. 4; Mark xili. 19; Rev. x. 6; Gen. i. 1; (¢) Heb. xi. 3; Rom. iv. 17. Hence (a) there was a time when the worlds were not yet 100 Manual of Systematic Theology. founded; (0) their establishment was a work of God; and (¢) the visible universe was not formed out of any thing previously existing. (2) By the absolute perfection of God. For the only alternative to it is pantheism or dualism; that is, (a) the doc- trine that there is no reality except God, or an emanation from God; or (4) the doctrine that either matter or spirit, outside of God, is eternal and self-existent. But, against this view of creation, two objections have been urged, (1) That it is unthinkable, and therefore cannot be true. But many things are credible which are nevertheless unthinkable. And (2) that it supposes a limit to the being of God, and thereby pronounces him finite. But this is a mistake. It rather declares his power and wisdom to be unlimited. No perfection of his nature is abridged by the view ; though, if it be correct, he is not the sum total of being. This first act of God was carried into effect by the agency of the eternal Word (John i. 3, 10; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 3). The language of these passages does not mean that God, the Father, exerted through the Word, as a medium, power which did not belong to the Word himself; but that the Word represented and revealed the power of God, the Father, in this act. The acting personality was that of the Word; but he did not act by himself alone: his nature was one with the Father’s, and his action was a perfect ex- pression of the Father’s nature and will. | Whether matter and spirit were created at the same instant, or at different times, the Scriptures do not affirm. It seems, however, to be intimated that the creation of angels was prior to that of men, and indeed to the present order of the material universe (Job xxxviii. 7; Gen. iii. 1, 24). But it is not, therefore, necessary to suppose that they were created before the substance of which the material universe has been formed was called into being. If creation may be divided into several acts, the following order of succession is probable: — (a) The creation of matter in its primitive state; but what that state was has never been ascertained. Probably, how- ever, matter was endowed at first with the properties: which it The Perfection of God. IOI now possesses, and was put into such motion that subsequent changes have been, for the most part, natural results of the properties and motions thus given to it. (6) The creation of vegetable and animal life-forces, as soon as the earth, or any other planet, was ready to receive and support them. The evidence in favor of successive crea- tions has not, it seems to me, been met by any equal evidence in favor of progress from race to race by natural developmen and selection. ‘ (c) The creation of men when the earth had been prepared for their reception. And, by men, are to be understood rational, moral, and religious beings, not essentially different from those who now inhabit the earth. The date of man’s advent cannot be ascertained with certainty from any state- ments made by Scripture, or from any facts yet discovered by science. (R) Just where the creation of angels should be placed must be left undecided. PRESERVATION BY GOD THROUGH THE WORD. All things created owe their continuance in being to the power of God. Two propositions are embraced in this state- ment: frst, that all created things have a being or nature of their own. And, second, that this being or nature is forever dependent on God, The statement is therefore opposed to either a pantheistic, dualistic, or deistic view of the relation which God holds to the world. For pantheism embraces the world in the idea of God, while dualism regards the world as uncreated and antagonistic to God; and deism pronounces the world, once created, perfect and self-sufficient. But the staterrent given above makes the world real, though created and dependent.’ In proof of this statement, reference may be made to the following passages of Scripture: (Job x. 12; Ps. civ. 29, 30; Psa) 26, 295 Nes iz. 6; Acts xvii. 28; Heb. i. 3; Col. i. 1 Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” 1, p. 278 sq. 102 Manual of Systematic Theology. 17.) And from them it is evident that the sacred writers do not represent preservation as equivalent to a perpetual act of creation; but, on the other hand, they clearly distinguish it from simple oversight, care, or direction. If it be objected that the view here given makes God the upholder of moral evil, since he upholds the evil-doer at the very instant and in the very act of evil-doing, it may be replied, (2) That God upholds what he has created, namely, the free moral agent ; but he neither upholds, nor has he cre- ated, evil-doing. (4) That the nature of moral government appears to justify, if not to require, the very course which God pursues; for to give the sinner time to repent is to give him time which he may use in further sin. And (¢) That God forbids wrong doing, and brings a vast amount of moral influence to bear against it. The doctrine that all created beings are forever dependent on God for existence, having no absolute life of their own, not only agrees with a certain feeling of dependence which is instinctive in man, but also tends to unite the Christian’s heart to God by a sense of unspeakable gratitude. He would not have it otherwise. He delights in the thought that underneath him are the everlasting arms. PROVIDENCE OF GOD IN CHRIST. The word “ providence” means, primarily, foresight, But as human foresight is associated with plans and efforts to bring to pass certain results, the word “providence” has come to signify the provision which God makes for attaining the ends of his government, and so the care which he takes of all his people, indeed, of all his creatures.’ 1 Baird (S. J.) “The Providential Administration,” in “Elohim Revealed,” p. 100 sq.; Calvin (J.) “Institutio Christiane Religionis,” Lib. I. c. 16; David- son (A. D.) “Lectures Expository and Practical on the Book of Esther”; Flavel (J-) “Divine Conduct; or, the Mystery of Providence”; South (R.) I. vin. ‘All Contingencies under God’s Providence”; Bushnell (H.) “Sermons of the New Life,” “Every Man’s Life a Plan of God”; Hitchcock (I.) “ Special Divine Interpositions in Nature,” in Bib. Sac. XI. 776 sq.; Sherlock (W.) “A Dis- The Perfection of God. 103 Of course, therefore, his “providence” is but a part of his work in carrying into effect his “purpose ;” and a large part of the scriptural testimony to the existence of his “‘ purpose ”’ is proof of his “ providence.” Provision rests upona plan. “I believe,” says Bacon, “that God. . . . doth accomplish and fulfil his divine will in all things, great and small, singular and general, as fully and exactly by Providence as he could by miracle.” The providence of God embraces such particulars as these: (2) Direct action of his own in the hearts of men (Matt. xviii. 20; (cf. xxviii. 20); John xiv. 20, 21; Phil. iv. m3; (ct. 1 Cor. xii. 3); Rom. v. 5; Gal. v. 22; Phil ii.13). (2) Divine action blended with human, as in prayer (Rom. wi 26> Jolin xvi. 23; (cf. xiv. 13, 14; Prov. xvi. 1, 9; =X. 24; xxi. I); Jer. x. 23). (©) Divine action adapted to the moral states of men (Gen. vi. II—13; xviii. 20, 21; xix. 24; (cf. Ex. xix. 16 sq.); Josh. iii. 16; John iii. 10; Heb. ii. 4). (d) Divine power over-ruling and using the wickedness of men (Gen.1.20; Ex.ili. 19-21. (cf. ix. 12); 1 Kings xxii. 22, Saves) ixxvi. Fi; Rom. ix 17; Isa. x. 5, 7, 12, 15; (cf. Acts xvi. 22—39); Prov. xvi. 4; (cf. Waterland, Vol. V. p. 479 sq.). (e) Divine power, using good and evil angels (Ps. ciii. 20; Heb. i. 14; Matt. xviii. 10; Acts v. 19; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1; (cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 1). (f) Divine power, making use of irrational creatures and the elements of nature (Ex. viii. 12, 13, 16, 19; Josh. x. 11; Joel i. 4-12). In administering his moral government providentially, God sometimes reveals its fundamental principles by laws adapted in form and detail to the condition of those addressed. Thus the laws of the Mosaic economy, in respect to domestic servi- tude, divorce for other cause than adultery, revenge for injury to kindred, and distinction of clean animals from unclean, course concerning the Divine Providence”; Charnock (S.) “The Providence of God”; Spurgeon (C. H.) 2d Series, “‘God’s Providence”; Zwingle (U.) “De Providentia Dei,” 1530; Leibnitz (G. W.) “ Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté d’’homme et l’origine du Mal”; Lange (J. P.) in Herzog “ Real- Enkylopadie” s. v. “ Vorsehung.” 104 Manual of Systematic Theology. were adapted to the condition of the people as a io = that time. So close a connection unites all parts and events of the created universe that God’s government must be providential over every part and event, or over nothing at all. Hence the propriety of distinguishing between a general and a special providence is doubtful. Perhaps it would be well to charac- terize the providence of God as special in the case of mira- cles, gracious in respect to Christians, and particular in all things. _ While every event is to be regarded as strictly providential, it is not in all cases easy to ascertain the import of a par- ticular event. But, the more momentous an event is to any person, the more emphatically does God appeal to ts by it. Yet this by no means justifies one in denying the care os God over small events and insignificant beings. Jerome greatly erred in saying, “It is absurd to draw down the majesty of God, so that he know at every moment how many gnats are born, how many die; what a multitude of bugs, fleas, and flies there may be in the earth; how many fishes swim in the water. We are not such foolish adulators of God as that, while we draw his power down to the lowest matters, we are injurious to ourselves, saying that there is the same Providence over rational and irrational beings.’’ Just the view of heathen philosophers!—“ Magna dii curant, parva negligunt’’ (Cic. de nat. deor. ii. 66). But the Christian view is well expressed by Ambrose, a contemporary of Jerome: “What architect neglects the care of his own work? Who deserts and neglects what he has thought proper himself to found? If it is unworthy of him to rule it, was it not more unworthy of him to make it?” No other doctrine of the divine government satisfies the Christian heart half as well as the scriptural one, —that it is throughout providential ; and it is strikingly suggested by the words of a pagan writer: “If God will, you are safe, though you swim on a straw.” The Perfection. of God. 105 DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. It may be premised, (1) that the word “angels” is here used to denote an order of rational beings distinct from man- kind; (2) that our knowledge of such beings is derived from the Bible alone; (3) that the Bible speaks of them because of their connection with men in certain relations and events; (4) that Satan and demons will be regarded as fallen angels; and (5) that other applications of the term “angels”’ will not be considered in this place. —See (2) (Gen. xvi. 7, 10, 133; xviii. 13 sq.); (4) (Eccl. v. 5; Isa. xlii. 19; Mal. iii, 1; 1 Sam. mi. 3)i5 (c), (Ps., ciy...4). I. Zhe NATURE of angels; or, in other words, their essence, their Zower, and their knowledge.’ (1) The essence or substance of angels. It has been com- monly believed by Christians ‘hat angels are personal beings who exist without bodies. And, in support of this belief, reference is made, (2) To passages of Scripture which call them “spirits: (for example, Heb.i. 14; 1 Kings xxii. 21; Mark emzoOu2s |) Luke xxiv. 39); | Sam, xvi: 14, 16,235 Xvill. 105 mix wuke vil. 21° (vill. 2; Acts xix. 12, 15; 1 Tim. iy. "1); (2) To passages which represent them as God’s attendants and ministers (Luke i. 19; Gen. xxxii. I, 2; Deut. xxxili. 2; Pewisviirs 16> Matt, xxiv. 31; xxvi. 53; Luke xv. 10): -.(¢) To passages which represent them as superior to the known lawswoty matter (Acts xii. 7; Num. xxil, 23-27; 32,33; 1 Chron, xxi. 14-16, 27). (ad) To passages which represent them as taking possession of men (Matt. xii, 26-29; Luke 1 See on the whole subject, Ode (J.) “Commentarius de Angelis.” 1739; Twesten (A. D. C.) Dogmatik, IT. 305-383, in Bib. Sac. I. 768-793, II. 108 - 140 Mayor (L.) “Scriptural Idea of Angels,” in Am. Bib. Repos., Oct. 1838, XII 350-393; Stuart (M.) “Sketches of Angelology in the Old and New Test.” Bib. Sac. I. 88-154; Whately (R.) “Scripture Revelations respecting Good and Evil Angels”; Timpson ( .) “The Angels of God; their Nature, Character, Ranks,” &c., 2d ed., London, 1847; Rawson (J.) “Nature and Ministry of the Holy Angels,” N. Y. 1858; also articles in Herzog, Smith, Kitto, Fairbairn, McClintock and Strong; and Theologies; e. g. Hahn (G. L.) Die Theologie des Niilin S250) Sq, 106 Manual of Systematic Theology. iv. 33, 35, 36, 41), and many others. Taken by themselves, these passages afford very considerable evidence that angels are bodiless. ; But against this belief and evidence, the following argu- ments have been brought: (a) The words of Christ in Luke xx. 36, which are supposed to prove that angels have bodies similar to those of the glorified saints; for the saints after the resurrection are said to be “like angels.” Yet the words of Christ, strictly interpreted, only prove that glorified saints will not marry, because they cannot die; and they cannot die because they are like angels, being sons of God. They may, then, be different from angels, in that they have im- mortal bodies; while they are like them in the particulars named by Christ. (2) The words of Jude vv. 6-8, are supposed to attribute a carnal nature to certain angels, and indeed to have refer- ence to the wickedness described in Gen. vi. 2,4. And it is argued that the expression “sons of God” in the latter passage signifies angels. (1) Because the same expression denotes angels in other parts of the Bible; (for example Job i, 6; ii 1; xxxvili. 7; Ps. Ixxxii. 7; Luke xx) 36)5gee is replied, that pious men are virtually called “sons of God,” in the Old Testament; (for example Ex. iv. 22; Deut. xiv. 1; xxxil. 5;. Ps. Ixxiii. 15; Hosea ii. 2); am@eemeeue Christians are represented as “sons of God” in the New Testament ; (for example Gal. iii. 26; iv. 5, 6). (2) Because the manifest contrast between “sons of God” and.“ daughters of men”’ requires us to interpret the former of superhuman beings, —that is, angels. This contrast, however, is suffi- ciently marked by supposing the former to have been the pious descendants of Seth; while the latter were the un- godly descendants of Cain. (3) Because this passage, thus interpreted, explains the otherwise unintelligible reference in Jude. This may be admitted, and still the inquiry be raised whether it is not better to leave the reference in Jude obscure and doubtful than to suppose evil angels capable of The Perfection of God. 107 the unnatural offence ascribed to them by the proposed inter- pretation.’ (c) Many passages of Scripture represent angels as appear- ing to men in visible forms (Gen. xviii.1-g; Luke xxiv. 4; Acts i. 10). To this it may be replied, that in order to appear at all, they must assume a form of some kind, and a human form would be more suitable than any other. Besides, they are represented, also, as eating human food; and, if we infer that their corporeal appearance was normal, shall we not be constrained to infer that their eating of flesh, &c., was also normal ? (2) The existerice of finite beings who are incorporeal is said to be absurd. Bodies are necessary to bring them under the laws of space. They must havea material zov or@ and this must be a living body. But who knows this to be true? Our experience may be of little value in showing the possi- bilities of existence. With the same boldness, some say that an Infinite Being cannot know or will.? On the whole, we think the weight of evidence in support of the belief that angels are incorporeal beings is greater than that which favors the opposite belief, —‘‘ Adhuc sub judice lis est.” 2. The power of angels. This must be very great, as com- pared with that of men (Ps. ciii. 20; 2 Peter ii. 11; 2 Thess. i. 7; (cf. Gen. x. 9; Isa. ix. 5). Both of the words in the first passage refer properly to strength or power, — mighty in power, or strong in might. Both of the terms used to define the superiority of angels in the second passage denote power, in the proper sense of the word. And angels are described, in the third, as “the angels of his might,’”’ mean- ing, those by whom the power of the Lord Jesus will be wielded, or, at least, fitly represented, at his appearing. The texts to be compared illustrate the use of the principal Hebrew term applied to angels in Ps. ciii. 20. 1 See Hofmann, Baumgarten, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Knobel, Kalisch; and, on the other hand, Keil, Reinke, Vol. V., Calvin, and a great majority of interpreters. * See Bib. Sac. Oct. 1876, p. 740 sq. ‘108 Manual of Systematic Theology. ° To these statements, and to others of a similar character found in Scripture, may be added the fact that God is often called “Jehovah of hosts,” because the angels, as a great army, do his bidding; and, from the way in which this desig- nation is applied, we naturally infer that the soldiers of the heavenly host are mighty and glorious, answering, in some slight degree, and far better than any earthly beings, to the greatness of God. The following passages are also worthy of notice, as they indicate the might of certain angels, if not of all) (Rev. Vv. 23% 1s xvills29 js Soe Yet the power of angels is strictly finite, and, therefore, as nothing in comparison with that of God. They are never represented as sharing in the work of creation; and they are always described as subject to God or to Christ. — (See Heb. i) 14s) 11s 5;) Jude g)) 3. The knowledge of angels. That this is very great, as compared with that of men in the present life, may be inferred, (2) From the language of Christ, as preserved in Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32; for obviously this language is ascensive or climacteric, assuming a greater knowledge on the part of angels than on the part of men. The belief of the Jews in the time of David is probably indicated by the words of the wise woman of Tekoah to David (2 Sam. xiv. 17, 20) ; but we cannot appeal to that belief as certainly correct. (0) From the circumstance that they appear to have been for a long time at home with God (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Isa. vi. 3; Matt. xviii. 10; xxii. 30). We do not, it is true, know the time when the angels were created; but it is generally supposed that their creation preceded that of men, if not of the whole visible universe (Job xxxviii. 7). (c) From the devout interest or curiosity which they are said to feel in the work of divine grace (1 Peter i. 12; Luke ii. 13 sq.; Eph. 110@Q eye ili, 16; y. 21; (cf. Rev. v. 11, 12).. (2) From imstameesia@s demoniac and satanic intelligence recorded in the gospels (Mankiw 24 > (Matto: 1 Sqe) (ely Nets xian a) But it is evident from the same passages that the knowledge of angels is limited, and, in this respect, unlike that of God. The Perfection of God.,g ~ 109; € Indeed, it is by no means certain that either good or evil angels can know what are the thoughts of any man by direct intuition, though they may be marvellously sagacious in conjecturing human thoughts. Neither Gabriel nor Satan is to be supposed omniscient or omnipresent. II. Zhe CHARACTER of angels. The word character is here used as a synonyme for moral character, and 4n this respect they may be said to form two perfectly distinct classes - For, — I. Many of them are szwless. This may be inferred (a) from the epithets applied to them by the sacred writers” fers 2240 dim: v. 21; 2 Cor. xi. 14; (cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Zech. xiv. 5). In the second passage referred to, they are’ called “elect angels”; probably because they hold some such relation to other angels as “the elect’”” among men do to other men. Ellicott says, “ With such passages as 2 Peter ii. 4, Jude 6, before us, it seems impossible to doubt that the ‘elect angels’ are those who kept their first estate, and who shall form part of that countless host (Jude 14; Dan. viii. 10) that shall attend the Lord’s second advent.” (4) From the place where they dwell (Luke i. 19; xii. 8, 9; Matt. xviii. 10; Mark xii. 25; Rev. v. 11). It is impossible to suppose that impure beings would be represented as having their home with God in heaven. (c) From the worship which they are saan tonpay, unto’ God (Rev. v. 11; vii. 11 sq.; Isa. vi. 3): (dZ) From the offices which they are said to perform (Gen. Rexaitiene Watt. xxvi. 533 Luke xxii. 43; xvi. 22; Heb. 1:. ¥4-7 (ct. Feb, xiii, 2). As to the present character of this class of angels, the teaching of the Bible is sufficiently explicit. But the history of mankind naturally suggests to us many queries in respect to the history of holy angels; for example, were they ever in a state of probation? Were they once tried, as were our first parents, to see if they would remain obedient to God? An affirmative answer may be given, with some confidence, to this question; both because such a trial seems necessary in itself to the proper training of moral beings under God, IIO Manual of Systematic Theology. and also because certain angels appear to have fallen away © from their allegiance to God. Are they now in a state of probation? Probably not; or, at least, in no other sense than a moral being is always under probation; in no other sense than glorified men will be under probation hereafter. Have they always been holy, or have they been recovered from a sinful state? There appears to be no evidence in the Bible, unless it be the use of the word “elect” in 1 Tim. v. 21, that any of the holy angels were ever guilty of sin; and this adjective is scarcely sufficient to justify us in supposing a fall and recovery of good angels. Is their stability in virtue due, in part, to either angelic or human apostacy? It may- be. Beholding the ruin that has overtaken other offenders, they may have been forewarned, and, seeing the wonders of redemption, they may have learned to love more than they otherwise would. Is their blessedness due at all to the work of Christ? Probably, yea, certainly, it is; for they take a profound interest in his work and the glory of his kingdom; but it is unsafe to infer, from Eph. i. 10 and Col. i. 20, that they have any need of the atonement as a means of redemp- tion. These passages, however, indicate the unity of God’s moral government, and the reason why some knowledge of angels is given to men. 2. Many of them are szzfu/. This may be learned (2) From the efzthets which are applied to them; (for example Matt. x. 1; Mark iii. 11; Luke ix. 42; Matt. xii. 45; Luke vill. 2; Acts xix. 12-16). (4) From the place where they are said to dwell; (for example 2 Peter ii. 4; Jude 6; Luke viii. 31; Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xx. 7, 10). (c) From the work which they are said to perform; (for example Job i. 6-9; ii. I sq.; Zech. iii. 1, 2; 1 Sam. xvi. 14; xvili. 10; I Kings xxii. 21 sq.; Zech. xiii. 2; Rev. xii. 10; Matt. xiii. 39; Luke John viii. 44; xiii. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 7; 2 Tim. it. 26; 1 Peau S Bphk: vi 11,125 2 Lind iv, 0)! Several queries are also suggested by the language of Scripture in respect to evil spirits; for example, (2) Are demons, together with Satan, fallen angels? We have The Perfection of God. II assumed this to be the meaning of Scripture, and would refer to the following passages in support of our assumption: (2 Peter ii. 4; Jude 6.) But some have insisted that Satan was never a holy being, appealing to the following passages: (eam viii. 44; 1 John m. 8; Rev.. xii. 9.) It is, BS ey incorrect, to suppose that the phrase, ras the beginning,’ as used by John, refers to any other beginning than that spoken of in Gen. i. 1. The sinfulness of Satan antedates that of mankind. He has been known to our race in no other character than that of a tempter and seducer. To suppose that he was created morally evil is absurd; and to suppose that he is uncreated is to deny the supremacy of God. The only view consistent with biblical monotheism is that of his early apostacy ; and, if he apostatized, so also did all his angels, — that is, the demons. (0) Are they all doomed to eternal punishment? The Bible appears to render this certain (Matt. xxv. 41; 2 Peter ieearwey. xx. 2, 3, 10 (cf. Eph. i. 10, 21, 22; Col. i. 20; I Cor. xv. 25). The passages inclosed in parenthesis have been thought by some to predict a final restoration of all beings, including fallen angels, to the favor of God; but they do not seem to me to warrant such a view. (c) Has the recovery of their forfeited state ever been possible? The Bible nowhere intimates that it has; while the most natural inference from the language of Peter and Jude is, that it has not. Many modern critics affirm that the language of Peter and Jude can only be reconciled with that of other parts of Scripture, by supposing that some of the apostate angels have been kept in close confinement since their fall, while others have been allowed to roam abroad and tempt mankind. But this view is precarious ; and, even if it were correct, it would not prove that any offer of pardon has been made to the unconfined apostates. Besides, the Bible seems to assign the first place in evil to Satan, who is cer- tainly represented, as in some sense, free to wander up and down the earth, tempting mankind. Perhaps tartarus is not so much a place as a state, and the confinement not so much local as moral and providential. 112 Manual of Systematic Theology. (d) In what did the peculiar enormity of their original sin consist? Any reply to this must be conjectural. It is evi-. dent, however, that one, at least, of the angels must have sinned without being tempted thereto by any living being; but it is improbable that this was the case with all. Hence, the enormity of their sin must be sought in something else. Perhaps it was in this, that they had greater knoWledge of God than was possessed by Adam and Eve,—a knowledge due either to their longer life before sin, or to their closer relation to God, or to both these circumstances combined. (e) Have we any right to say that their sin was greater than that of our first parents? Either their sin was greater, or some other circumstance rendered the course which was taken with men less appropriate for them. The government. of God is always determined by sufficient reasons. It is holy and wise. III. Ye EMPLOYMENT of angels. . 1. Of good angels. This is indicated (a) By the names which are given to them in the sacred record: in Hebrew,. 822, properly an abstract noun, signifying execution, ser- vice, sending, but generally used as a concrete, meaning (1), messenger, and (2) messenger of God; in Greek, &yyehos, signifying also (1) messenger, and (2) messenger of God. It is to be observed that Hebrew names were often significant of the office or character of those to whom they were given. In this case, obviously, the name was derived from the office or employment, —that is, from the employment of this order of beings with reference to men. But it would be a hasty inference should we say that, because they are called angels, their time is mostly given to the work of bearing messages from God to his creatures. In respect to men only can their namie justify such an inference. As known by men, they are God’s messengers. ! ‘The same is proved (4) By the actions ascribed to them by the same authority. — See 1 Kings xix. 5; Matt. i. 20; ii. 13, 193, Luke i, 11 sq. ;; Acts v.19; vill. 26; xii. 7: Hebsameees Ps.: xei,. 12; Deut. xxxin. 2; Ps. Ixvill.. 18; Acts gaia The Perfection of God. 113 Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2. From these passages we conclude that angels were often employed by Jehovah as his messengers to men, that they took some part in delivering the law on Sinai to Moses, and that they execute the will cf God among men whenever he pleases, be that will gracious or retributive. But it has been asserted with confidence (a) That particular men or nations or elements are intrusted to the care of par- ticular angels, who are therefore called “ guardian angels.” foader evil, TO5 Acts. xi. #5; Dan. x. 5 sq. 20, 21;. xii. 1; ere. t, 25 xiv. 8; xvi. 5; xix. 17.) In Matt. xvii. 10, it is said of believers in Christ that “their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven”; but this may only signify that the angels who are ministering spirits to Christians dwell in heaven as their home, and are permitted to see God face to face. It does not prove that a particular angel is put in charge of a particular believer; nor does it prove that angels spend most of their time in serving the heirs of salvation. In Acts xii. 15, an expression is used which implies a belief in the doctrine of ‘‘ guardian angels,” and also a belief that each man’s angel appeared sometimes in the semblance of the person himself. But we do not know who the speakers were; they may not have been inspired persons ; and nowhere else in the Bible is there any trace of this supposed imitation of the form or voice of particular men. — See Wetstein ad loc. and the note of Hackett. Owing to the dramatic and symbolical character of Revelation, it seems to be unsafe to rely upon the representations which it gives of angels as literally exact; and therefore the doctrine of tutelary angels is nowhere taught, unless it be in the book of Daniel. In Dan. x. 21, a heavenly messenger addressing Daniel uses the expression, “ Michael, your prince”; and in xii. 1 it is said that ‘‘in those days shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people.” Here, certainly, a particular angel may be meant, who was charged with the duty of guarding the interests of the chosen people ; but whether he did this always, or only at a certain 114 Manual of Systematic Theology. crisis of their history, is not stated. More exactly, it is only stated that he did this at a certain crisis. The doctrine of tutelary angels does not, therefore, seem to be clearly taught in the holy Scriptures. (6) It has been supposed that the holy angels are, in some real sense, an organized community, kingdom, or army. — (See Luke ii. 13 ; Rev. xii. 7; xix. 14; 2 Peter ii. 113; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Jude 9; (cf. Luke i. 19; Rev. viii. 2,6; Rom. viii. 38; 1 Pet. ili. 22; Eph. iii.,10; Col. ii. 10, 95 jee Col. 1..16.)' Also Eph: iii. 15; Hb. xi: 22) 23m : From these passages it may be inferred (1) That holy angels do not live and act every one by himself, but rather in sublime order and concert. (2) That some of them are dis- tinguished for wisdom and strength above their fellows, and are, therefore, under Christ, leaders of the celestial host. (3) That these leaders have different degrees of authority, according to their several ability. Hahn classifies them thus: (2) Archangels (especially Michael), or those who stand before God. (4) Primacies, égyai. Thrones, oro, or au- thorities, Soveia. Powers, dvvauer. (c) Lordships, «vguryzes. (4) Thaf something analagous to tribal or local divisions may exist among them. Yet this is by no means certain. (Eph. ili. 15). (c) It has likewise been supposed that the holy angels are very numerous: (Matt. xxvi. 53; Heb. i. 14; xii. 22; Rev. v. 11; Dan. vii. 9, 10). The word of God, it will be seen, fully justifies the belief referred to. But whether the unfallen angels outnumber the fallen, we can not tell; though it would ~ be pleasant to suppose that they do. Remark (1) No religious veneration should be paid to angels: (Col. ii. 18; Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 8, 9.) Remark (2) Neither should they be invoked as advocates of men before the throne of God; for there is one Mediator between God and men; and, besides, angels are not omni- present. Remark (3) The doctrine of angels, and especially of good angels, “renders more clear our conception of the all-surpass The Perfection of God. II5 ing majesty of God, —of the divine greatness of the Lord, and of the glory of his yet future appearing... It raises man, by reminding him of his exalted rank and high destiny (Matt. xxii. 30). It shames the sinner, by asserting to him the possibility of a normal development of spiritual beings, and at the same time by showing to him their interest in the work of his conversion. It directs the Christian to a lofty source of consolation (Ps. xci. 11. 12) ; an excellent example (Matt. vi. 10), and a heart-cheering perspective’ (Hebrew. xii. 22). Oosterzee. We come now — (2) To the employment of evil angels, which may be treated briefly, since it is, speaking generally, just the opposite of that to which good angels are devoted. The kind of activity characteristic of evil spirits is indicated, (1) By the ames given to their chief, — namely, adversary, slanderer, and per- haps Apollyon (1 Chron. xxi.1; Matt.iv. 1; ix. 34; 1 Peter Wausipelkev. IX. I1; xii. 9, 10): His followers are like him, working toward the same end which he seeks. (2) By the actions ascribed to him or to them (1 Chron. xxi. 1; "Job. i. 6 Sopeuke wii, 12); Joh xii..2; 2-Cor, xi. 14; 1 Tim. il 7; imaeewlim. 11.26; 1 Peter v. $; Rev. xx. 1, 3). (3) By their taking possession of men.? We mention this separately, because it seems to have been limited to a brief period of time. From the accounts in the New Testament, we conclude (1) That evil spirits can so unite themselves to a human being as to control his bodily organs, causing dumbness or blindness (Matt. ix. 32; xii. 22; Luke xi. 14). (2) That they can thereby produce or aggravate disease, —as insanity, epilepsy, lunacy, emaciation (Matt. viii. 28; xvii. 15 sq.; Mark ix. 18; v. 3 sq.; Luke viii. 1See Farmer on “ Demoniacs;” Owen, “ Demonology of the New Testament,” “Bib. Sac.,” xvi. 116 ; “Demoniacal Possessions of the New Testament,” “Am. Presb. and Theol. Rev.,” 1865, 495 sq.; Hovey on “ The Miracles of Christ,” ch. iv.; Smith’s “ Dict. of the Bible,” article “Demon”; Kitto’s “Cyc of Bib. Lit.” article “Demon”; Herzog, iii. 240, art. “ Damonische”; Kitto’s “Jour.,” iv. 1, vii. 394; “ Meth. Quar. Rev.,” x. 213; Appleton’s Works, ii. 94. 116 Manual of Systematic Theology. 28, 29; ix. 39). (3) That their presence was revealed by some peculiarity unknown to us at the present day. (4) That their usurped control over the bodily organs of men was not confined to those pre-eminently wicked (Mark ix. 14-28). Remarks. (a) With reference to the demons, their removal” was called a “casting-out’’ (Matt. viii. 16; x. 1, 8; Mark i. 34, 39); with reference to the demoniacs, a “healing” (Matt. xv. 28; Luke vi. 18; vii. 21). (4) Some of the Jews claimed to. cast out demons (Matt. xii. 27; Josephus Antiq. viii. 2,5). Whether Christ indorsed the correctness of their claim is doubtful. (¢) Evil angels are spoken of asa king- dom (Matt. xii. 26; Mark iii. 24; Luke xi. 18; Rev. xii. 7) with a ruler at their head (Matt. ix. 34; xii. 24; xxv. 41; Rev. xii. 7,9; 2 Cor. xii. 7). This ruler is called, by way of eminence, The wicked one (Matt. v. 37; vi. 13; xill. 19, 38; John xvii. 15; 1 John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 19; Eph. vi. 16; 2 Thess. iii. 3; The satan (Matt. xii. 26); The devil (Matt. xiii. 39); The enemy (Matt. xiii. 25); The adversary (1. Tim. v. 14; 1 Peter v. 8); The accuser of the brethren (Rev. xii. 10); The spirit of error (1 John iv. 6); The ruler of this world (John xii. 31; xvi. 11); (cf. xiv. 30;) The god of this world (2 Cor. iv. 4); The old serpent (Rev. xii. 9; xx. 2) ; The great dragon (Rev. xii. 3, 4 sq.; xiii. 2,4). “ Army of fiends, fit body to fit head,” Milton Par. Lost, iv. 953. This same prince of the demons is represented as ruling over man- kind (1 John v. 19; John xiv. 30; xil, 31; xvi. 985 2) Corn iv. 4). The language of these and other passages of the New Tes- tament is very strong. Satan is even represented as having in some sense the power of death; which, however, cannot mean that he has power to take the lives of men at will, or that he is the one who does put an end to the natural lives of most men (Heb. ii. 14). It may be worthy of notice that Satan’s subordinates also bear sway over men (Eph. vi. 12). To many minds the idea of such a kingdom is very awful. They prefer to think of evil spirits as acting without skill or concert; but this is not the doctrine of the New Testament. The Perfection of God. 117 There is wonderful order in their madness. Still, their power over men is limited. They can do nothing without man’s consent; and their apparent victories lead only to a more complete overthrow. Queries. (1) Are demons still permitted to take possession of men as in the time of Christ? We believe not; at any rate we are not aware of any evidence that would justify an affirmative answer to this question. (2) If not, why were they permitted to do it then? Pos- sibly that the lordship of Christ over the invisible world might be signally revealed, even in his humiliation. “The clearest revelation of heaven,” says Macmillan, “is the neces- sary correlative of the clearest revelation of hell.” Satan has been called Dez Simius, the ape of God; “ He can only sow tares, —an imitation of wheat.” (3) Are the rappings, table-movings, &c., of modern times, the direct work of evil spirits? From the best evidence we have, it seems to us far more likely that they are of mundane origin. (4) Have evil angels any special connection with pagan deities? (1 Cor. x. 20, 21; viii. 4.) No other connection than they have with all great manifestations of sin in the world. (5) Will evil spirits resume their former modes of action at any future period? (Rev. xx. 8.) Possibly, yet with varia- tions adapted to the weakness of man at the time. 118 Manual of Systematic Theology. PART FOURDE: THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. THE topics which belong to this part of theology are the unity of mankind, the essential elements of human nature, the endless existence of man, the moral constitution of man, and the sinfulness of man. . I. -THE UNITY OF MANKIND. It seems to us, on the whole, evident that all the races or varieties of mankind belong to one species. And in support of this view we appeal with a good degree of confidence : — 1 Yo the Holy Scripture. — Gen. i. 27; ii. 7, 15 Sq.3 Vi. 7, 8; vii. 21; viii. 1,,sq.; Acts xvii. 26; Rom. v. 12) sqysusear xv. 21, 22. These passages appear to be sufficiently plain; and we are aware of no good reason for doubting that their writers believed in the unity of the human race. The word aiuazos in Acts xvii. 26, is omitted by Lachmann, Tisch- endorf and Tregelles; but its absence does not weaken the value of the text for our argument. 2. To the Anatomical Structure of Men. This is nearly the same in all varieties of the human race. The differences between the highest and the lowest types of mankind are said by competent authorities to be less than the difference between varieties of the same species in some of the lower animals. 3. To the Physiological Peculiarities of Men. (1) All races are fruitful with one another. (2) The duration of pregnancy is the same in all. (3) The normal temperature of the body is the same. (4) The mean frequency of the pulse is the same. All these are facts of special importance to the argument. 4. To the Pathological Characteristics of Men. Al varieties of men are liable to the same diseases in the same circum- The Doctrine of Man. 1 fe) stamces. This is not true of other animals. Again, the blood of a healthy man, injected into the veins of a feeble one, is far more invigorating than that of any other animal; just as the blood of a horse is better for another horse than is that of any animal of a different species. Besides, human blood is distinguishable by the aid of the microscope from that of any other animal.’ 5. Zo the Duration of Human Life. This is nearly the same in all varieties of mankind. The differences between different nations are slight, and probably due to the influences of climate and civilization, acting through long periods. 6. To the Cardinal Powers of the Human Mind. These are everywhere the same. The mental, moral, and religious capacities of the human spirit are identical in kind the world over. This is a great point. Note. Just now the tendency of scientific speculation is favorable to the Darwinian hypothesis, of progress by natural selection, —a theory which makes far less of the distinction between different species than any other; but, whatever of truth may be represented by the hypothesis of Darwin, it is quite insufficient to account for the origin of the human spirit, and need not therefore occupy our time in a theological course. 1 See Pritchard (J. C.) “ Researches into the Physical History of Man,” and “The Natural History of Man,” botn able works; Smith (T.) “The Unity of the Human Race,” &c.; Hale (M.) “ Primitive Origination of Man”; Caldwell (C.) “Thoughts on the Original Unity of the Human Race,” adverse to its Unity; Cabell (J. L.) ‘The Testimony of Modern Science to the Unity of Mankind,” a very good discussion; Quatrefages (A. de) “Unité de l’Espece Humaine,” also “Histoire Naturelle Generale,” “ Revue des deux Mondes,” Nov, Dec., 1868, 832 sq.; Ladevi-Roche (M.) “ L’Unité des Races Humaines d’apres des donnees de la Psychologie et de la Physiologie”; Whitney (W. D.) “‘ Language, and the Sludy of Language”; Miiller (M.) “Lectures on the Science of Language,” series I. and II.; Bunsen (Chev.) “Philosophy of History,” or Vols. II. and III. of “Christianity and Mankind”; Smith’s (W.) “Dictionary of the Lible,” in the article “Confusion of Tongues”; Burnouf (E.) “La Science des Religions,” several articles in the ‘“‘ Revue des deux Mondes” of 1867 and 1868; Ehren- feuchter (F.) “ Entwickelungsgeschichte der Menschheit in Ethischen Beziehung”’; Rauch (P. M.) “Die Einheit des Menschengeschlechtes”; Burgess (E.) “ An- tiquity and Unity of the Human Race”; Peschel (O.) “The Races of Man and their Geographical Distribution.” 120 Manual of Systematic Theology. Il. THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 7: It has long been a question with philosophers and theolo- gians, whether the being of man comprises three elements, — body, soul, and spirit, — or only two, — body and spirit ; and it . is Our purpose to notice in this section some of the arguments for each of the two views. In confirmation of the former view, it is said,1— 1. That several passages of the New Testament teach it plainly, — (namely, 1 Thess. v. 23; Heb. iv. 12; Phil. i 27; Luke i. 47; 1 Cor. xv. 44). The first and clearest of these passages is translated by Ellicott, “May your spirit and soul and body be preserved whole, without blame, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ!’’ And he regards it as a “distinct enunciation of three component parts of the nature of man.” This is certainly the most obvious view of the apostle’s mean- ing ; and it is adopted, with some differences of opinion as to the exact distinction between “ spirit”’ and “ soul,” by Alford, Ellicott, Olshausen, Meyer, and De Wette; though De Wette thinks the enumeration merely “rhetorical.” In the second passage, the word of God is represented as “piercing, even to a dividing of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow,” —that is, cutting through soul and through spirit, through joints and through marrow. Here the spirit seems to be thought of as deeper than the soul, —as the innermost part of man’s nature. Tholuck defines “spirit” in this place as “the spirit according to its eternal side,’ and “soul” as “the spirit according to its zatural side.” The third passage reads thus: “That ye stand in one spirit, with one soul, striving together for the faith of the gospel.” Here it would not be difficult to explain the use of 1 Olshausen (H.) “Opuscula Theologica,” 1834, p. 143 sq.; Goschel (C. F.) “Der Mensch nach Leib, Seele und Geist diesseits und jenseits,” suggestive; Delitzsch (F.) “A System of Biblical Psychology”; Heard (J. B.) “The Tri- oartite Nature of Man”; Boardman (G. D.) “The Scriptural Anthropology,” in Bap. Quar., vol. I., pp. 175-90, 324-40, 428-44; Usteri (L.) “Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes,” Anhang I. S. 384 sq.; Schubert (G. H.) “ Die Geschichte der Seele”; Planck (K. E.) “Seele und Geist”; Ulrici (H.) “Leib uad Seele.” The Doctrine of Man. 121 “soul” in the second clause, without supposing it to signify a constituent part of human nature, in distinction from the “spirit.” Indeed, there is much reason to suppose that the word “spirit” signifies, in this place, the Holy Spirit, in whom alone Christians can expect to be truly united. — See Alford’s note on the passage. The fourth reads as follows: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoiced in God my Saviour!’’ but it seems to us plain that the two terms, “soul” and “spirit,’”’ may, in this case, refer to one and the same essential principle. And the last text reads: ‘It is sown a psychical body; it is raised a pneumatic body.” We suppose that the word “soul” often denotes the animal life ; and hence, a psychical body is one adapted to animal life, while a spiritual body is one adapted to spirit life. The passage does not therefore estab- lish the fact of a distinction between soul and spirit. 2. That several doctrines of the New Testament are rendered more intelligible by it; for example, that of hereditary de- pravity, that of regeneration, and that of eternal retribution. But we do not think any thing is gained in this respect by the tripartite theory of man’s nature. The other arguments adduced by trichotomists are equally inconclusive, and may be passed without further notice. In confirmation of the second view, reference is made, — 1. Zo the plain teaching of the New Testament: as in Matt. Koeocuxxvl, 41 (cl, Mark xiv. 38); Luke xii. 22 sq.; Acts fee Om: 11:26, 20; 1 Cor. vi 3, 53 Vis TOSq.5 vil. 34; mucorwu- 1; Col. u. 5; Heb. xii..9; James ii. 26; 1 Peter li. I1; iii, 18; iv. 6. For these and similar passages make it certain that the words, ‘soul and spirit,” may often be used interchangeably, —to denote the spiritual part of man in dis- tinction from the bodily, and especially that human nature consists of two parts, body and soul, or flesh and spirit.’ 1 Hahn (G. L.) “Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” sects. 149-154. Riddle (M. B.) “Lange on Romans” Am. Ed. “Excursus on Biblico-Psycholog- ical Terms.” — See ch. VII. v. 13.; Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” vol. II. p. 44 sq.; Stu. u. Kr. XTI. Ackermann (C.) “Beitrag zur theologischen Wiirdig ung und Abwagung der Legriffe mvetua, vov¢ und Geist.” 122 Manual of Systematic Theology. 2. To the phenomena of consciousness. There is nothing, itis — said, in human experience, which may not be traced as read- ily to two essential principles as to three. It is as easy to believe that the spirit has direct connection with the body as to suppose that it has connection with it indirectly, through the soul; to suppose that one and the same spiritual principle has a wide range of susceptibilities, passions, and powers, some higher and some lower, as to suppose two spiritual principles have this range. In short, the law of parcimony forbids.us to assert any essential distinction between soul and spirit, unless we do it on the authority of Scripture. But it is admitted that the words “soul”’ and “spirit” are not’ strictly synonymous. If they do not denote two parts of human nature, they must be admitted to denote the same part as seen in different lights, or as performing different functions ; for, in certain connections, one of them is always used ; and, in other connections, the other. What, then, are the meaning and use of these words respectively? Trichoto- mists and dichotomists are alike interested in finding a true answer to this question. 1. The word “soul” zs often used as nearly equivalent to self or person. To say, “My soul doth magnify the Lord!” is to say, “I, myself, do magnify the Lord!’ And, from this, it is but a step to the conclusion, that the soul is the synthesis of spirit and body,—the being which results from their union. — See Gen. ii. 7. The breath of life from God was the unembodied spirit; while the “living soul” was the result of the spirit’s union with the body: it denoted the complex being in its completeness. But a close study of the Scriptures leads rather to the view that man is called soul, a superiorz parte, and not because the word “soul” properly means a being composed of body and spirit. This is rendered certain by the fact, that the soul is sometimes contrasted with the body ; for, if the body were a part of the soul, it pace not be thus contrasted with it.— See Matt. x. 28; 1 Pet. ii. (2) Theword “soul” is ley to denote the spirit as modificd The Doctrine of Man. 123 by union with the body. It is the intelligent life-principle as it exists in man. This definition accounts for the use of the word “soul,” rather than spirit, when reference is made to pas- sions and desires awakened by sense or the flesh, and also for its use when mere life is referred to. For, according to this theory, the soul is at once the vital power and the rational power in man. Its functions are partly unconscious, and partly conscious; partly animal, and partly rational, (3) Lhe word “soul” ts thought to be used when certain func- tions or relations are in the writer's mind; and the word“ spirit” when certain other functions or relations ave in his mind. Thus the immaterial principle in man is called soul, when it is conceived of as looking earthward, —as affected by the body, or as acting through the body; while it is called spirit when it is conceived of as looking God-ward,— as affected by the spirit of God, or as contrasted with the flesh. Hence those qualities of our inner nature which are modified by the flesh, and perishable, are suggested by the name “soul;” while those which are moral, religious, and eternal are suggested by the name “spirit.” It will be found difficult, and probably impossible, to account, by either of these theories, for the selection of the term “soul” or “spirit” in every instance where one of them is used. But by bearing in mind the last two, and also the fact that in many passages either of the words would be suf- ficiently exact, nearly all the language of the sacred writers may be readily explained. Ill, THE ENDLESS EXISTENCE OF MAN. The term ‘“man’”’ will be used in this section to denote whatever is essential to human personality. So long as the person exists, the man exists. It may be a question, whether the endless existence of man should be considered at all in this place; for it will be neces- sary to recur to the same subject in the last part of theology, and exhibit more fully some of the evidence of man’s unend- .ing existence. 124 Manual of Systematic Theology. So close a connection, however, exists between the moral nature of man and his endless existence, that a notice of the latter cannot be postponed to the end of our course; yet it will be enough for the present, if the chief lines of argu-— ment are indicated.’ (1) The Scriptures predict such an existence. As to the pious, this is commonly admitted; but, as to the wicked, some entertain doubts ; yet these doubts, it seems to us, do not spring from any obscurity in the language of Scripture. — See Matt. xxv. 46. “And these shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” In confirmation of the biblical view, we remark, — (2) The mental powers of man are adapted to endless exist- ence. He is put inrelation to endless being by his conception of it. His mind is also capable, so far as can be ascertained, of indefinite growth in knowledge and power. Such a mind seems to have been formed for perpetual existence. (3) His moral powers are adapted to such an existence. They recognize moral relations and qualities which are the same forever, and perceive the excellence of God more per- fectly the longer they contemplate it. Moreover, the incom- pleteness of moral government in this life, as judged by conscience, points to a future, if not to an endless existence of man, in which “all odds shall be made even.’? (4) Hits spiritual sensibilities are adapted to such an existence. They are fitted to enjoy permanently whatever is beautiful, true, or good. Such objects do not cloy. Hence, man appears to have been made “to glorify God, and enjoy him forever.” 1 Channing (W. E.) “ Works,” vol. IV. pp. 169-182; Gray (J. T.) “Immor- tality: its Real and Alleged Evidences”; Simpson (A.) “ Prize Essay on the Immateriality of the Mind, and the Immortality of the Soul’’; Guizot (F.) “ Meditations and Moral Studies”; Newman (F. W.) “The Soul: its Sorrows and its Aspirations”; Parker (T.) “A Sermon of Immortal Life”; Miiller (J.) “Studien u. Kritiken,” 1833, sects. 703-794; Estes (H. C.) “ The Christian Doc- trine of the Soul”; Dick (T.) “The Philosophy of a Future Life”; Taylor (I.) “ Physical Theory of a Future Life”; Fichte (I. H.) “Seelenfortdauer u. Welt- stellung des Menschen.” 2 See Jackson (W.) “ The Doctrine of Retribution”; also Butler and Kaut. The Doctrine of Man. 125 “That religious instincts are as truly a part of our nature as are our appetites and our nerves is a fact which all history establishes, and which forms one of the strongest proofs of the reality of that unseen world to which the soul of man continually tends.” — Lecky, “Hist. of European Morals,” I. 339, 340. (5) His best aspirations point to such an existence. This is commonly admitted. Annihilation is never thought of with pleasure, except as a release from misery. It is coveted, not by the good, but by the bad; and not by them as desirable in itself, but as a less evil than endless woe. Says Ten- nyson, — “My own dim life should teach me this, — That life shall live forevermore; Else earth is darkness at the core, And dust and ashes all that is.” (6) The general belief of mankind points to such an existence. This belief is not universal: but it is so prevalent as to be esteemed normal; and, as normal, it is an indication of end- less existence on the part of man. IV. THE MORAL CONSTITUTION OF MAN. No part of systematic theology requires more cautious and accurate treatment than this. If man ever “sees through a mirror obscurely” (1 Cor. xiii. 12), it is when he undertakes to explore the depths of his own spirit, and ascertain its powers in the domain of religion. Andit has been truly said, that a “large portion of the predestinarian controversy has arisen out of an attempt to exclude, on speculative grounds, either one or other of the two fundamental conceptions, — the freedom of man, and the supremacy of God.’ That man is a moral being may be proved by an appeal to the word of God, to the common consent of mankind, and to the testimony of consciousness itself; for there is hardly a paragraph or doctrine of Scripture which does not imply the 1 From Hannah (J.) “The Relation of the Divine and Human Elements iv Scripture.” 126 Manual of Systematic Theology. moral nature and accountability of man; there is scarcely a law of civil government, or an institution of civil society which does not presuppose the same thing; and there is no rational man who fails to perceive a moral quality in many of his own actions and affections." It is also certain that moral character may be revealed by almost any kind of action possible to the human soul, whether it be that of thinking, that of desiring, or that of willing. Yet every kind of spiritual action may not be equally the proper cause or source of virtue and sin; and it is therefore important to ascertain, if possible, to which grand division of the soul’s life and movement they should be specially referred. Many persons regard the sensibilities, propensities, feel- ings or tastes, of the soul as being the source of man’s moral character. They believe that his thoughts and actions spring from his feelings, and say, that, as the heart is, so is the man. Others suppose the will to be fundamental and controlling, — the proper author of propensities and affections as well as of thoughts. Which of these views is correct ? (1) If one appeals to the Word of God for an answer to this question, he will readily find many expressions concern- ing man, as he now is, which seem to support the former view; (for example, Jer. xxxi. 18; Ezek. xxxvi. 26; Matt. vii. 17, 18; John vi. 44,65; xv. 5; Eph. ii. 5, 10; Phil. ii. 13.) “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art Jehovah, my God.” —“ A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.” — “ So every good tree bringeth forth good fruits ; but the cor- rupt tree bringeth evil fruits. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor a corrupt tree bring forth good fruits.” —“ No one can come to me, except the Father, who sent me, draw him.” — “ For this cause, I have said to you, that no one can 1 Butler (J.) “Sermons upon Human Nature”; Alexander (A.) “ Outlines of Moral Science ”; Rothe (R.) “ Theologische Ethik”; Jouffroy (Theo.) “ Intro- duction to Ethics”; Hofmann (R.) “ Die Lehre vom Gewissen.” The Doctrine of Man. - 127 come to me except it be given him from the Father.” — “Without me, ye can do nothing.” —“ But God. . . . made us, even when we were dead in sins, alive with Christ.” — “ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” — “ For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to do, of his good pleasure.” From these passages, it appears that all holy action in man is due to divine grace; that the state of every unrenewed soul is such as to make this grace practically indispensable,’ and that moral action does, as a matter of fact, in the case of fallen men, spring from some permanent moral state or bias; and this permanent state is naturally thought to bea state of the feelings or affections or susceptibilities. But the inquirer will also find many expressions of, Scrip- ture which seem to support the latter view; (for example, eee xVill, 26, 27,31, 32; Matt. xi. 28—30; Acts il. 38; ili, 19.) ‘‘When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them, for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” — “ Make youa new heart and a new spirit ; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? . . . . Where- fore turn, and live ye.” —“ Come unto me, all ye that labor and are'heavy-laden, and I will give you rest,’ &c. “Repent, and be each of you baptized, upon the name of Jesus Christ, unto remission of sins.’’ — “ Repent, therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out.” These passages clearly teach the duty of sinners to repent and seek the Lord: nay, sin- ners are commanded, to make themselves a new heart, as they are elsewhere commanded to love God with all the heart and their neighbor as themselves. This, therefore, is their per- petual duty; and hence it must be within the power of their will. There is, then, a seeming disagreement between the two 1 Nemo per se satis valet ut emergat, oportet manum aliquis porrigat, aliquis educat.”— Seneca Ep. 52. 128 Manual of Systematic Theology. classes of texts cited; and the Bible fails to answer directly the question proposed. The former class leads to one infer- ence, and the latter class to another. They may be reconciled by assuming, that, as a matter of fact, in the case of sinners, divine grace always takes the initiative in good, not because a sinner cannot, but because he w7// not, of himself, turn to the Lord. But the language of Paul, in Rom. ix. 15, 16, appears to turn the scale in favor of the Calvinistic view as practically correct. — “I will have mercy on whomsoever I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomsoever I have compas- sion.” — “ So, then, it is not of him who willeth, nor of him who runneth, but of God who showeth mercy.” Beneath the whole discussion of Paul may lie the assumption that no man truly wills or runs without prevenient grace, —a grace which always takes the initiative in human salvation. (2) If one appeals to the history of mankind for an answer to the question proposed, the same result will follow; for on the one hand, according to the testimony of history, sin appears to be universal in the race. And the universality of sin, from the hour of the fall until now, is hardly consistent with any theory of action which does not trace it back to a bias of the heart; or, if any one prefers, to a bias of the will, regarded as embracing in itself permanent moral affections and susceptibilities. But, on the other hand, according to the testimony of sacred history, man was created upright, with a pure heart,’ and by an act of his. own will disobeyed the will of God. Hence Calvinists, as well as Arminians, admit that a holy being may fall into sin by exercising his freedom of will; but they deny that there is any evidence of power in a fallen being to recover, unaided, his lost rectitude of feeling. 1 On the Sinless Condition of Man in Eden, reference may be made to the following works: Winer (G.B.) “The Confessions of Christendom,” p. 78 sq.; Hase (C. A.) “Libri Symbolici Ecclesiz Evangelice,” p. 55 sq.; Niemeyer (H. A.) “Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum,” pp. 79, 80, 88, 106, 116, 341, 368, 393, 476. The Doctrine of Man. 129 Thus the general course of human: action since the fall favors one view; and the first act of sin in Eden the other view: and the question before us is not yet clearly answered, unless it be said that will is the cause of sin in a holy being, and wrong desire the source of sin in unholy beings. Many accept this double answer.’ (3) If one appeals to soral consciousness for an answer, the result will be far from certain; for, on the one side, will appear a certain repugnance to holy action, which seems to unnerve, without excusing the sinner,—a fearful suspicion that sin is not wholly avoidable by his own power, and an instinc- tive moral judgment against selfishness and want of love to God, as being in their very nature sinful. ‘For example, not only are malice and envy sinful, when ripened into act, but the smallest conceivable exercise of such feelings is evil; and, as they increase in strength, their moral evil increases. It does not require an act of volition, —consenting to these feelings, —to render them evil; their very essence is evil, and is condemned by the moral sense of mankind.”’” “The reality of sin, for every man whose experience is worth being taken as testimony, is not in particular volitions of his will, but in its abiding state, — not in what he chooses to do now and then, but in that unceasing, uninterrupted deter- mination of self to evil. This is the torment of his life, — that below his volitions to sin, below his resolutions to reform, even below his deepest self-examination, and his most distinct self-knowledge, below all the conscious exercises and operations of his soul,—there is a sinful heart, a dark. ground of moral evil.” 1 Aug. “de natura et gratia,” I. c. 28; “Encheiridion ad Laur.” c. 30: Homo libero arbitrio male utens, et se perdidit et ipsum. Sicut enim qui se occidit, se occidendo non vivit nec seipsum potest resuscitare quum occiderit: ita, quum ~ libero peccaretur arbitrio, amissum est et liberum arbitrium.” Lut see Hazard (R. G.) “Freedom of the Mind in Willing,” and “Causation and Freedom in Willing.” Willing is always and by its very nature free. Speaking accurately, the sinner is just as free in the act of willing as the saint; but he does not act as wisely: he does not seek his real and highest good; and he knows this at the time. 2 Alexander (A.) “ Outlines of Moral Science,” p. 145. 3 Shedd (W. G. T.) “Tssays and I)iscourses,” p. 230. 130 Manual of Systematic Theology. But, on the other side, will appear a persuasion that our moral action is free,—that we are able, in every instance, to do right, and refrain from wrong, —that, whenever we have decided in favor of evil, we could have decided otherwise; and, in view of this, a tendency to modify our instinctive moral judgment against evil biases or feelings, and to pronounce them innocent, unless they are indorsed or fostered by the will.” But it is replied to one of these statements that, “when we feel that we could and would act differently from what we have done, in certain specified circumstances, it is always on the supposition that our views and feelings should be different.” * Or, in other words, and with special reference to sin, it is said that ‘the will, in the time of a leading act or volition that is diverse from, or opposite to the command of God, and when actually under the influence of it, is not able to exert itself to the contrary,—to make an alteration in order to compliance. The inclination is unable to change itself; and that, for this plain reason, that it is unable to incline to change itself. Present choice cannot, at present, choose to be otherwise ; for that would be at present to choose something diverse from what is at present chosen. ... To suppose that the mind is now sincerely inclined to change itself to a different in- clination is to suppose the mind is now truly inclined otherwise than it is now inclined.” @ ’ In estimating the value of the testimony of moral con- sciousness in respect to the proper cause of sin in man, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact, that different persons appear to differ in their moral judgment when looking at the state of their feelings and affections. (4) Finally, if one appeals to reason, logic, or the causal ! Metcalf (D.) “An Inquiry into the Nature, Foundation, and Extent of Moral Obligation”; Hazard (R. G.) “Freedom of the Mind in Willing”; Whedon (D.D.) “Freedom of the Human Will”; Tappan (H. P.) “The Doctrine of the Will determined by an Appeal to Consciousness.” 2 Alexander (A.) “Moral Science,” p. 119; Princeton Theol. a First Series, “The Power of Contrary Choice,” 250 sq. 3 Edwards (J.) “Inquiry concerning the Freedom of the Will,’ Part IIL sect. 4. The Doctrine of Man. 130 judgment, a double response is heard; for, resting on the axiom that every event is due to a cause fitted to produce it, some argue, very justly, that choice, without any feeling or desire, is unthinkable; that choice, in accord with a weaker desire, instead of a stronger, is also unthinkable; and that such a choice, if possible, would be no expression of character, — would have no moral quality, would be purely capricious.’ The first of these statements is admitted to be true by Sir Wm. Hamilton, and many others, who assert in the strongest manner the freedom of the will. Thus, “We cannot possibly conceive the existence of a voluntary activity independently of all feeling ; for voluntary conation is a faculty which can only be determined to energy through a pain or pleasure, — through an estimate of the relative worth of objects.”? And, if the first be correct, the second must be correct also, for to follow a weaker inducement instead of a stronger is even more inconsistent with the causal judgment than to act with- out any inducement at all. Moreover, it seems to be self- evident, that any action of the will which takes place without regard to reasons, motives, or inducements must be capricious and even dangerous. President Edwards included feeling, desire, &c., in his definition of the will, and then affirmed that an element of love belongs to all virtue. Hence, this element must be in every choice or volition which is truly virtuous; for if love were not in the choice itself, but only in the effect of it, the choice would not be pleasing to God, and the effect, — virtue, — would be an effect without a cause. Virtue must, therefore, be logically antecedent to right volition, and must be in the feeling. But, resting on the same axiom, others argue with equal force, that a cause can only be responsible for its effect; that 1 Edwards (J.) “Inquiry concerning the Freedom of the Will,” and “ Disser- tation concerning Liberty and Necessity”; Alexander (A.) ‘‘ Moral Science,” cc. 13-23. 2 Hamilton (Sir Wm.) “ Metaphysics,” pp. 130, 567. 132 Manual of Systematic Theology. no person can be worthy of praise or of blame for what is in his heart without the consent of his will, and that no person can be worthy of blame for failing to make a choice, which he has not power to make. In a word, ability and responsibility are coéxtensive, and man can be accountable for that alone which has been made his own by his will. But how is the autocracy of the will vindicated? By some, an act of moral choice is pronounced creative, or independent of the law of cause and effect.’ By others, the imperative of duty is pronounced incommen- surable with any other motive, even as light is incommensur- able with sound. Hence, man is only free in his moral action.” It will be seen that neither of these theories is free from difficulties. The former is suggested by the spontaneous decision of conscience, by the facts of experience and observa- tion as to the influence of sinful affections upon conduct, and by the doctrines of election and regeneration by the Spirit of God ; while the latter is suggested by our sense of freedom in action, by the fact of human responsibility for moral con- duct, and by the action of conscience when swayed by the causal judgment. To judge of the twoeviews by their practical influence, it would seem as if both of them were needed, — the former to make men feel their need of divine help, and the latter to make them see the divine righteousness. And there is doubtless a measure of truth in each of these views. For the interdependence and interaction of the different powers of the human spirit are so subtle, so myste- rious, as to escape, in a great measure, the notice of con- sciousness; and the power of choice may, perhaps, hold different relations to the moral bias at different stages of probation. 1 Tappan (H. P.) “ A Review of Edwards’s Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will,” and “The Doctrine of the Will applied to Moral Agency and Respon- sibility”; Hamilton (Sir Wm.) “Metaphysics,” II. XLVI.; Murray’s “Outline of Hamilton’s Philosophy,” p. 226 sq. 2 Hickok (L. P.) “Moral Science,” p. 15 sq. The Doctrine of Man. 133 The following propositions may be safely accepted as true ; namely, — (2) That every man has whatever power of will ts necessary to make him justly responsible for the moral good or evil in his character and conduct. (6) That this power ts inalienable, no degree of progress tn holiness or sinfulness having any tendency to destroy it. However holy Gabriel may be, he possesses it; however wicked Satan may be, he also possesses it.’ (c) That even the moral bias of man’s heart is in a most tmportant sense voluntary; since all spiritual activity ts at once* intellectual, emotional, and voluntary. (2) That moral character, as a permanent thing, may be discovered most readily in the state of the moral susceptibilities and feelings. (e) That conscious choice and volition indorse, express, and deepen this character or these susceptibilities ; while the latter in turn have great influence upon the former. (f) Hence, that virtue and sin cannot be traced wholly to either function of man’s spirit, —to his moral taste or to his will, (g) Yet a certain power of choosing his end or aim in life appears to be the rational basis of respanstbility. V. THE SINFULNESS OF MAN.® I. THE REALITY OF SIN IN MANKIND. it may seem unnecessary to say a word on this point; but it is known that some distinguished men have pronounced the idea of sin an illusion: and there is reason to fear that 1 “Bib. Sac.” for 1839, p. 381. 2 Says Calvin: “Nego peccatum ideo minus debere imputari, quod neces- sarium est; nego rursus evitabile esse, quia voluntarium sit. Pro servitute tmiserabiles sumus, pro voluntate inexcusabiles.” 3 Miiller (J.) “The Doctrine of Sin”; Ernesti (H. F. T. L.) “Ursprung der Siinde,” etc.; Edwards (J.) “The Doctrine of Original Sin,” Works, Vol. II. p. 309 sq-; King (W.) “The Origin of Evil”; Young (J.) “Evil not of God”; Ritter (H.) “U Ser das Bése und seine Folgen”; Bellamy (J.) “ The Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin”; Woods (L.) Works, Vol. II, pp. 201-388, 134 Manual of Systematic Theology. their influence, unless it be counteracted, will encourage many to indulge their selfish and sensual desires. The possibility of sin is denied on at least three grounds, namely, — (1) On that of Divine Predestination. God has fixed all events by his purpose and agency. They must, therefore, take place as he has determined; for his purpose cannot be thwarted. Hence, there is no such thing as sin. His pur- pose is good; and, as all events are embraced in his purpose, they, too, must all be good. (2) On that of Constitutional Causality. Every being has its own constitution or nature; and the contents or qualities of that nature, together with the circumstances in which it is — placed, must determine its action. Hence, the Author of that nature, and of the circumstances affecting it, is respon- sible for all that it does. (3) On that of Hereditary Depravity. Men are born with a damaged, or, at least, an imperfect moral nature; and, on this account, they cannot be altogether blameworthy for their evil conduct. These arguments against the reality of human sinfulness are plausible, but delusive. They rest upon the assumption that man has no true freedom, but is strictly included in a chain of causes and effects, every link of which is forged by something outside of his proper self,—either by God, in making human nature, or by God g/ws Adam in making and marring that nature. “Man’s Depravity”; Storr and Flatt, “ Biblical Theology,” Vol. II., b. III. Nitzsch (C. I.) “System of Christian Doctrine,” Part II.; Philippi (F. A.) “J F=4igen 2 Cor. 1. 12 (cf. John iil. 6; 1.1355 Gen. vig But Paul uses the words “flesh,” “ fleshly,”.or “carnal,” and the like, in these passages, to denote man in his unre- newed state,—or man, in so far as he is not ruled by the Spirit of God: they refer to the whole nature of man. The body, indeed, is both an occasion and an organ of sin; yet sin no more originates in a bodily appetite than it does in the object which that appetite craves. A carnal mind is one that is obedient to bodily and sinful impulses,— to appetite, lust, pride, envy, wrath, and other evil affections; but sin originates in the mind or heart.— (See Prov. iv. 23; Matt. xv. 19.) This second definition is unsatisfactory: (@) Because it fails to refer all sin to a single root or principle. Any inordi- nate desire is sinful. (4) Because, in the last analysis, it is only a formal definition ; for inordinateness, or non-conformity to the divine rule, is supposed to be the very core and essence of sin. (c) Because it ignores the relation of will and choice to sin, and locates the latter in the heart or emotional nature of man. (d) Because, as commonly explained, it gives undue prominence to sensuality. This is, however, due, in all prob- ability, to Paul’s use of the term “flesh,” in describing human sinfulness, rather than to the terms of the definition. 1 Gould (E. P.) “New Testament use of Zépé,” Bib. Sac. 1875, p. 36 sq.; Ernesti (H. T. L.) “ Vom Ursprung der Siinde nach Paulinischen Lehrgehalt ”; Cremer (H.) “ Biblical Theological Dictionary of New Testament Greek,” s. v. oap£; Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” II. p. 140 sq.; Miiller (J.) “Die Christliche Lehre von der Siinde,” vol. I. s. 450 sq. The Doctrine of Man. 139 3. Sin ts a deficiency of love to God and man. In support of this definition, reference is made, (1) To the Word of God. (Matt. xxii. 37-39; Luke x. 27, 28; Deut. vi. 5; x. 12, xxx. 6.) (2) To the general goodness of many acts performed by unrenewed men. These acts shine with every good quality but one; and they are sinful by reason only of their lack of love to God. (3) To God’s relation to sin. For, according to this definition, “‘ whatever is evil is so not by the Creator's action, but by the creature's defection.’””»—(Aug.) Uncreated and unsupported by God, it is unreal and unsubstantial; it is net something, but a want of something. And this view of sin is supposed to diminish the difficulty in accounting for its presence in the moral universe. But against this definition may be urged the fact, that sin appears to be more than a lack of moral power, more than an absence of suitable love: it appears to be often positive, energetic, and hostile to good,—hatred, instead of love; power, turned in a wrong direction." 4. Sin is preference of self to God. De Pressensé says, that “there is only one way of violating the moral law, namely, to live to one’s self, and not to God, —to substitute self- ishness for love’? —(“ Jesus Christ,’ p. 234); and Auberlen says, that “the first element of sin is departure from God,” while the source of this departure is mzmzus amor sut. Julius Miiller, and a majority of modern theologians, adopt this definition. And it is supported (a) By many expressions of the sacred record; (for example, John v. 30; vii. 18; viii. 50; Pinte, xXxVi. 30; xx. 26; Rom. xv. 3; xiv. 7; Gal. 11. 20; 2 Cor. Patients 20 wr Cor. x. 24, 333 Johnixi. 25; 1 Cor: xiii. 5). (4) By a careful study of selfishness. For this dis- position will be found to comprehend self-indulgence, self- seeking, and self-will. And in these three forms, variously 1 Says Calvin, “ Quare qui peccatum originale definierunt carentiam justitize originalis, quam inesse nobis oportebat, quanquam id totum complectuntur quod in re est, non tamen satis significanter vim atque energiam ipsius expresserunt. Non enim natura nostra boni tantum inops et vacua est ; sed malorum omnium adeo fertilis et ferax, ut otiosa esse non possit.” Lib. II. 1. 8. prope finem. 140 Manual of Systematic Theology. combined, preference of self will be seen to account fot nearly or quite all sin. But it must be borne in mind, that selfishness, or supreme regard’ to self, does not forbid a secondary regard to other beings, any more than supreme love to God forbids a secondary, but great love to other beings. The definition uses the word selfishness in a broad sense, meaning by it only this, that the highest place, which belongs to God, is really given to self; and, thus explained, the definition is better than any other. R. Several passages of Scripture speak as if love of the world were the root of human sinfulness ; (for example, 1 Tign. vi. 10; 2 Tim. iii. 2-4; 1 Johnii. 15). But “external things, in their true and normal relation to personality, are only means; and they remain so, though their use may be per- verted. The man who loves earthly things instead of God really loves himself in them, — seeks, by means of them, his own gratification.” — (Miiller I. p. 133, Trans.) III. THE EXTENT OF SIN IN MANKIND. The evidence on this point justifies the statement, that all men, with the single exception of Jesus Christ, are morally depraved at birth, and, if they live long in this world, are found guilty of personal sin. By moral depravity is meant a state of the human soul which naturally leads to sin, and which can only be explained as an effect of sin.’ In proof of this, reference may be made (a) To passages of Scripture which include bodily death in the penalty of sin; (for examplé Gen. ii. 17; Rom. v. 12 sq.; 1 Coram 1 Edwards (J.) “The Doctrine of Original Sin;” Shedd (W. G. T.) “Essays and Discourses,” p. 218 sq.; Miiller (J.) ‘The Doctrine of Sin,” I. p. 343 sq.; Woods (L.) “ Works,” I. p. 63 sq.; Wardlaw (R.) “Systematic Theology,” vol. II. p. 119 sq.; Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” vol. II. p. 192 sq.; Oosterzee (J. J. van) “Christian Dogmatics,” vol. II. p. .423 sq.; Reuss (E.) “ History of Christian Theology in'the Apostolic Age,” vol. II. c. VI.; Lutterbeck (J. A. B.) “Die. N. 1. Lehrbegriffe,” Bd. II. sect. 51; Turretin (F.) I. Loc. 1x. Qu. x Philippi (F. A.) “Kirchliche Glaubenslehre,” Bd. III. sect. 151 sq.; Schmid (C. F.) “Biblical Theology of the N. T.” sect. 76; Winer (G. B.) “A Compar- ative View of the Doctrines and Confessions of the Various Communities of Christendom,” p. 86 sq. The Doctrine of Man. 141 45 sq.) (4) To passages which represent the atonement as imtversal: (1 John ii. 2; 1 Tim. ii. 63 iv: 10; Heb. ii 9; 1 Peter iii. 18.) (©) To passages which teach that man’s nature is vitiated at birth: (John iii. 6; 1 Cor. vil. 14% Eph. fees kom. Vv. fe sq.; 1 Cor. xv. 22; (ch. Ps. li. 7; lviii. 4; exam. 2: Isa, xlviii, 8; Prov. xxi. 8; Eccl. ix. 3; Gen: viii. 21; 1 Sam. xv. 3). (@) To passages which assert the sinfulness of all men; (1 Kings viii. 46; Eccl. vii. 20; Rom. iii. 9 sq.) But these passages may be supposed to refer to such only as have personally and consciously disobeyed the law of God. They can be used as confirmatory of better evidence; but they would have little force, taken by themselves. (¢) To the language of pagan writers. Says Ovid, ‘We always strive after what is forbidden, and covet what is denied.” — (See Amor. III. El. 4, 17; II. El. 19, 3; Metam. VII. 18 sq., and Prov. ix. 17.) And Seneca remarks, that “we have all sinned, some more and some less; some of set purpose, others im- pelled by chance, or borne away by another’s wickedness. Some of us have persisted in good with too little energy, and, unwilling, resisting, have lost our innocence. Nor do we sin only ; but we shall sin to the end of life.” — (Clementia, c. 7 rc. 123.) F If all men are either morally depraved or sinful at birth, it must be in consequence of the apostacy in Eden; for Christians agree in teaching that man was originally upright. As he came from the hand of his Creator, he was inclined to good rather than to evil; but, since the fall, all men are inclined to evil. The following synopsis will show what have been the views entertained by Christians on this point :— The Council of Trent, at its fifth session, adopted this canon: “If any one shall assert that the transgression of Adam injured only himself, and not his posterity; and that he lost the holiness and righteousness which -he received from God for himself only, and not for us also; or that, stained by the sin of disobedience, he transmitted to the whole human 4 142 Manual of Systematic Theology. race only death and penalties of body, but not also sin, which is the death of the soul, —let him be anathema.’’! The Augsburg Confession declares that, “since the fall of Adam, all men propagated in the natural way are born with sin, —that is, without fear of God, without trust in God, and with evil desire.” And the Formula of Concord says, “ We believe that original sin is not a slight corruption of human nature, but one so profound, that it has left nothing sound, nothing incorrupt in the body or mind of man, in his inward or outward powers.” The Confession of Basle (Reformed Church) uses this language: “Through Adam’s fall, the entire human race is corrupted, and subject to condemnation; our nature has been weakened, and affected with such a bias to sin that, unless the Spirit of God restores it, man of himself can do nothing good.” Art. 9, of the Thirty-nine Articles, speaks of “original sin” as “the fault or corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is, of his own nature, inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore, in every person born into the world, it deserveth God’s wrath.” The Westminster Confession, after speaking of the fall of our first parents, says, “ They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descend- ing from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.” The Confessio Remonstrantium (Arminian) says, that “by transgression Adam was made through the power of the divine threatening guilty of eternal death and manifold misery, and was deprived of that primeval happiness which he had 1 See further statements and explanations in Winer (G. B.) “ A Comparative View,” &c., p. 86 sq. The Doctrine of Man. 143 received at creation. But because Adam was the root and source of the whole human race, he involved not only himself, but also all his posterity who were in his loins, as it were, and were to spring from him, by natural generation, in the same death and misery,” &c. - The Quakers, according to Barclay’s “ Apology,” “confess that a seed of sin is transmitted to all men, from Adam, although imputed to none until by sinning they actually join with it.” The Catechismus Racovianus (Socinian) says, “Man is exposed to death, because the first man transgressed the plain command of God, to which death was threatened as a punish- ment; whence also it has come to pass, that he has drawn all his posterity with him into the same sentence of death, yet only as every one’s own sin is added.” — “ Since the fall of Adam was but a single act, it could not have power to deprave his own nature, still less that of his posterity; yet we do not deny that by the practice of sinning, ass¢duttate peccandi, the nature of men has been infected with a certain vice and too much inclination to sin,—ad peccandum nimid proclivitate.” These citations show the general current of thought and belief in respect to the effect of the fall upon the moral con- dition of mankind. Believers in Christ have been convinced -by the word of God, in addition to their own observation, that the spiritual state of all men is evil, and that this evil state is a result of the sin of our first parents. IV. THE DEGREE OF SIN IN OUR RACE.) In respect to this it may be affirmed, — 1. That no man, except Jesus Christ, has fully obeyed the law of God. — See (Matt. xxii. 37-40; James ii. 10; 1 John iii. 15; iv. 20; Gal. iii. 10.) And this is equivalent to saying, that every man who has acted as a moral agent has disobeyed that law. 2. That no unregenerate man has any proper love to God (Rom. viii. 7; 1 John iv. 7). Sin is therefore in a// the life; 1 Wardlaw (R.) “Syst. Theol.” vol. II. p. 119 sq. 144 Manual of Systematic Theology. and the principle of holiness is entirely wanting. Hence unrenewed men are said to be “totally depraved”; they have not obeyed the law at all. 3. That selfishness reigns in the hearts of all unrenewed men (Phil. ii. 21). On this point, reference may be made to what is said above under the fourth definition of sin. | 4. That hatred to God is present in the hearts of all unre- generate men (Rom. vill. 7). It is there, though latent. Let the nature of God be seen in a true light, as opposed to all self-indulgence, selfsseeking, and self-will, and this enmity or hatred will emerge at once into conscious action. 5. That all men are not equally sinful. — (See Prov. xxix. 1; Jer. xiii. 23; Luke xii. 48; John iii. 19; xv. 22))240g eee iii. 13; Rom.-ii. 12; iv. 15; v. 13; 1 Cor. xiv. 200(qumunee XVili. 3; xix.14; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16; Ezek. xvi. 47-52; Matt. x. 15; xi. 22; John xix. 11; 1 Tim. V, /Gpueeee 20, 21; Amos iii. 2). These passages teach that the sinful- ness of men is much greater in some instances than it is in others, and especially that it is modified by the knowledge of the sinner. V. THE IMPUTATION OF SIN; OR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF MEN FOR THEIR SINFULNESS. This topic suggests questions which it is very difficult to answer; and it may therefore be well to review some of the prominent theories in’ respect to it. 1. Zhe Pelagian Theory.” This theory assumes that man can be responsible for nothing but his own voluntary action. It denies the hereditary depravity of mankind since the fall. “Capaces enim utriusque rei, non pleni nascimur, et ut sine virtute, ita sine vitio procreamur, atque ante actionem pro- priz voluntatis id solum in homine est quod Deus condidit.” — (Aug. De pec. orig. c. 13.) ‘Nemo naturaliter malus est; sed quicunque reus est, moribus, non exordiis, accusatur.’’— 1 See Neander’s “‘ Dogmengeschichte,” I. s. 360 sq.; Hagenbach (K. R.) “History of Doctrines,” sects. 110-113; Shedd (W. G. T.) “ History of Christian Doctrines,” II., 1V.; Wiggers (G. F.) “ Augustinism and Pelagianism,” p. 59 sq.; Ellis’s “ Half-century of the Unitarian Controversy,” p. 56 sq. The Doctrine of Man. 145 (Opus Imp. I. 105, cf. v.56.) It emphasizes “the power of con- trary choice,’—the “osszbilitatem utriusque partis.’ And it declares that Adam and Christ are set forth in Rom. v. 12 sq. (cf. 1 Cor. i. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21) as typical personages merely, illustrating the divinely established connection between sin and death, righteousness and life. This theory is unsatisfactory (2) Because it denies such a connection between our sinfulness and the fall of Adam as the Scriptures assert (for example, Rom. v. 12, 18, 19). (4) Because it denies, on the other hand, such a connection between the righteousness of believers and the work of Christ as the Scriptures assert (Rom. v. 9, 17, 18, 19; x. 4; I Cor. i. 30). (c) Because it makes too little of sin as affecting moral character; too little of the moral bias of the soul to evil. (d) Because it fails to account for the universality of sin in mankind. 1. Zhe Arminian Theory. The authorities for this theory are given below.! The Arminian theory supposes man to be responsible for his own voluntary action (or inaction), and, strictly speaking, for nothing else. It supposes that, since the fall, men are born “without original righteousness,’ and morally powerless, needing “new grace,’ but not guilty. “Unde fit, ut posteri omnes Adami eadem justitia destituti, prorsus inepti et inidonei sint ad vitam zternam consequen- dam, aut in gratiam cum deo redeant, mzs¢ deus novd gratia sua cos preventat, et vires novas tis restituat ac sufficiat, quibus ad cam possint perventre.” —(Apol. Conf. Remonstr. p. 84, b.) It supposes that men are made responsible for the right and wrong of their conduct by a gracious ability imparted by God. “Tt is not, then, until there is redemptively conferred upon man wnat we call a graczous ability for the right that man 1 “Remonstrantia, libellus supplex exhibitus Hollandie et Westfrisiz Ordin- ibus,” 1610. Five Articles; “Confessio, seu Declaratio Sententiz Pastorum, qui in foederato Belgio Remonstrantes vocantur, super precipuis articulis rel. Chr.” 1622 (Simon Episcop. Opp. II. 69); Limborch (Phil. a) ‘“‘Theologia Christiana ” (Amstel. 1686, 1730); Arminius (Ja.) “Opera Theol.” 1609, 1635; Wesley (J.) “Works” see p. 25 supra; Whedon (D.D.) “ Doctrines of Methodism,” Bib. Sac. XIX. p. 241 sq. 146 Manual of Systematic Theology. can strictly be responsible for the wrong.” —(Whedon.) And it supposes that Adam and Christ are represented as “federal heads” of mankind in Rom. v. 12, but only “ conceptually,” or by a “legal fiction.” But in reality the case stands thus: “Tt is as a depraved being that man becomes an ego; but instantly after, in the order of nature, he is met by the pro- visions of the atonement. If he is not thereby immediately unconditionally justified and regenerated, his death before the commission of actual sin would place him out of the category of condemnation.” In other words, gracious aid is always granted, and must be granted, to render man just'y accountable for sin. This theory is unsatisfactory (2) Because the Scriptures do not found human responsibility on gracious aid, or the work of the Spirit. (4) Because they do not teach that this influence of the Holy Spirit is given to all men; much less do they teach that it is given to all in early life. (© Be- cause they do not justify us in calling that “grace” which must be imparted by God, to constitute man responsible. (dz) Because they teach a doctrine of election which this theory repudiates. (e) Because they teach the entire sinful- ness and the accountability of Satan, without once suggesting the idea of gracious aid, imparted to him for the purpose of rendering him justly accountable. The writer, at least, does not recollect any passage where such aid is pronounced necessary for Satan. ui. Zhe Edwardean Theory.’ This theory maintains that man is responsible for all his voluntary action (or inaction), and that he always has a xatural ability to do right, though his inclination to sin leads him to do wrong uniformly. It also maintains that Adam and Christ are treated in Rom. v. 1 See Duffield (G.) “ Doctrines of the New Sch. Presb. Church,” Bib. Sac. XX. p- 561 sq.; “The Auburn Declaration,” Presb. Rev. 1876*; Fiske (D. T.) “New England Theology,” Bib. Sac. XXII. 477 sq. and 568 sq.; Haven (J.) “Sin as re- lated to Human Nature, and to the Divine Purpose,” Bib. Sac. XX. 445 sq. : *It is not meant that the New School Presbyterians adopted in all respects “The New England Theology,” but that the two may be studied together, as kindred ty es of thought. The Doctrine of Man. 147 I2 sq. as sources of inclination to evil and to good; yet it denies that men are responsible for any inherited inclination. They are only responsible for the action by which they freely appropriate and express such an inclination. Hence men are born depraved, but not sinful; loaded with misfortune, but not with guilt. Their guilt begins with moral action; and this, owing to their inherited bias to evil, is always sinful. In favor of this theory, it is urged (1) That it does some- thing to explain the fact of human responsibility, —a great deal, indeed, if its distinction between natural and moral ability is correct, and if the former is a sufficient basis for responsibility. (2) That it agrees with many representations of Scripture as to personal guilt, and especially with the accounts of the final judgment (Ezek. xviii. 1-32; Matt. xxv. 14-46; 2 Cor. v. 10). (3) That it is compatible with the Scriptural doctrines of election and the work of the Spirit. But it is not wholly satisfactory (2) Because it does not agree with the most obvious sense of Eph. ii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 14; Rom. v. 12-19; John iii. 6. For these passages suggest that all men are exposed, even from birth, to the just dis- pleasure of God. (6) Because it tends to make the salvation of all who die in infancy independent of the death of Christ; for, if they are simply unfortunate, it is impossible to see why Christ should suffer for them. —(See Rom. v. 8 sq.; 2 Cor. v. ieee ieb. ix. 22) 26, 28; 1 Peter, ii) 18; 1 John i. 2.) (c) Because it fails to satisfy the logical understanding, that man has all the power necessary to right action; for the admission of moral inability’ seems to render null and void the assertion of natural ability. Besides, the difference between holding a child to be guilty for actions which flow uniformly from a bias to evil, and holding him guilty for that bias, seems much greater in theory than in practice. Iv. The Placean Theory.” This theory supposes that men 1 Since azy inability is said to be inconsistent with responsibility, and especially if that inability is zhercted. 2 See Shedd (W. G. T.) “Hist. of Christian Doctrine,” II. p. 158 sq.; Hagen- bach (K. R.) “ Hist. of Doctrines,” II. pp. 181, 262; Baird (S. J.) “Elohim Re- 148 Manual of Systematic Theology. are accountable for all the sin which they commit, or desire to commit, or which they indorse in others by sympathy of aim and spirit. It supposes that all men participate with Adam in the corruption of nature induced by the fall. It supposes that they are directly charged with this corruption, and mediately with the sin which it indorses; and it supposes that Adam and Christ are set forth, in Rom. v. 12 sq., as the sources, respectively, of sin and death, righteousness and life, in mankind. . In support of this theory, it is said, (1) That it is in har- mony with several statements of Scripture.— (See Luke xi. 47; 51; Matt. xxiii. 35, 36; Ex. xx. 5, G3 XxINpe gp ee eee 17, 18; Ezek. xviii. 1-32. Edwards (J.) “ Inquiry concerning the Freedom of the Will,” —“ Works” II., p. 482.) (2) That it agrees with the working of conscience, which holds every one responsible for his moral assent ta evil. “ Evil dwells in him, not as a dead inheritance, handed down from Adam, but as his own evil to which he consents.” — (Dorner, Hist. of Prot. Dheol. 1; p.'272.) Yet it is not wholly satisfactory, (2) Because it casts so faint a light on the justice of God in the imputation of Adam’s sin to adults who do as he did. (4) Because it casts no light on the justice of God in bringing into existence a race inclined to sin by the fall of Adam. The inherited bias is still unexplained, and the imputation of it a riddle or a wrong to the natural understanding. — v. The Augustinian Theory.’ The defenders of this theory agree with those just named, in making every man respon- sible for his moral feelings, as well as actions, and, in supposing him to be a particeps criminis, whenever he assents in heart to a sinful action. vealed,” &c., p. 45-6; Schweitzer (A.) “Placeus,” Herzog, Real-Encyklopadie; Placzeus (J.) “Opera Omnia,” 1699 and 1702, “Theses Theologice de Statu hominis lapsi ante gratiam,” 1640, and “ Disputatio de imputatione primi peccati Adami,” 1655. ' 1 Shedd (W. G. T.) “ Discourses and Essays,” p. 218 sq.; Baird (S. J.) “ The Elohim Revealed in the Creation and Redemption of Man”; Hodge (C.) “ Sys- tematic Theology,” II. p. 51 sq., and p. 216 sq. The Doctrine of Man. ° 149 They generally accept the ¢raducian theory of the origin of human souls, as well as of human bodies. They emphasize the oneness of the human race, and approve the language of Augustine, saying, “ We were all in that one man [Adam], since we were ali that one man who lapsed into sin through the woman that was made from him previous to transgres- sion. The form in which we were to live as individuals had not, indeed, been created and assigned to us, man by man; but that seminal nature from which we were to be propagated was in existence.” Hence they regard Adam and Christ as the sources, respectively, of sin and death, righteousness and life. With- out rejecting the doctrine of “federal headship,” they make it rest upon a real and natural headship, which is of chief importance. Of this theory it may be remarked, (2) That it was prob- ably suggested to the mind of Augustine by the inaccurate Latin version of 颒 in Rom. v. 12; (6) That it does not remove the objection which human reason urges against holding all men responsible for the first sin of Adam; for it does not assert that all human souls were so included in Adam’s soul as to act with the latter consciously in that first sin; (c) That it lays too little stress upon the distinction between nature and will, between an unconscious bias and a rational choice; and (¢d) That it breaks down, when applied to the connection between the justification of believers and the righteousness of Christ; for believers were not in Christ, as to the substance of their souls, when he wrought out redemption for them. vi. The Calvinistic Theory... By this is meant the Old School view, fully stated by Turretin, and by the artic.es of the Westminster assembly. It asserts the responsibility 1 Turretin (F.) “Institutio Theologiz Elenctice,’” Vol. I. Loc. 1V. Qu. IX.; Hodge (C.) “Systematic Theology,” Vol. II. p. 192 sq.; “ Princeton Essays ” (First Series), “Original Sin,” p. 109 sq., and “ The Doctrine of Imputation,” pp. 128- 217; Wallace (H.) “ Representative Responsibility, a Law of the Divine Pro- cedure in Providence and Redemption”; “Westminster Assembly’s Confession of Faith,” and “Catechism”; “The Philadelphia Confession of Faith” (Bap.) 150 Manual of Systematic Theology. of every man for his depraved heart and sinful action. It supposes that Adam and Christ are set forth in Rom. v. 12 sq., as federal heads or representatives; the sin of the former being imputed to all men directly, and the righteous- ness of the latter being imputed directly to all the elect. To this theory objections may also be made; for example, (a) That it requires us to give a very unusual, if not unex- ampled meaning to the word “sinned,” in Rom. vy, 12, that is, “ were regarded and treated as responsible for another's sin’’; (6) That it makes too little of the real connection between Adam and his offspring, Christ and his people. — (See John ili.6; 1 Cor. xii. 3); and, (c) That it puts justifi- cation before regeneration and faith; while the New Testa- ment makes faith a condition of justification, and, therefore, prior to it, in the order of nature. Something, then, may be said, with apparent justice, against every one of these theories. And evidently the connection of the race with Adam, and of believers with: Christ, brings into the problem of the imputation of sin a great part of the difficulty which it offers to the human understanding. Were it not for that connection, a tolerably satisfactory solution might be reached; but that connection is a fact, whether we can ascertain all that it involves or not. Looking at this subject, for a moment, in the light of human reason and conscience, it may be said, that every man, however depraved at birth, or hardened by wicked conduct, is a moral agent, and, as such, is accountable to God (a) for every voluntary act that is wrong; (b) for the increase of inclination to evil which is produced by that act; (c) for the inclination to sin which is appropriated by that act; (da) for all the evil which may be expected by him to result from that act. All this must be admitted by every thoughtful man, without regard to the instruction of Scripture. For what an amount of sin, then, is every one accountable to whom the gospel is preached! Heart-fellowship with sin is sin; and all mankind in their unrenewed state are guilty of this radical and sin-producing sin. The Doctrine of Man. I51 Many would add to all this, responsibility, (¢) for the whole system of moral evil with which the act is seen by him to be connected ; and, (f) for the sin of Adam, which is, in princi- ple, repeated by every sinful act of his offspring. But it would be in many respects better to say, that he is account able for the degree of sympathy which he has for the whole system of evil, and for the disobedience of Adam. If that sympathy is full, whether it be expressed by word or deed or thought, if the whole force of his being is arrayed against heaven, and on the side of hell, it is difficult to limit his responsibility. A voluntary act, as used in this statement, is any act which is performed by a moral being in his ordinary condition, — any act, or course of action, which reveals his moral char- acter. But of course it is our duty to take the evidence of Scripture, as well as that of reason; and the evidence of Scripture is formidably strong in favor of the view, that both ' Adam and Christ acted for others; that, in some true sense, all men suffer the penal consequences of the sin in Eden, being’ in full fellowship with it, and that all who are in moral union with Christ will enjoy the full benefit of his death. Yet the Scriptures recognize a difference between personal sin and inherited sinfulness, as appears in their accounts of the final judgment. vi. PENALTY oF sIN. This topic requires us to consider (1) The proper idea of penalty; (2) The fact of penalty for sin ; and (3) What that penalty is. (1) The first point need not detain us long; for without doubt the primary and leading sense of penalty is, suffering by pain or loss inflicted by the proper authority upon wrong- doers for their wrong-doing. It looks to the past, not to the future; its primary aim is retribution, not reformation. It rests on the postulate, that government ought to make a distinction between crime and innocence, that evil-doers ought not to receive the same treatment as those who do well; and this postulate will be accepted by all who admit 152 Manual of Systematic Theology. the distinction between right and wrong, by all who admit that men are in fact moral beings. (2) The second point may also be treated with brevity ; for although many exclude punishment, properly so-called, from the moral government of God, they do ths against the plain teaching of the Scriptures, and have, therefore, been answered in Part II., which proves that teaching to be infal- lible. If any one urges that the Scriptures reveal the natural consequences of sin, and not its penalty, we reply, (2) That their language will not admit of such an interpretation (Matt. XXV. 30, 41, 46; 2 Thess. i. 8); and (6) That the natural consequences of sin are due to a constitution given to man by his Maker. Hence the working of that constitution may well be regarded as retributive, — carrying into effect the just judgment of God." . (3) The third point must be treated with special care; and for two reasons: first, because-it is one of no little difficulty in itself; and secondly, because the belief of Christians in respect to it is becoming divided. Some suppose that the penalty of sin is bodily death; some, that it is extinction of conscious being; some, that it is spiritual death; and some, that it is both spiritual and bodily death. Especially active are those who teach that extinction of conscious being is the divinely-prescribed penalty of sin. We must, therefore, spare no pains in trying to ascertain the truth on this point, nor ought we to be surprised if it occupies our ¢ttention for a considerable time; for the data to be examined are scat- tered here and there, through the whole Bible, and may be divided into three parts: —(a) The meaning and use of the terms employed in foretelling the penalty of sin; (6) The inti- mations as to the time when the penalty takes effect; and (c) The account of it, as suffered by those who have passed beyond hope. - In studying this subject, three facts ought to be borne con- stantly in mind, namely: That the style of the sacred writers is popular, and very often figurative ; that the revelation of reli- 1 Butler (J.) “Analogy,” Part I. ch. 2d. The Doctrine of Man. 153 gious truth made by them is progressive in clearness and ful- ness, from first to last; and that comparatively slight attention is given to the doctrine of another life in the Old Testament. In the discussion which follows, particular reference is had to the view, so zealously advocated by many,’ that extinction of conscious being is the penalty of sin. I. Lhe meaning and use of the principal terms employed by the sacred writers in foretelling the punishment of stn. The terms are Death, Destruction or Perdition, Lake of Fire, Outer Darkness, Eternal Punishment, and some others of similar import. (1) The most important of them all is “DEATH”; and therefore it deserves the most careful study. What then is death? The one comprehensive answer to this question is this: Zhe opposite or negative of life. And therefore it is necessary to inquire, What is life? And to answer: A great mystery doubtless, yet dy xo means the same as existence. Life is more than existence;.it is a particular kind of existence, — existence f/ws a mysterious force, which gives a higher form and a greater value to exist- ence. This, if no more, may be premised before looking at the use of terms in the Bible. Starting with this general view of the meaning and relation of the words “life” and “death,” we turn to the Scriptures, and observe the following facts :* — I. TLhat they recognize an original and important difference 1 Dobney (HI. H.) “The Scripture Doctrine of Future Punishment”; Whately (R.) “A View of the Scripture Revelation concerning a Future State” — not very decided; Storrs (G.) ‘‘ Man’s Destiny,” “The True Source of Life,” “The Rich Man and Lazarus”; Hudson (C. F.) “ Debt and Grace”; Constable (1I.) “ Du- ration and Nature of Future Punishment.” 2 Hovey (A) “State of the Impenitent Dead; ” Thompson (J. P.) “Love and Penalty;” Bartlett (S. C.) “ Life and Death Eternal; a Refutation of the Theory of Annihilation;” Stuart (M.) “Exegetical Essays on Several Words relating to Future Punishment;” Dexter (H. M.) “‘The Verdict of Reason upon the” Question of the Future Punishment of those who die Impenitent;’’ New Eng- lander for 1871, p. 659 sq., ““The Theory of the Extinction of the Wicked;” Krabbe (O.) “Die Lehre von der Siinde und vom Tode in ihrer Beziehung zu einander und zu der Auferstehung Christi;” Mead (C. M.) “The Soul Here and Hereafter,” &c.,— excellent. 154 Manual of Systematic Theology. between the body of man and his spirit. (Eccl. xii. 7; Gen ii. 7 (cf. i. 26); Num. xvi. 22; xxvii. 16; Heb sameeren mae sa Cor, ol. see 5 Agts vil. 59; Gen. xxxv. 18; Ezek. XViil. 4; Rom. vill. 16; 2-Cor. v. 1; James igen 2. That this original difference between the body of man and his spirit underlies a difference of relation to endless existence (Gen. ili. 22, 23, compared with 1 Cor. xv. 43-47, and the passages cited above). Accordingly, the body of man, as such, was not, even before the fall, adapted to endless existence; but his spirit was. His body, unless changed from an earthly to a spiritual one, must return to dust; but his soul, in its own proper nature, was a single, indissoluble power, adapted to endless being. This seems to bea natural conclusion, from the language of Scripture and from the testimony of consciousness. Yet, as we shal] presently see, the conscious existence of the soul is by no means its life; for the latter depends upon union with God: it is a higher condition of being, due to rational fellowship with the Most High. As the body with- out the spirit is dead (James ii. 26), so the spirit without God is dead. The connection between the soul and God, though different from that between the body and the soul, is no, less essential and life-producing. “Mors igitur anime fit,’ says Augustine, “cum eam deserit Deus, sicut corporis, cum id deserit anima... . vivit itaque anima ex Deo, cum vivit bene; non enim potest bene vivere, nisi Deo in se operante quod bonum est.” — “De Civ. Dei,” xiii. c. 2. See also xi. c. 17, onetime esset vitium recedere a Deo, nisi nature, cujus id vitium est, potius competeret essecum Deo. Quapropter etiam voluntas mala grande testimonium est bonz nature. To test the correctness of this language we must observe with care the use of the terms “life” and death” in the Semptures! They are frequently used of the spirit, and signify respec- tively, — A. Union with God, and separation from him. This is a natural use of the terms; for man as a spiritual being is not The Doctrine of Man. 155 self-sufficient, but dependent, needing fellowship; and his truest life is realized in communion with God. But union with God is secured by faith in Christ; and separation from God, by unbelief. Bearing this fact in mind, the following passages will be seen to justify our definition, namely :— (1) John vi. 47, 48, 54, 56, 63; xi. 25, 26 (cf. John iii. 16; iv. 14; Rom. v. 1). From these selections, to go no further, it appears that men who have Christian faith have a state of being which has been originated by the Holy Spirit, with the use of Christian truth, and is called by the Saviour life, or eternal life. The possession of true faith proves the existence of this life, even if the one is not identical with the other; and, by virtue of this life, the believer is in Christ and Christ in him. They hold converse with each other, having the same thoughts, wishes, and aims. But this may be made a separate point. (2) John xv. 2 sq.; Eph. i. 1; 1 John v. 20 (cf. Rom. Vili. 6-11). These are but specimens of a large class of texts, which represent believers as being zz Christ. And this their relation to him is conceived of many times as more than legal and protective, as vital also, through his indwelling spirit. Yet the vitality in question is plainly one of moral disposition, — of thinking and feeling in unison with Christ; it is spiritual life, the normal, unperverted, unimpeded, healthful action of a rational soul, uplifted by the thoughts of Christ communicated to it. (3) John i. 4,9; xv. I sq; xvii. 2, 3; Gal. v. 22. When we observe (a) that the life was the light of men, (4) that the eternal life of men consists in knowing the true God and Jesus Christ, (c) that by vital union with Christ men bear Christian fruit, and (Z) that this fruit is love, joy, peace, &c., we are ready to conclude that the life given to men, in Christ and by Christ, is a normal state of the soul, revealing itself in holy action, —a state and action which will never cease (John xi. 25, 26). (4) John v. 24; iii. 6; 1 John iii. 14, a.; Eph. v. 14; Titus iii. 5; 1 Peter i. 3, 23 (cf. Rom. vi. 2-14; vii. 4-6; 156 Manual of Systematic Theology. viii. 6, 7, 10, 11; Eph. ii. 1, §, 6, 10; iv. 19) (Gales Col. i. 21, 22; 1 Tim. v. 6). In these passages, the state of men after regeneration is contrasted with their state before it, —the one being called life, and the other death. But the difference between these two states is one of moral disposi- tion and action. In the one case, there is fellowship with God; in the other, there is not. This is the difference, as revealed by experience ; and all the accounts of regeneration, pardon, adoption, and union with Christ, found in the Bible, rest on this view. . It is plain that the selections in our parenthesis refer to the same conditions of being as are treated in the leading texts. But in the passages thus indicated, the unregenerate are described as those who are alive in sin, and subject to sin; alive to the flesh, and obedient to its lusts; alive to the law, but enemies to God, or dead to him; accomplishing the wishes of the flesh and of the mind, but darkened in the understand- ing, and alienated from the life of God, by reason of ignorance and hardness of heart: while the regenerate are described as those who have died to sin and to the law, and been made alive in Christ to God,—the servants of righteousness, a product of God’s hand, created in Christ Jesus for good works, and destined to be made holy and spotless and blame- less before him. All this refers, beyond a doubt, to moral character and condition. Fellowship with God in Christ is life; alienation of heart from God is death. B. Spiritual blessedness and woe. The idea of life includes that of happiness. It is only when life is disturbed, its laws violated, that suffering comes in. If the experience of man does not comport with this idea, he is but too con- scious that his life is a failure by reason of sin. Hence, in spite of experience, he includes high spiritual enjoyment in his conception of human life, and applies this term to a blessed existence, by way of distinguishing it from a miserable one. From this point of view, death is misery, — the opposite of true life, or mere existence, — the negative of true life. — (See 1 Thess. iii. 8; Rom. vii. 9; viii. 6.) The Doctrine of Man. 157 Again, true life implies fellowship with God; and fellow- ship with God is purest enjoyment. Well and fervidly does Secrétan say that, “if feeling is but the echo of the depths within, if happiness is but the consciousness of power, har- mony, and truth, as wretchedness is that of emptiness, discord, and falsehood, it is impossible that the love of God, the perfection of goodness, the plenitude of our being, should not also be fulness of happiness. Thus the soul tnat loves God is rich, free, happy; she is satisfied, moreover, and feels no further want.” —(See Ps. xvi. 11; xlii. 1-5 ; Eph. iii. 19; 1 Peter i. 8.) Hence, loss of communion with God is a loss of blessedness ; nay, as conceived of by the sacred writers, it is more than this, —it is the opposite of true life. The spirit of man cannot leave the realm of happiness, without entering that of woe.—(See 1 Thess. iii. 7, 8; Rev. ii. 11; xx. 6, 14; xxi. 8 (cf. Rev. xx. 10; xiv. 10, 11); Luke xvi. 23 sq.; Matt. XXxv. 41, 46.) But against the conclusion now reached, several objections are pressed by those who believe in the annihilation of the wicked. For example: — 1. That death properly signifies extinction of being. When it is predicated of a person, it denotes the end of his personal existence. When it is predicated of an animal, it denotes the end of its animal existence. And, when it is predicated of a plant, it denotes the end of its existence as a plant. This is not wholly correct, as an account of the use of language among men; for, according to that use, a dead tree may be still in existence, and so may a dead body, or a dead spirit. Existence, in a state of death, is different from exist- ence in a state of life; but it is existence still. The state or condition of being, called life, is terminated by death; and this is all. 2. That Adam must have understood death to be extinction of being; and his view of the evil threatened for disobedience must have been correct. Neither of these assertions can be sustained by evidence; for the Word of God gives no hint of the explanations which Jehovah doubtless made to Adam 158 Manual of Systematic Theology. of the threatening in question, —no hint of the meaning which Adam found in it. The record is very brief, giving, we suspect, the substance of much instruction and warning in a single clause. Besides, we have no reason to suppose that Adam, any more than his descendants, had an exact or adequate view beforehand of the penalty of sin. The justice of punishment does not depend on its being known by the transgressor, before he disobeys the law. 3. That the Scripture accounts of the dead prove death to be extinction of being. — (See, for example, Ps. vi. 6; xxx. 10; IxXxxvili. II—13; cxv. 17; Eccl. ix 10; Isa. xxxwieeee (cf. Jer. li. 57; 1 Thess. iv. 13 sq). These passages do cer- tainly, at first sight, favor the theory of extinction of being at death. But it should be recollected, in studying them, (2) That the Bible is a progressive revelation. This is true of its treatment of almost every doctrine, and especially of the doctrines of the trinity and the future life; “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.” Hence, we must look to the New Testament, rather than to the Old, for the fullest account of the state after death. (0) Poetry should be interpreted by prose, rather than prose by poetry; for poetry makes more frequent use of phenomenal and hyperbolical language than does prose. It is, therefore, more likely to seize upon the visible aspects of death, and describe it by its effects on the body. (c) The sacred writers appear to speak oftentimes of death with reference to the change which it makes on one’s relations to the present world. By it, the plans, enterprises, duties, and joys of time are brought to nought forever. — (See Eccl. ix. 10; Ps. exlvi. 4; Job vii. 7-10.) (d) The views of uninspired men are sometimes given on this point; and of course their views may be incorrect. Hezekiah was, in all likelihood, uninspired when he prayed; and, though the preacher was inspired when he wrote, he has put on record many of the thoughts which he had when uninspired: we cannot, therefore, rely upon the testimony of either as conclusive. — (See, for example, Isa. xxxviii. 18, 19; Eccl. ix, 10; Job x, 30—22); xvi, 125° xvil} ¥,) The Doctrine of Man. 159 (2.) Another term to be considered is “DESTRUCTION,” or “perdition.” The Greek noun éadiew is used in twenty passages of the New Testament; and the corresponding verb is found in more than a hundred. They often denote the utter ruin of an object, and often the entire severance of its (normal) relation to another.— (See Matt. xxvi. 8; Mark Riva. Acts vill, 20; Matt. ix. 17; x 6, 42; xv. 24; Mark ear eiike xin hls Xi. 33° xv 4,6, 8, 0, 17, 24, 32; also mio) }OLN! Vi. 30; xX. 283 xvil. 12; xvili, 9; 2 Peter ii. 6; 2 John, 8 (cf. 11). But if the verb is often used to denote sundered relations, in consequence of which one person or object is worthless to another; if it points to severed relations, and so implies great evil, but not extermination of being, this may well be its meaning, when selected to express the penalty of sin. Besides, it will be observed, that perishing or destruc- tion is affirmed of prophets and good men, as well as of the Wicked (Luke xX1.514 xiii. 33 (cf. Isa. lvii. 1). And, there- fore, it cannot be supposed to denote, uniformly, extinction of being, even if it may, in some instances, denote this. (3.) Another expression to be examined, is the “LAKE OF FIRE,’ and its equivalents.—(See Matt. v. 22, 29, 30; x. 28; mile SO, Xvill, , ©; Xxill. 33; xxv. 41; Mark ix. 43-48; PevastO) 14) 05; xxi. 8 (of. Luke xw. 23, 24). It will: be noted, that the expressions, “eternal fire,” “furnace of fire,” “lake of fire,” “fire that is never quenched,” “Gehenna of fire, and “Gehenna,” appear to be used by Christ as equiva- lent terms. It will also be observed, that in ail these pas- sages, men themselves, or wicked beings, are spoken of directly as being in the fire referred to. It will be still further remarked, that they are not said, unless it be in a single instance, to be destroyed by the fire. And, iastly, it will be observed, that they are generally represented as in a state of great suffering. The fire is conceived of as an unfailing source of pain, not as putting an end to conscious being; and this prevailing view of the office of the fire in question must naturally determine the sense of the word “destroy,” in Matt. x. 28; especially, when we compare Mark i. 24, with v. 7. ” 160 Manual of Systematic Theology. (4) Another expression employed by the sacred writers is “TORMENT” or ‘PUNISHMENT.’’— (See Matt. xxv. 46; xviii. 34, 35 (cf. viii. 29; Mark v. 7). The word x6dao occurs in but one other passage of the New Testament, namely, I John iv. 18; and the verb xoi@%w, from which it is derived, occurs in but three places at most; (namely, Acts iv. 21, 2 Peter ii. 9, and perhaps 2 Peter ii. 4.) The biblical use of the words, therefore, shows that they refer to punishment in the form of conscious suffering ; yet it is sufficient to know that, when applied to sinful beings, they signify punishment. The word ‘tormentors,” points also to conscious and great suffering ; and the bearing of the passages cited upon the nature of the penalty of sin cannot be doubted. It will be observed in this case, also, that the wrong-doers are referred to directly as men, or evil angels, and not under the figure of an evil tree, or of any other inflammable object. — (5) Still another expression is used to shadow forth the doom of the lost, namely, ‘‘ The outer darkness.” — (See Matt. Vill. 12; xxil. 13 (cf. xxiv. 51); xxv. II, 12, 3O0(Gigaueme Rev. xxii. 15.) Expulsion from the presence of Christ into - the outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, can be said to describe no other doom than one of felt misery; and it is plainly a misery in which the ungodly now suffer, though it will not reach its culmination till the last day. It is obvious, likewise, that loss of good, or as Turretin amplifies the thought, scparatio a Deo et Christo, privatio lucis, gaudit, gloria, felicitatis, is supposed to be a principal part of the punishment suffered by the lost, whether here or hereafter. Besides these, a few other expressions are found in the Bible which are thought to define the penalty of sin, as “extinction of being.” (6) The wicked are to be “consumed” or “devoured,” &c., (for example Isa. i. 28; Ps. xxxviil. 20; Hebe eg In regard to the first two of these passages, and to many more of a similar tenor in the Old Testament, it may be said, (a) That they probably refer to merely temporal calamities. The Doctrine of Man, 161 (6) That the language is not to be pressed as literal, even with reference to temporal evil (cf. Gen. xxxi. 40; Ps. xxxi. meeulvexexix, Yr 5 xix, TO; Jet xiv: 12; Hab! 1:14; Gal. v. 15; Mark xii. 40). And, in regard to the last passage, it may be said, that it is manifestly a strong figurative expres- sion, and settles nothing as to the precise nature of the penalty of sin. (7) The wicked are to be “ burned up,” or the like. — (See Bemed 10; xcvii. 3; Mal. iv. 1, 3, Eng: ver.: (iii, 19, 21, in iew.:) Matt. iii. 12; xiii. 407 John xv. 6; Heb. vi. 8; x. 27; xii. 29; Rev. xx. 9. But with these passages should be compared, Ps. cii. 4 (cf. Job xxx. 30); 1 Kings vili. 51 (cf. Wemeriv20, Jer, Xi. 4); Ezek. xxii. 19-22 (cf. r Peter i, 7; iemereaeor. in 15); Num. xxi. 28; Lam. iv. 11.)” Itiis evident from a careful study of the passages cited, not to mention others of a similar character, (2) That the words “burn” and ‘burn up,” are often used, in a figurative sense, to describe the effect of God’s wrath upon sinners. Whether the original words should be translated “burn,” or “burn up,’ depends upon the context, and especially upon the object with which sinners are compared. If they are likened to chaff, or wood, the original terms may be rendered, “to burn up;” but if to a metallic substance, they must be rendered “to burn,” —for the substance is only melted, not dissolved. (6) These figurative expressions are often used to denote vengeance inflicted on those who still exist; and, in such cases, it cannot signify extinction of being. (¢) The epithets used in connection with these words, or with the word “fire,” denote in some instances Jong-continued or eternal burning; hence they point to protracted suffering, rather than to sudden extinction of being. We do not, therefore, find in the use of these figurative terms any valid objection to our view of the penalty of sin. (8) The wicked are to be “cut off.’’ — (See Ps. xxxiv. 17; XXXVil. 9, 22, 28. But compare Isa. liii. 8; Dan. ix. 26; Job vi. 9; Ps. lxxxviil. 17; Matt. xxiv. 50, 51.) The words “cut off’ appear to reter in almost all these passages .o natural 162 Manual of Systematic Theology. death ; and it seems to us very hasty to infer from them the extinction of the soul a/ong with the death of the body. (9) The wicked are to “be brought to nought,” &c. Such texts as the following are referred to: Ps, xxxvii. 10, 36; Job vii. 21 ; xx, 8; viii. 22; Obad. 16; Isao Jer. x. 24. But with these should be compared a few others (for example, Isa. xl..17; Ps. xxxix. 5; 1 Cor ViI@iiimeeee 2 Cor. xii. 11; Gal. vi. 3; Acts v. 36; Mark aay be observed, that the former passages seem to speak of temporal judgments, and also that the same form of speech is used of the righteous which is applied to the wicked. Besides, it must be borne in mind, that the language of Scripture is very often figurative, and even hyperbolical,— indeed, through and through popular instead of scientific. (10) The wicked, or their names, are to “be blotted out.” And these passages are quoted: Ps. Ixix. 28 (cf. Ex. xxxii. 32); Rev. iii. 5. The figure is that of a record-book, contain- ing the names of persons entitled to certain blessings; but the blotting out of the names deprives the persons represented by them of all title to the blessings in question. Having ascertained that the terms “life” and “death” are often used by the sacred writers to denote, on the one hand, the union of the human spirit with God, and; on the other, its separation from him, as also to denote its blessedness and its woe, and that other expressions employed to indicate the penalty of sin confirm rather than confute this explanation of death, we are now prepared to consider : — 1. The intimations of Scripture as to the time when the penalty of sin begins to take effect. «For, if it begins to take effect in this world, it must be mainly, if not exclusively, separation of soul from God, with the consequent misery. The term “death” may signify this; and the circumstances of the case forbid any other meaning. That the penalty of sin begins to teke effect in the present world, may be inferred, — (1) From the language of God to Adam before the fall That language was very explicit. Gen. ii. 17: “In the day of thy eating ot it, thou shait surely die.” The obvious and the The Doctrine of Man. 163 only tenable meaning of these words is, that the death of Adam should follow at once his eating of the forbidden fruit ; and there is nothing in the narrative of the fall. which warrants any other interpretation of them, or authorizes us to say, that God in his mercy postponed the execution of the threatened penalty.’ ’ Besides, we learn that Adam and Eve hid themselves away from the presence of God, thus relinquishing their fellowship with him; and, that he, in turn, banished them from the garden, and so, as it were, from converse with himself. Some have concluded from his words, as recorded in Gen. iii. 19, that physical death was the punishment provided for disobedience, and that it was postponed a long time in the case of our first parents; but the language of that passage does not show that physical death was even a part, much less that it was the chief part, or the whole, of the penalty of sin. We conclude, then, that Adam and Eve began to suffer the punishment of sin immediately after the fall; and, if so, that their offspring, born in their likeness, suffer it also, to some extent, in the present state. ' “To some extent,” we say; for as the life of the soul, con- sisting in its union with God and consequent peace, begins here with regeneration, but culminates hereafter in glory; so does the death of the soul, consisting in its separation from God and consequent woe, begin here with sin, but culminate hereafter in despair. This may be inferred,— (2) From the language of Fohn the Bapizst, eed im the Fourth Gospel, iii. 36: “The wrath of God abideth on him.” {Compare John iii. 18; Eph. ii. 3; Rom. i. 18; Isa. lix. 2.) Meyer supposes that the word “wrath” does not here mean punishment, but rather God’s holy indignation. His view is not, however, correct ; for the wrath spoken of is represented as being and abiding «fon — éai— the unbeliever; it is wrath passing over upon its obicct in just punishment, — being, therefore, a foretaste of “the wrath to come.” And the 1 See “State of the Impenitent Dead,” 5. 39 34. 164, Manual of Systematic Theology. reason why the wrath to come is referred to so much oftenet than the wrath now revealed is because the former is so much greater and more enduring than the latter; even as, for the same reason, the future reward of Christians is spoken of far oftener than their present reward. Yet they receive a hundred-fold of good here. (3) From the frequent designation of the present state of unbelievers by the term ‘death.’ For the mere fact that this term, chosen by the Most High to denote the penalty of sin, is applied to unrenewed men in this life, supposes them to be suffering that penalty. Death is the penalty of sin. Sinners are dead even here; hence they are bearing, in some measure, the penalty of sin. The onus probandi rests clearly upon those who deny our statement. (4) From the different language used by the sacred writers in describing the present sufferings of believers and those of unbelievers. (Compare Rom. viii. 28 sq., and Heb, xii. § sq., with Rom. i. 18sq.) In the one case, suffering is reformatory, with an aspect of retribution; in the other, it is retribution, with a glance towards reformation. (5) From the sufferings which are connected with natural death in this world. The fear and sting of bodily death are not taken from it for unbelievers; and, if such death is included in the penalty of sin, that penalty is suffered in part here. (6) From the action of conscience, enlightened by the Word of God. Men who read the Scriptures are wont to believe that, by the action of our moral nature and of his providence, God begins to punish the wicked in this life, and sometimes makes that punishment very awful and monitory.’ (7) From the language of Christ and of Peter concerning the ungodly in Hades. Luke xvi. 23; 2 Peter ii. 9. For, if the punishment of unrenewed men begins before the last judgment, why should it not begin in the present world? + Says Augustine : Si nunquam in presenti judicaret, non esse crederetur. Si omnia in presenti judicaret, nihil judicio reservaret,” cf. Butler (J.) “Analogy,” Part I. ch. 2d profe “um. The Doctrine of Man. 165 Is it not reasonable to believe that its witness to the character of God must be as useful here as there? We are therefore satisfied that the primary and chief penalty of sin consists in a separation of the soul from God, and the misery consequent thereon, and that it begins in the present state. The correctness of our view of the penalty of sin may be inferred : — wi. rom the Scriptural accounts of it, as suffered by the lost in a future state. These are regarded by some as afford- ing, on the whole, the clearest evidence in respect to the nature of death,—the penalty of sin. Perhaps.they do; but this is by no means certain: yet they certainly deserve most serious consideration. And we observe, therefore, that im- penitent men are represented :— (1) As being, immediately after death, in a state of restraint meesayerine, (Luke xvi. 23; 24, 25, 28; t Peter iii. 19; @ Peter ii. 4, 9; Matt. v. 25 (cf. Matt. viii. 29). Restraint implies a power of action in those restrained; and suffering, a state of consciousness. If the spirits of bad men are ren- dered impotent and unconscious by death, so likewise are their bodies; why, then, are not the latter, as well as the former, said to be in prison, or under guard (éy gviaxij, 1 Peter ili. 19)? The discourse of Christ in Luke, is quite as much to the point in proving the conscious existence of the wicked after death, if it be considered a parable, as it is when inter- nreted as a representative instance of God’s dealings with men; and the language of Peter (2 Epistle ii. 4, 9,) clearly teaches that ungodly men, as well as fallen angels, are kept in a state of punishment until the last day. These passages seem to us very conclusive. (2)