YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Gift of
Reverend Heber H. Beadle
1917

OUTLINES

or i

T H E O L O Gc Y,

BT

ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER HODGE, D. D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIDACTIC AND PASTORAL THEOLOGY IN THE WESTERN TKEOLOOICAL
SliJII.VABr, ALLEGHIKV, PA.

PHILADELPHIA:
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OP PUBLICATION,
Jfo. 821 CHESTNUT STREET.

Cstcred, according to Act oi Congress, in the year IS60, by
EOBEET CAET15B & BEOTHKRa
In the Qork's Office of tho District Court for tho Southern District of New ToA.

PREFACE.
In introducing this hook to the reader, I have only a
single word to say upon two points : first, as to the usea
-which I regard this form of exhibiting theological truth as
being specially. qualified to subserve; and, secondly, as to
the sources from which I have drawn the materials com
posing these " Outlines."
As to the first point, I have to say, that the conception
and execution of this work originated in the experience of
the need for some such manual of theological definitions
and argumentation, in the immediate work of instructing
the members of my own pastoral charge. The several
chapters were in the first instance prepared and used in the
same form in which they are now printed, as the basis of a
lecture delivered otherwise extemporaneously to my congre
gation every Sabbath night. In this use of them, I found
these preparations successful beyond my hopes. The con
gregation, as a whole, were induced to enter with interest
upon the study even of the most abstruse questions. Hav
ing put this work thus to this practical test, I now offer it
to my brethren in the ministry, that they may use it, if
they will, as a repertory of digested material for the doc
trinal instruction of their people, either in Bible classes, or
by means of a congregational lecture. I offer it also as an

IV PEEFACE.

attempt to supply an acknowledged public want, as a syl
labus of theological study for the use of theological students
generally, and for the use of those many laborious preach-
ers of the gospel who can not command the time, or who
have not the opportunity, or other essential means, to study
the more expensive and elaborate works from which the
materials of this compend.have been gathered.
The questions have been retained in form, not for the
purpose of adapting the book in any degree for catechetical
instruction, but as the most convenient and perspicuous'
method of presenting an " outline of theology" so con
densed. This same necessity of condensation I would also
respectfully plead as in some degree an excuse for some of
the . instances of obscurity in definition and meagerness of
illustration, which the reader will observe.
In the second place, as to the sources from which I
have drawn the materials of this book, I may for the most
part refer the reader to the several passages, where the
acknowledgment is made as the debt is incurred. In gen
eral, however, it is proper to say that I have, with his per
mission, used the list of questions given by my father to
his classes of forty-five and six. I have added two or three
chapters which his course did not embrace, and have in
general adapted his questions to my new purpose, by omis
sions, additions, or a different distribution. To such a de
gree, however, have they directed and assisted me, that I
, feel a confidence in offering the result to the public which
otherwise would have been unwarrantable. In the fre
quent instances in which I have possessed his published
articles upon the subjects of the following chapters,- the

PKEF ACE. V
reader will find that I have drawn largely from them. • It
is due to myself, however, to say, that except in two in
stances, " The Scriptures the only Rule of Faith and Judge
of Controversies," and the " Second Advent," I have never
heard delivered nor read the manuscript of that course of
theological lectures which he has prepared for the use of
his classes subsequently to my graduation. In the in
stances I have above excepted, I have attempted little
more, in the preparation of the respective chapters of this
book bearing those titles, than to abridge my father's lec
tures. In every instance I have endeavored to acknowl
edge /the full extent of the assistance I have derived from
others, in which I have, I believe, uniformly succeeded,
except so far as I am now unable to trace to their original
sources some of the materials collected by me in my class
manuscripts, prepared fourteen years ago, while a student
of theology. This last reference relates to a large element
in this book, as I wrote copiously, and after frequent oral
communication with my father, both in public and pri
vate.
A. A. Hodge.
FREDTiBlCKSBUBG, May, 1860.

CONTENTS..

PASS
CHAPTER I.
BEING OF GOD.......  U

CHAPTER II.
THEOLOGY— ITS SOUECES  3T '

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

CHAPTER III. »

CHAPTER IV.
INSPIRATION  j  «
CHAPTER V.
THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS THE ONLY EULE OP
FAITH AND JUDGE OF CONTEOVEESIES  T8
CHAPTER VI.
THE CANON OF SCRIPTUEE  90
CHAPTER Vn.
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD  1M
CHAPTER Vm.
THE DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY, INCLUDING THE DIVINITY OP CHEIST, THE
ETEENAL GENERATION OF THE SON, THE PERSONALITY, DIVINITY, AND
ETERNAL PROCESSION OP THE HOLY GHOST, AND THE SEVERAL PROP
ERTIES AND MUTUAL RELATIONS OF THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD.. 12!

V1U CONTENTS. PA61
CHAPTER IX.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE DECREES IN GENERAL.  -.  I*8
CHAPTER X.

PREDESTINATION..

1T4

« CHAPTER XI.
THE CREATION OF THE WORLD  Is0
CHAPTER XII.
THE DOCTRINE OE ANGELS  198
CHAPTER XIII.
PROVIDENCE  204
CHAPTER XIV.
THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN  216
CHAPTER XV.
THE COVENANT OF WORKS.  228

CHAPTER XVI.
SIN— ITS NATURE; ADAM'S SIN, AND THE CONSEQUENCES THEREOF TO HIS
POSTERITY  238

CHAPTER XVII.
ORIGINAL SIN   24T
/
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE DOCTRINE OF FREE AGENCY AND OF HUMAN INABILITY   260
\ CHAPTER XIX.
THE COVENANT OF GRACE  2TC
CHAPTER XX
THE PERSON OF CnEIST  281

CHAPTER XXI.
THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST  289
CHAPTER XXII.
THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, NECESSITY, PERFECTION AND EXTENT  290
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST  »  319
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE MEDIATORIAL, KINGSHIP OF CHRIST  321
CHAPTER XXV. .
EFFECTUAL CALLING  333
CHAPTER XXVI.
REGENERATION  343
CHAPTER XXVII.
FAITH  363
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE UNION OF THE BELIEVES WITH CHRIST  369
CHAPTER XXIX
REPENTANCE.  3TB
CHAPTER XXX.
JUSTIFICATION  i  382
CHAPTER XXXI.
ADOPTION.  308
CHAPTER XXXII.
SANCTIFICATION  403

CHAPTER XXXIII.
PEESEVEEANCE OF THE SAINTS  .".  *2R
CHAPTER XXXIV.
DEATH, AND THE STATE OP THE SOULAFTEE DEATH  489
CHAPTER XXXV.
THE RESURRECTION  440
CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE SECOND ADVENT AND GENERAL JUDGMENT  4«
CHAPTER XXXVII.
HEAVEN AND THE DOCTRINE OP ETERNAL PUNISHMENTS  459
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
THE SACRAMENTS  1  m
CHAPTER XXXIX.
BAPTISM— ITS NATURE AND DESIGN, MODE, SUBJECTS, EPPICACY AND NECES
SITY  479
CHAPTER XL.
THE LORD'S SUPPEB  BOB

OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER I.
THE BEING OF GOD,

1. Can God be defined ?
As the human mind is finite, and conceives by defining the
limits of the object of its thought, and as God is known to us to
be infinite, it is evident that the human mind can never be capa
ble of conceiving God adequately as he is, or of defining his
being. But God is known to us by certain attributes or modes of be
ing, the conception of which is possible to us, and which truly
represent him, as far as they go. We conceive of each of these
attributes as possessed by God in a degree to which we put no
limits, and to which we know that no limits can be assigned. In
degree, therefore, our conception of the attributes of God is in
definite, and so can not be defined ; but on the other hand we
may be truly said to .define our idea of God when we furnish a
comprehensive statement of all the attributes of God that are re
vealed to us in Scripture, and in the form in which they are con
ceived of by our finite understandings.
2. How has God been defined ?
As the conceptions which different men have formed of God.
are very various, so the forms in which these conceptions have been,
expressed have differed.
I. The Pantheist calls him to 6V, absolute being, and to ndv,
the all-universal being, for this is the sum of what he knows of
God. II. The Deist calls him the absolute, self-existent, infinite
Spirit. This is true as far as it goes.

12 THE BEING OF GOD.
III. The definition given under the seventh question of the
Larger Catechism, and the fourth of the Shorter Catechism, is a
comprehensive statement of the divine perfections as they are re
vealed in the holy Scriptures, and as under the light of Scripture
they are significantly taught by the works of God, creative and
providential, physical and spiritual.
3. What is the origin of that idea of God which is found to
be universally diffused among people of all nations and ages of
the world ?
On this subject there are blended together two questions, which
every human consciousness must in some way answer for itself.
I. Is there any God ? II. What is God ? The answer to both
of these questions, including his existence and his attributes, must
enter into the complex idea which any mind entertains of God.
Now these conceptions and beliefs concerning the divine ex
istence, which in one or another of their various forms are uni
versally prevalent among men, originate in several different sources,
all of which contribute, though in various proportions in different
cases, to the conceptions which men form of God. These sources
are — " I. The innate constitution of the human soul. II. The
speculative reason of man operating reflectively upon the facts of
consciousness and the phenomena of external nature. III. Tra
dition. IV, Supernatural revelation."
4. In what sense is the idea of God innate, and how far is it
natural to man ?
It is not innate in the sense either that any man is born with
a correct idea of God perfectly developed, or that, independently
of instruction, any man can, in the development of his natural
powers alone, arrive at a correct knowledge of God. Some very
debased fragments of the* human family have been found who were
even destitute of any definite idea of God at all. On the other
hand, independently of all instruction, a sense of dependence and
of moral accountability is natural to man. These logically in
volve the being of a God, and when the intellectual and moral
character of an individual or race is in any degree developed these
invariably suggest the idea and induce the belief of a God Thus
man is as universally a religious as he is a rational being. And

ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF GOD. 13
whenever the existence and character of God as providential and
moral ruler is offered as fact, then every human soul responds to
it as true, seen in its own self-evidencing light, in the absence of
all formal demonstration.
5. How far is. the idea of God t .e product of the speculative
reason ?
If the phrase speculative reason Le used to signify the abstract
intellect of man, his moral constitution being excluded, acting
upon its own a priori principles, then we believe that the reason
can not be said to originate, but only to confirm and complete
the idea of God furnished by other sources. But if that phrase
be used to express the intellect as informed by the conscience and
by the emotional and voluntary nature' of man, and acting upon
the abundant evidences of wise and beneficent design, powerfully
executed, with, which all God's works are filled, then the reason
thus exercised must lead to certain knowledge that God is, and to
some knowledge of his natural and moral attributes.
6. How far is the idea of God traditional ?
It is impossible for us, who enjoy the light of a divine revela
tion, to determine how far the knowledge of God might be spon
taneously attained by each generation for itself, and how far the
actual knowledge possessed by each people is due to a tradition
from the past. It is on the other hand very plain that the form
in which the idea is conceived, and the associations with which it
is accompanied, is determined among every people by the theologi
cal traditions they have received from their fathers. It is certain
also that a tradition of the true God and of his dealings with man
long lingered among the Gentiles, and even now, though variously
perverted, enters as an element into the mythologies of heathen
nations. 7. How far is the idea of God due to a supernatural revela
tion ?
The natural revelation which God makes of himself to man, in
the constitution of the human soul, and in the works of creation
and providence, would unquestionably have been sufficient to lead
him to the. knowledge of God, if man himself had continued in

14 THE BEING OF GOD.
his natural moral condition and relations. But since by reason
of sin man's mind has been darkened, his heart hardened, and his
relations to God infinitely involved, man never can be able, by
the mere light of nature, to reach both a certain and an adequate
knowledge of God. It is certain, both from the reason of the
case and from universal experience, that a supernatural revelation
is absolutely necessary, 1st, to make certain by additional evi
dences the conclusions of reason ; 2d, to complete and render
practically adequate the knowledge of God which reason other
wise has reached.
8. What are the two great questions involved in this inquiry
as to the being of God ?
I. Is there any conclusive evidence that such a being as God
exists ? II. What is the nature of God, as far as his attributes
are manifested by the evidence which proves his existence. , This
second question resolves itself into two others. 1st. What are
the attributes of God, as ascertained to us by the light of nature
alone ; 2d. What are his attributes, as ascertained by the light of
the supernatural revelation given in Scripture.
9. Can there be any strictly logical demonstration of the being
of God constructed ?
The idea which we entertain of God is a complex one, the
different elements of which are furnished to us by different sources.
No one single line of demonstrative proof can establish the exist
ence of that Infinite Spirit, which is known to the Christian as
Jehovah. Many different arguments, however, concur in converg
ing to this inevitable center, each contributing at once confirma
tory evidence that God is, and complementary evidence as to what
God is, and thus concurrently establishing the being of God upon
immovable foundations.
The conception of God, as a powerful and righteous person is
first given us in our constitutional feeling of dependence and of
moral accountability. Starting with this conception, we may
abundantly demonstrate his wisdom, goodness, power etc. and
thus reciprocally confirm the evidence for his being,from the work
of his hands in his physical and spiritual creation, in his works
called natural, as providence, and in his works called supernatural

OAN IT BE LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED ? 15
as miracles, prophecies, inspiration, and spiritual regeneration. —
See Mansel's Limits of Religious Thought. Lect. IV.
10. What are the principle arguments by which this great
truth has been generally defended by orthodox Theists ?
The six principle arguments used to maintain the being of a
God are as follows :
I. The dpriori argument which seeks to demonstrate the being
of a God from certain first principles involved in the essential
laws of human intelligence.
II. The cosmological argument, or that one which proceeds
after the d posteriori fashion, from the present existence of the
world as an effect, to the necessary existence of Borne ultimate and
eternal first cause.
III. The teleological argument, or that argument which, from
the evidences of design in the creation, seeks to establish the fact
that the great self-existent first cause of all things is an intelli
gent and voluntary personal spirit.
IV. The moral argument, or that argument which, from a
consideration of the phenomena of conscience in the human heart,
seeks to establish the fact that the self-existent Creator is also
the righteous moral governor of the world. This argument in
cludes the consideration of the universal feeling of dependence
common to all men, which together with conscience constitutes
the religious sentiment.
V. The historical argument, which involves — (1.) The evident
providential presence of God in the history of the human race.
(2.) The evidence afforded by history that the human race is not
eternal, and therefore not an infinite succession of individuals, but
created. (3.) The universal consent of all men to the fact of his
existence. VI. The scriptural argument, which includes — (1.) The mira
cles and prophecies recorded in Scripture, and confirmed by testi
mony, proving the existence of a God. (2.) The Bible itself, self-
evidently a work of superhuman wisdom. (3.) Eevelation, de
veloping and enlightening conscience, and relieving many of .the
difficulties under which natural Theism labors, and thus confirm
ing every other line of evidence. — Dr. Hodge.

16 THE BEING OF GOD.
11. What is the meaning of the phrases a priori and onto-
logicdl ?
The phrase a priori, as contrasted with the phrase d posteri
ori, signifies an argument proceeding downward from causes to
effects, or from general and necessary principles to some particular
consequence necessarily resulting from them. An d posteriori
argument, on the other hand, is one proceeding in ,the contrary
direction, from effects upward to their cause, or from certain par
ticular consequences to the general and necessary principles from
which they result.
An ontological argument is one (ontology is compounded of
two Greek words, meaning the science of real existence, or exist
ence in its absolute reality, as distinguished from phenomena or
things as they appear to us to be relatively to our faculties of
perception), " which proposes to discover or establish the fact of
any real existence, either beyond the sphere of the present world,
or in any other way incapable of being the direct object of con
sciousness, which can be deduced immediately from the possession
of certain feelings or principles and faculties of the human soul." —
Ancient Philosophy by W. Archer Butler, vol. i., ch. 3, p. 68.
12. What is the famous d priori argument for the existence
of God, as set forth by Dr. Samuel Clarice ?
By far the ablest and most famous argument for the being of
God ever constructed on d priori principles is that set forth in
the Boyle lectures of Dr. S. Clarke, delivered in London, a. d.
1704. Its main points are as follows :
I. As it is certain that something does exist now, something
must have existed from all eternity ; since it is contradictory to
conceive of any thing commencing to exist, except through the
intervention of some preexisting cause, pp. 9 and 10, 4th Lon
don edition, A. d. 1716.
II. Whatever has existed from eternity must be self-existent
or necessarily existent, i. e., must have the ground or reason of its
existence at all times and in all places alike of an equal necessity
in itself, p. 15.
III. The only true idea of a self-existent or necessarily exist
ent being is the idea of a being, the supposition of whose not
existing is an express contradiction, p. 16.

CAN IT BE LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED ? 17
IV. The material world can not possibly be the first and ori
ginal being, uncreated, independent, and of itself eternal ; because
it involves no contradiction to conceive of the world, as to the
matter, form, measure, or motion of it, either not to be at all, or
to be different from what it is, pp. 22, 23.
V. But since something does now exist, it is a contradiction
not to conceive of something as necessarily self-existent from eter
nity ; and besides infinite space and eternal duration can not be
thought not to exist without a contradiction. They are therefore
necessarily self-existent, and therefore also the essence of God, of
which infinite space and eternal duration are the essential proper
ties or attributes, must be self-existent also. For space and time
are not substances but properties, which necessarily imply a com
mensurate substance to which they belong, p. 16.
He thence proceeds by a similar process to prove that God is
infinitely wise, free, powerful and good, etc.
13. What are the objections to this argument ?
This argument, as employed by Dr. Clarke, is consummately
able, and if not of itself conclusive, has been of the greatest use in
confronting the ontological Pantheists on their own ground. The
recent fashionable objections to all d priori reasoning on this sub
ject have been carried too far. I. Because every d priori system
of proof is partly d posteriori, starting from the 'experience which
consciousness affords us of dependent existence. II. Because
every d posteriori system of proof embraces of necessity an d
priori element, thus the principles that every effect must have a
cause, and that design argues intelligence, are d priori judgments.
The special objections that lie against Dr. Clarke's argument are,
I. It confounds logical necessity of thought upon the part of man
with .physical necessity of being upon the part of God, making
the power of man to conceive or not to conceive the measure of
real existence, and II. It makes space and time, which are to us
necessary abstract conceptions, and conditions of all thinking prop
erties of God. God is omnipresent and eternal, but in any other
sense it is absurd to regard space and time as properties of which
he is the substance. They are the conditions of all being, and are
occupied by all existences in infinitely various proportions and
relations. 2

18 THE BEING OF GOD.
14. What is the argument of Descartes and others, derived
from the fact that we possess the idea of God ?
Descartes, founding all knowledge upon the truth of human
consciousness, maintained that in proportion to the clearness of
an idea is the evidence that it actually represents an- objective
reality. But -one of the clearest and most prominent ideas actually
possessed by man is the idea of one infinitely perfect being. This
idea could not spring from " any finite source, since the finite and
imperfect could not give me the idea of the infinite and perfect.
Hence, if I have an incontestibly clear idea of God, a God must
necessarily exist."
He also argued that the existence of God is implied in the
nature of the idea we have of him, just as the existence of a
triangle is implied in the conception which we form of a triangle.
Self-existence and necessary existence are essential elements of an
infinitely perfect being. -But 4s we have an idea of an infinitely
perfect being, including his self-existence, it is a contradiction in
terms to conceive of him as not existing. Therefore he must
exist. — See Morell's History of Modern Philosophy, vol. i., p. 172.
15. What are the objections to that argument ?
While we must ever regard this and all other d priori argu
ments for the existence of God as of value in the way of demon
strating the fact, that although the idea of God cannot be strictly
said to be innate, yet it is complimentary to reason, i. c, when once
presented, always afterwards felt to be necessary to satisfy the de
mands of reason, nevertheless we cannot regard this argument
as being, when standing alone, a valid demonstration of the ex-
istence of God. The conceptions of the human mind, whether
clear or vague, can not be held as the certain measure of real
objective existence. They can only form the ground of a ra
tional probability, and thus enhance the credibility of other argu
ments. 16. On what grounds do the German transcendental philoso
phers found their belief in the being of a God ?
Schleiermacher, and his German and English followers as
Coleridge, Morell, and others, place the foundation of this divine

CAN IT BE LOGICALLY DEMONSTRATED ? 19
knowledge in the feeling of absolute and infinite dependence.
This they claim to be an inseparable element of every man's self-
consciousness, and they represent this feeling as apprehending
God immediately as he is in himself, an infinite being, embracing
and conditioning our dependent being upon every hand. Schell-
ing, Cousin, and others maintain that human reason, in its high
est exercise, is capable of an immediate intuition of the infinite,
and thus God is directly seen in his all-perfect being, by the
appropriate organ of such an infinite knowledge in the human
soul. Both of these pretended ways of the immediate and adequate
apprehension of the infinite are disproved by the self-evident
principle that the mind in every thought contains the conception
which it forms of its object, but a finite mind cannot contain an
infinite thought. "We may know that God is infinite, but we
can form only a finite conception of him. Every form of human
consciousness, whether of thought or of feeling, is finite,' and de
pends upon conditions, but the infinite has no limits or condi
tions. We believe God to be infinite, but we positively conceive
of him only as indefinitely great, that is, of a degree of greatness
from which we remove one by one the limitations which inhere in
all human thinking. — See Mansel's Limits of Religious Thought,
pp. 101, 122, 124, and Sir William Hamilton's Discussions, pp.
29, 30.
17. What is the Cosmological argument, or that argument
which deduces the necessary existence of a First Self-existent
Cause from the fact that the world certainly exists, and is evi
dently an effect ?
Whatever exists must have a cause, either without or within
itself. It must either have at some time been brought into ex
istence by some preexistent cause, or it must have the necessary '
cause of its own existence in itself. If it have the necessary cause
of its own existence in itself, it must be eternal, for the same
necessary cause must have operated equally at all times, and if
there ever was a time when it was not, it never could have
caused itself to be.
Thus far even the Atheist, Pantheist, Materialist, and Idealist
all agree with us . They maintain, however, under different forms,

2C THE BEING OF GOD.
the view that the world itself is eternal. We maintain that the
world is not self-existent, but an effect created by a God.
18. What is a cause, and whence do we derive our conviction
that every effect must have a cause ?
' A spiritual cause is a spirit originating its own acts and pro
ducing its effect out of its own energy. An effect is some new-
thing or change produced by the power or efficiency residing in
the cause.
"A material cause consists always in two or more material
substances with their active properties sustaining a certain rela
tion to one another in a certain state, and the effect is the same
substances in another state. Thus, when a hammer is made to
strike a stone and break it, the cause consists of the hammer and
stone in one state and relation, and the effect the hammer and
stone in the state they are after' the blow." — McCosh, Divine
Government, p. 100. v
The conviction that every effect must have a cause is an origi
nal and essential law of our intelligence, which, instead of being
deduced as a consequence from experience, is involved in those
elementary processes of thought upon which all experience de
pends. The judgment is not simply, that every change which
we have ever seen did, have a cause, but that every change of
every kind, past, present, and future, vnust have a cause, and
further, a cause adequate to produce the effect.
19. How can it be proved that the world is an effect ?
The entire world, in all of its departments, as far as it is cog
nizable by our senses, consists of the results of past changes and
of present changes, proceeding in continual succession. Now
either one of these three things must be true :
I. 'Either there must be supposed one or more .eternal, self-
existent beings, which have the cause of their existence necessarily
in themselves, and which cause all the succession of dependent
changes which we see proceeding around us.
Or, II. All these dependent changes which we see passing •
around us are only the necessary modifications of the one univer
sal, necessary, self-existent substance. This is the Pantheistic*
theory, and is disproved below, under question 35.

THE WORLD AN EFFECT. 21
Or, III. The endless succession of changes which make up the
phenomenal world must have gone on from all eternity without
beginning or cause. This is self-evidently absurd. Every change
is an effect, and every effect must have a cause ; but an infinite
chain of changes, each being in turn first effect and then cause,
is impossible, because an infinite chain of effects demand an
adequate cause, even more imperatively than a single effect. Thus
the son, though begotten, is not caused by the father. 1st. Be
cause the father does not contrive the son, nor understand the
process of his production ; and 2d, because the father is himself
caused, and a thousand generations of men demand a cause a
thousand times more imperatively than one.
This dream of an eternal succession is also annihilated by the
testimony of human history and the science of geology, (see be
low, questions 20-22), and by the result of universal experience.
1st. That contrivance necessarily implies intelligence ; and 2d.
That intelligence is always the cause, never the result of organ
ization. 20. What is the historical argument against the eternity of
the world ?
If the world be eternal, the human race must have existed for
ever, and have descended to the present through an eternal suc
cession of generations. Otherwise, if although the. world be eter
nal, the human race began to exist in time, we would still be
forced to believe in a God who created the human race. But
every branch of human history, sacred and profane (and admitt
ing, for argument's sake, that the books of Moses are merely hu
man productions, they are still as trustworthy history as any
other), the mythologies, traditions, records of all races and na
tions, concur with comparative philology, or the science of the
origin and relations of human languages, and with ethnology, or
the science of the origin and distribution of races of men, in con
verging to some more or less remote point in the past as the start
ing point of the human family. Also other arguments, " such as
the recency of science ; the vast capacity of the species for general
or collective improvement, contrasted with the little progress which
they have yet made ; the expansive force of population, and yet its
shortness still from the territory and resources of the globe ¦"

22 THE BEING OF GOD.
all alike prove that the human race began to be at a compara
tively recent period. — See Chalmer's N. Theology, vol. i., book
1, chapter 5.
21. What is the geological argument against the eternity of
the world ?
Geology has clearly established the fact that the earth has ex
isted many myriads of years, and passed through many successive
physical revolutions. In the progress of these successive revolu
tions different races of plants and animals were successively brought
into existence, as the physical conditions of the earth suited their
respective habits. Thus, in order, the most elementary vegetable
forms preceded the animal, and of these last the fish, the reptile,
the bird, the mammiferous quadruped, and, last of all, man ap
peared in succession. The geologic record proves that in many
sudden catas trophies whole races of plants and animals were de
stroyed, and then new and distinct species introduced.
In connection with these two facts all naturalists -maintain
these two principles, 1st, that there is no such thing as the de
velopment of one species or family of plants or animals into an
other ; and 2d, that there is no such thing as the spontaneous
generation of new species. Consequently geology demonstrates
not only one, but many successive' acts of absolute creation. " The
infidel," says Hugh Miller (Footprints of the Creator, p. 301),
" who in this late age of the world attempts falling back upon
the fiction of an infinite succession would be laughed to scorn."
22. What was the famous development theory as set forth by
the author of the " Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation,"
and how may it be disproved ?
The great astronomer La Place originated the philosophical
suggestion which has always since been known as the Nebular
Hypothesis. He supposed that the stellar universe originated
from an indefinitely rarified, and intensely hot nebulous' matter
agitated by a uniform gyratory motion, and that from this origin
the whole universe has gradually been evolved, through the cal
culable operation ,of the known laws of matter. This is cosmical
development, or the development of worlds. La Place treated
this theory chiefly in relation to astronomy, and claimed as its

DEVELOPMENT THEORY. 23
most prominent practical confirmation the existence of large ne
bulous masses in the remote abysses of space, which the telescope
could not resolve into stars, and which were, as he insisted, ne
bulas in the process j)f world development.
The anonymous author of the Vestiges of Creation, whose
work has excited such general attention, has carried out this
theory of development into its furthest consequences and most
detailed applications, to the successive origination of new species
of plants and animals, and to all the contemporaneous geologic
changes of the earth ; thus leading into the question of organic
development. He maintains " that the simplest and most primi
tive type gave birth to a type -superior to it in compositeness of
organization and endowment of faculties, and this again to the
next higher, and so on to the highest." Every organic existence
being developed by successive stages, the higher from the lower,
and all at last from an original " fire mist," by. an inherent law
of progression. This theory does not necessarily lead to theoretical atheism,
since the creation of so wonderfully pregnant a " fire mist" would
as much require an original intelligent cause as the immediate
creation of the world in the Bible sense. It leads, however, to
practical atheism, since it denies all providential intervention, and
it sets forth man as developed through the tadpole, by virtue of
the ultimate mechanical and chemical properties inherent in mat
ter, instead of being created in the image of God.
We have to say, I. With reference to La Place's Nebular
Hypothesis, or theory of. cosmical development, that it is now
generally held by Christian philosophers and astronomers as a
highly probable speculation, agreeing with and interpreting all
known facts. They agree, however, also in maintaining it only
as an approximate account of the successive stages in which the
infinite Creator, having previously created all things out of nothing
by the word of his power, brought his work in the exercise of
his ceaseless providential agency to its present condition. They
maintain these two principles, (1.) That as far as it is known,
without exception, God always perfects his works from an ele
mentary commencement, by a regular method, and through suc
cessions of time. That is, he works by fixed law. And for this
there appears this wise and beneficent reason, that if God should

24 THE BEING OF GOD.
exercise his infinite power any otherwise, his working would be
perfectly inscrutable to his intelligent creatures, and therefore to
them a revelation of his power merely, and not of his wisdom.
(2.) That law is never a cause, but only the method according to
which a cause acts. It is infinitely absurd therefore to offer the
Nebular Hypothesis as a rational account of the way in which the
universe might have come into its present condition without either
an infinitely intelligent and powerful creating cause or an infin
itely intelligent and powerful providential upholder and director.
II. With respect to the further application of this theory to
the explanation of the origination- of the simplest organic beings
from inorganic material elements in the first place, and then the
gradual development through successive stages of organic races,
the higher from the lower in virtue of the inherent self-acting
principles of nature, we have to say, (1.) As this view is held by
the author of the " Vestiges," and generally by Deistical specula
tors, it rests wholly upon an absurd idea of " law." Law is only
the method according to which a cause acts. The law itself, as
well as its effects, must be referred to the cause which observes it.
The more general and comprehensive the law, the more powerful
and intelligent must be the cause. (2.) All the leading natural
ists, geologists and physiologists repudiate this theory upon scien
tific ^grounds, e. g., L. Agassiz, Dr. Carpenter, Mr. A. Pritchard,
Hugh Miller, Dr. Hitchcock. (3.) Its pretended experimentum
crucis, the generation under a galvanic current of small insects
without a parent germ, is discredited as a mistake by the highest
scientific authorities. .(4.) Hugh Miller, in his "Footprints of
the Creator," has annihilated this fiction. He proves, a, That
one species never developes into another, b, That there is no
such thing as spontaneous generation ; that every living thing
comes from a parent, c, That geology presents, on the contrary,
instances of the degradation of certain races, i. e.; a retrograde
movement in creation perfectly inconsistent with the Theory of
Development. (5.) This theory developes mind from matter,
which is absurd, see below, Question 32. (6.) The most recent
and highest tendencies of scientific speculation indicate the con
clusion that while all living organisms are formed of matter anc
are built up by material/orces, yet that the vital principle -which
directs those forces is wholly immaterial, not subject to the knowr

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN. 2fi
laws of matter, and therefore the organism which that vital prin
ciple erects can not be developed by those laws.
23. What is the Teleological argument, or that which estab
lishes the existence of God from the existence of design in his
works ?
We have already proved that the world must have had a
cause, a cause distinct from and exterior to itself, since eternal
succession and successive development have both been proved to
be absurd. In order to prove that this cause is a God, we have
further to show that this eternal self-existent cause is an intelli
gent free agent., and a righteous moral governor.
Design, or the wise and skillful adaptation of means to a cer
tain end according to an evident purpose, always infallibly proves
two things with .regard to the cause, 1st. That it is endowed with
intelhgence as well as power. 2d. That it is endowed with free
will, exercised in purpose, selection, direction, etc. In other
words, that the cause is a person, or a plurality of persons.
Now, God's universe in all its parts is full of design, as is evi
dent in the balanced forces acting on such a vast scale in astron
omy, in the laws of terrestrial nature, so wonderfully correlated to
each other, and to the wider laws of the universe beyond. It is
preeminently manifested in the wonderful organizations of plants
and animals, and above all, of man, and the adaptation of* each
to his peculiar circumstances and purposes of life. It is mani
fested also in the constitution of the human soul, which is a
created effect, the relation of the soul to the body, the adaptation
of the world to the moral constitution of man, and the mutual
relations of intellect, will, emotion, and conscience in man. It is
manifested also in the constitution of man as a social being, in
the organization of all communities, conjugal, family, and na-
tional,-and in the universal history of the race, etc., etc. For the
illustration of this great argument, see Paley on design in organ
ized life, Chalmers and Brougham, on design as exhibited in the
mental and moral constitution of man, and Hugh Miller on de
sign as exhibited in the successive creations during the geologic
eras. — See Ps. xix., 1, and Rom. i., 20.
24. How do we derive the conviction that design universally
implies intelligence ?

26 THE BEING OF GOD.
This principle necessarily resolves itself into the more ele
mentary one above stated, viz., that every effect must have a
cause. Every work evidencing design is an effect. The rea]
nature of every effect .proves as incontestibly, by force of the essen
tial laws of reason, the nature of the cause from which it springs,
as the mere fact of the effect proves the mere fact of the cause.
A great effect proves a powerful cause. An intelligible effect
proves an intelligent cause. A design not understood may to us
prove nothing with regard to the cause from which it springs ;
but the instant we do understand it, that instant we must at
tribute to it intelligence and purpose in addition to efficiency.
Here we are necessarily brought to the decision of the great
question presented by the Materialists. They hold that there is
but one substance in the universe to which the phenomena of
mind and matter are alike to be referred, because intelligence is
only one of several special results of material organization.
Now, all we know of power, of intelligence, of free choice, of
feeling, we derive from consciousness. But consciousness presents
these as always the ultimate, never the derived or constituted,
attributes of ourselves. And, moreover, as far as our experience
ever reaches, free intelligence is always the cause of organization,
and never organization or material aggregation the cause of intel
ligence. The reason of the case, therefore, and the analogy of an
unexceptive experience, absolutely uniform and universal, con
strain us to refer all intelligible design to intelligence, and never
intelligence to organization, or any kind of material evolution. —
See Sir William Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics, Lecture 2.'
25. What are the principal objections urged against this argu
ment from design, and how may they be answered ?
I. Hume, (see Essays, vol. i., p. 157,) as quoted by Chalmers,
says that the sole rational source of our conviction that design
implies intelligence is our experience ;~ time past that such and
such designs were produced by. an intelligent cause. If we see a
house, a watch, or a ship, we certainly know that they were formed
by skillful men, because we have anterior experience of the pro
duction of. precisely such effects by such causes. But the world
he maintains, is altogether a "peculiar effect;" and since we have
no experience whatever of world-making, so we have no reason to

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 27
conclude that the apparent contrivances of nature are the product
of intelligence. To this we answer : 1st. That design and intelligence are
correlative terms, it is impossible for a sane mind to separate them.
An intelligible design, wherever seen, must suggest intelligence.
2d. All our experience leads to the same result, viz., not merely
that some instances of design have been produced by intelligence,
but that all design is always and only so produced. 3d. The
science of geology does bring an instance of world-making within
the circle of our investigations, and we do practically find, as we
were assured upon d priori principles we would, that the same
laws of cause and effect, of intelligence and design, prevail in
world-making that prevail in every human art.
II. It is objected that we arbitrarily stop short with this argu
ment without leading it to its legitimate conclusion ; for if the
world must have a cause, so much more must God ; and if the
world must have a designer, so much more must God.
We answer : 1st. An infinite series of dependent causes is re
jected as absurd by reason and disproved as false by science, there
fore the eternal must be self-existent and uncaused. To this
conclusion science leads, and in it reason rests, although the nature
of self-existence can never be comprehended by a finite mind.
2d. The world and hnman souls being effects, or something new
produced by causes, present indubitable traces of design; but God,
being self-existent, presents no evidence of design. Self-existent
intelligence no more suggests the idea of design than self-existent
chaos. III. M. Aug. Comte, the great apostle of the Positive Phil
osophy, maintains that human reason has to deal with phenomena
and their order, or laws of succession solely, and that we have
nothing to do with either causes or design. He says that the
adaptations of elements and organs in nature are nothing more
than " conditions of existence." If these were absent there would
be no existence, and they are present only because they are neces
sary to the existence in question. Where the circumstances
proper to the life of fish exist there fish are found. " Only those
stars are inhabited which are inhabitable."
To this we answer : 1st. The human mind always has, and
of rational necessity must discuss causes. Laws account for no-

28 THE BEING OF GOD.
thing, they merely discover how causes act. 2d. Happily con
trived " oonditions of existence" are the. very marks of design for
which we argue, but of necessity there must be a designing cause.
A lake is the place for a fish to live in, but no fish will live there
until he is made or put there. A star might be habitable for
ever without being inhabited. .3d. A large part of the design
with which God's works are full are not bare conditions of exist
ence, but conditions of beautiful, happy, useful existence. Thus
the symmetry of the human frame, and the relation of the eye
and taste to beauty, are not mere conditions of existence, but the
work of a God, whose thoughts are beautiful, wise, and benevo
lent, as well as effective.
IV. It is objected by many that the argument from existing
dependent creatures to a first cause, and from design in the world
to an intelligent designer, although valid as far as it goes, could
not possibly lead' us to the knowledge of an infinite God. The
universe is only finite. The highest conclusion, therefore, that
we ought to form from the premises is, that a great though finite
being exists adequate to produce the actual effect.
To this we answer : We not only admit but insist upon the
fact, that all the modes of human consciousness, feeling, as well
as thought, being finite, we can never positively embrace in our
minds the idea of an infinite being. This arises from the essential
limitations of our own minds. We must believe in the existence
of the infinite, though our highest positive conception of God is
that of a being indefinitely great, i. e., we set no limits to our
view of any of his attributes in any direction. Precisely to this
result does the argument from design lead us. We believe that
the world is finite only from rational necessity, not as the result
of experience. To us it is indefinitely great. The microscope and
the telescope have alike failed to see through creation ; on either
hand it reaches indefinitely beyond our faculties of perception.
Science of the infinite and absolute is impossible, but faith in
them is necessary to reason. We can not think of time or space
without believing in eternity and immensity. We can not think
of dependent causes without thinking of one cause from which
all the rest spring. We can not think of finite and dependent
being without thinking of independent and absolute being.— Sec
Morell's History of Moral Philosophy, vol. ii.; App., p. 645, and

MORAL ARGUMENT. 29
Introduction, pp. 57-60. " We can not think the divine attri
butes as in themselves they are, we can not think God without
impiety, unless we also implicitly confess our impotence to think
him worthily ; and if we should assert that God is as we think, or
can affirm him to be, we actually blaspheme. For the Deity is
adequately inconceivable, is adequately ineffable, since human
thought and human language are equally incompetent to his in
finities." — Sir William Hamilton's Lectures on Metaphysics, Ap
pendix, p. 692; and see also Mansel's Limits of Religious Thought,
Lecture 3, Note 11 on that Lecture.
26. What argument for the being of a God may be derived
from the Sense of Dependence which is common to all men ?
The religious instinct, which is one of the most universal and
indestructible attributes of human nature, is constituted of two
elements : 1st. an intimate and inseparable sense of dependence
which always accompanies our self-consciousness ; and 2d, con
science, including a sense of moral accountability. " With the
first development of consciousness there grows up, as part of it,
the innate feeling that our life, natural and spiritual, is not in our
own power to sustain 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." — Mansel's
Limits of Religious Thought, p. 120. This sense of dependence
has often, in the absence of knowledge, been prostituted to vari
ous superstitions, but its universal presence,, under all forms of
faith, proves the being of a God.
27. State the argument for the existence of God derived from
Conscience. Conscience is a universal and indestructible principle of human
nature. It asserts, even when it is unable to enforce, its supreme
authority, as the organ of an ultimate law, over all the active
powers of the soul. Now, if there be no God, universal conscience
must be a lie, since its right to command over inclination and
passion can be derived only from a superior authority, whose
right it is to reign. Conscience essentially involves a . sense of
moral accountability, and in the- case of the transg~*;ssor a fearful

30 THE BEING OF GOD.
looking for of judgment. Hence the universal prevalence among
men of expiatory sacrifices and penances. — Mansel, p. 122.
These two, a sense of dependence and of moral accountability,
constituting the religious instinct universally prevalent among
men, and proving that God must be a person, endowed with intel
ligence and sovereign and righteous will, give us our first conception
of God, which is afterwards corroborated and enlarged by the study
of his works and of his word. As these are the primary sources
of our faith in God, so they exert immeasurably the most preva
lent influence in maintaining and enforcing that faith among men.
28. What is the Historical argument for the being of a God ?
Several arguments for the being of a God may be derived from
history. I. Men of all nations, in all ages of the world, differing
among themselves in all respects susceptible of change, have pro
fessed and acted upon this belief. Man is as essentially a religious
as he is a rational animal. Either the nature of man is a lie, or
there is a God. Cicero says, " What nation is there, or what race
of men which has not, without any previous instruction, some
idea of the gods ? Now, that in which all men agree must neces
sarily be true."
II. The student of universal history will find evident traces of
design running through and giving significance to the relative bear
ing of all events. God is as plainly in history as he is in creation.
III-. History, as shown above (question 20), proves that the
human race is of recent origin, and therefore has been created.
IV. Godliness has always worked beneficially for human na
ture, having, practically, " the promise of the life that now is."
Every experiment of national Atheism has been morally, socially,
and politically disastrqus.
29. What is the argument for the being of a God derived from
the phenomena of Scripture ?
The only way in which the existence of God can be known to
us at all is by some revelation of himself. Nature and providence
are as much revelations of God as Scripture ; and inspired Scrip--
ture, miracles, and prophecy are as much his works, and more
clearly manifest power, intelligence, goodness, and righteousness.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE. 31
than does either nature or providence. All the evidences of Christi
anity, which are spread out in the third chapter of this volume,
which prove that, if there be a God Christianity is a revelation
from him, also just as legitimately prove that there is a God,
since these are divine works. We are under the same necessity
of accounting rationally for the phenomena of Scripture that we are
of accounting for the phenomena of creation. Thus, 1st, miracles
and prophecy are undoubted facts established by testimony. But
miracles and prophecy are inconceivable except as acts of a God.
2d, The Scriptures themselves are evidently the work of a super
human intelligence. — See chapter 3d, questions 13 and 14. 3d.
The feeble and crude notion of God furnished by natural religion,
is by revelation taken up, completed, glorified, and justified to
the reason and conscience. 4th. The spiritual power of Christi
anity as an experimental system in the individual and m all com
munities, in proving its suitableness to the highest wants of hu
man nature, proves also the being of a God.
30. State summarily the amount of knowledge concerning God
we derive from the fqregoing sources.
I. Our constitutional sense of dependence and of moral ac
countability give us spontaneously our primary elemental notion
of God, and assurance of his existence.
II. Reasoning upon all existences and events known to us
upon the two principles, (1,) that every effect must have a cause ;
(2,) that the power, intelligence and benevolence exercised by the
cause in any special act of causation may be argued fr<jm their
traces in the effect. We find, a, that God is the eternal, self-
existent, first cause, and b, that he is indefinitely powerful, wise,
free of will and benevolent.
III. Reflecting upon the nature of intelligence and free, will,
and their relation to organization as always its cause, never its
effect, as developed in our own experience, we rise by necessary
inference to the conclusion that God, as a free intelligence, must
be a personal spirit.
IV. Reflecting upon the phenomena of conscience, and upon
the constitution of our emotional nature' and the general course
of providence in relation to the law of conscience, we are neces
sarily led to the conclusion that God is also a moral governor,

32 THE BEING OF GOD.
who speaks through conscience and who will vindicate its sanc
tions, because he himself is- a holy and righteous being.
V. From the profound constitution of our nature, although
we are utterly incapable of forming any commensurate conception
of the infinite and absolute, yet we must, as all men do, affirm
their existence, and that they meet in the self-existent and in
comprehensible God.
This much we may now, under the noonday light of revela
tion, certainly deduce from the phenomena of nature as to the
being and attributes of God ; but before the light of revelation
no man was able to see thus much, nor to affirm with confidence
even what he did see.
VI. From the diligent and rational study of the Holy Scrip
tures, with the illumination of the Holy Ghost, we shall attain
to a complete theology, as far as that is possible to man on earth.
31. What is Atheism, and how Jar is it possible ?
Atheism is the denial of God. Of Atheists there are three
classes. 1st. Those who confessedly deny the being of any God ;
such as those who believe in an eternal succession of things as
they are, or in a successive development of nature in virtue of
inherent mechanical laws, e. g., Comte, etc. 2d. Those who,- while
admitting God nominally deny any of his essential constituent
attributes. In this sense the Pantheist, who denies the person
ality of God, and who confounds him with the universe, is really,
though not nominally, an Atheist, since it makes little difference
whether we say that the world is God, or that God is the world,
3d. To the same end tends practically, and by logical though not by
confessed consequence, all materialism, which makes intelligence
the result not the cause of physical organization, and of all natur
alism, which, while verbally admitting a distant God in the first
inconceivably remote act of creation, denies him altogether in all
providence and supernatural revelation.
Atheism is possible. 1st. Practically ; many men live thus
without God in the world. 2d. Although, from the indestruc
tible constitution of human nature, men must believe in and feel
dependence upon some first self-existent being, and fear the judg
ment of some righteous ruler, yet through ignorance and want of
intellectual development, and through the delusive power of so-

MATERIALISM. 33
phistical speculation, many men honestly reject as untrue one or
more of the essential constituent attributes of God, so that the
gross superstition, or the barren notion left in their minds is not
God. Not loving God, they for a time succeed in eliminating, as
a matter of thought, his distasteful presence. — Rom. i., 21-26.
32. What is Materialism /
As soon as we begin to reflect we become conscious of the
presence of two everywhere interlaced, but always distinct classes
of phenomena — of thought, feeling, will on the one' hand, and of
extension, inertia, etc., on the other. Analyze these as we may,
we never can resolve the one into the other. The one class we
come to know through consciousness, the other through sensation,
and we know the one as directly and as certainly as the other ; and
as we can never resolve either into the other, we refer the one class
to a substance called spirit, and the other class to a substance
called matter.
Materialists are a set of superficial philosophers, with whom
the phenomena of feeling, conscience and will are not intense, and
who have formed the habit of looking too exclusively outward upon
the world present to the senses. Hence they fall into the funda
mental error of affirming, 1st. That there is but one substance in
the universe, and 2d. That intelligence, feeling, conscience, Voli
tion, etc., are only properties of matter under certain modifica
tions. Intelligence did not create and organize matter, but matter,
organizing according to its inherent laws, evolved intelligence.
To this we answer, 1st. This is no recondite dispute, as some
Materialists pretend, concerning substance. The Materialist
knows that by affirming conscience to be only a modification of
matter he destroys its essential nature — because if it be material
it is mechanical and not moral. His object doubtless is to reason
away the phenomena of conscience and liberty. 2d. The theory
is one-sided. Our knowledge of thought and feeling, conscience
and will, is at least as immediate and certain as our knowledge of
matter. Neither should be sacrificed to the other. 3d. It is un
warrantable dogmatism arbitrarily to refer the two classes of phe-
nomena-to the same ground, while we are utterly unable logically
to resolve one class into the other. 4th. This theory is inconsist
ent with consciousness and experience, the solid grounds of all
3

34 THE BEING OF GOD.
our knowledge on this subject. (1.) While the senses are several,
and the bodily organization constantly changing, yet in every
complex experience, and through all time, the central T, which
thinks and feels, is an absolute unit. (2.) Matter is seen to be in
capable of originating action — the central I has the power of ab
solute causation. (3.) As far as we ever see organization is always
the result, never the cause of intelligence.
33. What is Idealism ?
As the Materialist holds that the sensible is the only real, and '
that mind is a modification of matter, so the extreme Idealist
holds that the sensitive and cognitive mind is the only real, and
that the phenomena of the material world are only modifica
tions of mind. When a man sees or feels a material object, the
thought or feeling of which he is conscious is within the mind
itself. The Idealist argues consequently that all the man really
knows is the thought or feeling of which he is conscious, and that
he can never be rationally certain whether there is any outward
reality corresponding to that inward state or not.
In the most extreme form this tendency leaves the individual
philosopher a solitary dreamer in the midst of the, world. He can
know nothing outside of himself and the successions of his own
thoughts. This is the subjective Idealism of Fichte.
In a lower degree this tendency leads to an Idealistic Pan
theism, when all the phenomena of the universe, internal and
external, is referred to the modifications of one infinite spirit,
which is God. Such is the Pantheism of Schelling and Hegel.
But the phrase, Idealism, is also applied, in a modified sense,
to those systems of philosophy which, while admitting the exist
ence both of matter and mind, yet build themselves ultimately
upon the unresolvable first principles of man's internal self-con
sciousness. 34.' What is Hylozoism ?
Hylozoism, compounded of two Greek words, vln wood, &r,
life — living, animated matter, designates a theory attributed to
Strato of Lampsacus, who, confounding life and intellect with
force and motion, regarded the universe as a vast animal self-de
veloping through the plastic power of its own inherent life, i. e.

PANTHEISM. 35
unconsciously self-developing from eternity. — Ritter, Hist. An.
Phil., book 9, chap. 6. •
35. What is Pantheism ?
Pantheism, as the etymology of the term indicates, signifies
that system which maintains that all phenomena of every class
known to man, whether spiritual or material, are to be referred
to but one substance, and that the universal substance of God ;
and thus, matter and mind being declared to be only different
modifications of one substance, Pantheism, from different points
of view, assumes sometimes a materialistic and at others an ideal
istic complexion. The Atheist says that there is no God, the Pan
theist that every thing is God. The Materialist says that all the
phenomena of the universe are to be referred to one substance,
which is matter. The Pantheist says that they are all to be re
ferred to one substance, and that the absolute substance of God.
Yet the Pantheist differs from the Atheist and Materialist more in
the color and tone than in, the essence of his creed. The Pan
theist's God is not a self-conscious, voluntary person, separate from
his creation, but he is that infinite, original, self-existent, uni
versal, unconscious, impersonal essence to which all proper attri
butes belong, intelligence as well as the attraction of gravitation,
whose infinitely various and ceaseless modifications of substance,
by a necessary law of eternal self-development, constitute all
things as they succeed each other in the universe of existence.
God is neither sun nor star, ocean nor mountain, wind nor rain,
man nor beast, but these are all fleeting modifications of God.
God is ever eternally the same himself, but he is eternally, and by
a necessary movement running through these endless cycles of
self-modification, coming to self-consciousness only transiently
in individual men, as they are born and die — and in the highest
sense of all coming to himself in the greatest men, those heroes iD
whom all lesser men see and worship God.
'This general system, modified endlessly as to special characteris
tics, has prevailed from the dawn of speculation as the necessary goal
of those proud intellects which maintain their capacity to appre
hend directly, and to philosphize worthily, upon the essential mys
teries of infinite and absolute being. It was for ages before Christ
the dream of the Hindoo theosophist, and of the Grecian Eleatic
philosopher. In modern times, from the days of Spinoza to the pre-

36 THE BEING OF GOD.
sent, it has been taught, among others, by Schelling, Hegel, Cousin,
Carlyle, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Among the ancient Greeks,
and to the present day among the Hindoos, the popular accompani
ment of this abstruse and atheistical speculation has been Polythe
ism. The Pantheistic philosopher, by a sweeping generalization,
referred all the powers of universal nature to one subject, the All.
Their uneducated cotemporaries, unable to reach so wide a general
ization, recognized a separate God in every energy of nature, and thus
worshipped Gods and Lords many. In modern times, on the other
hand, Polytheism having been for ever made impossible by Chistian-
ity, the popular accompaniment of Pantheism in Germany, France,
England, and America is the worship of man — sometimes hero-
worship, or the worship of great heroic men — sometimes of mankind
in the mass, as the highest form into which the deity is ever devel
oped, the clearest manifestation of God. This heresy is disproved —
1st. By the whole truth of human consciousness. If con
sciousness teaches us anything clearly it is that we ourselves are
distinct individual persons. Pantheism teaches that we are only
" parts or particles of God," springing from him and returning to
him, yet always part of him, as the waves are part of the sea.
2d. By the truth of all the judgments of conscience with re
gard, first, to sin; second, to moral responsibility. Pantheism, by
making every thing alike a necessary self-development of God,
makes sin impossible, destroys all distinction between good and
evil, and by denying the personality of God, and by making the
fleeting personality of man an illusion of his own consciousness,
it of course makes moral responsibility a myth.
3d. By the whole argument from Design, (see above, question
23,) Design proves intelligence and free will, self-conscious pur
pose, and therefore personality.
4th. Pantheism, by referring the phenomena of mind and of
matter to one substance, must oscillate between the absurdities of
Materialism and of Idealism. There is a choice of follies but no
middle ground.
5th. By the whole system of historical testimonies and ex
perimental evidences that establishes the truth of Christianity.
6th. By the uniformly degrading influence which this system
has always exercised upon the morals of every community that
has drunk deeply of its spirit.

CHAPTER II.
THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES.
1. How may religion, be defined ?
I. In the abstract, religion signifies the relation which man as
an intellectual and spiritual being sustains to (rod.'
II. In the concrete, religion signifies (1.) subjectively, that
inward spiritual state and experience which justly corresponds to
the reality of our relations to God ; thus a religious man is one
who has an inward religious experience ; (2.) objectively, those
doctrines, institutions, and practical observances whereby these
relations of God to man, and of man to God are revealed and pro
mulgated, and the duties corresponding to those relations are
practiced. In this sense the Mahomedan is a false, and the Chris
tian a true religion. — Dr. Hodge.
2. What is theology, and how is it to be distinguished from
religion ?
The English word theology is derived from the two Greek
words, 6s6c, Xoyoc, signifying discourse concerning God, then that
science which systematically comprehends all that is known to
man concerning God, and our relations to him. The terms the
ology and religion are contrasted thus :
Religion is practical and experimental. Theology is scientific.
Every religious man is a theologian just so far as his knowledge
is accurate and comprehensive. Every true theologian must be a
rehgious man as far as his knowledge is experimental. The more
accurate and comprehensively systematic our religious knowledge,
the more is it a theology ; and the more real and practical our
knowledge of God becomes, the more is our theology a religion.
Theology is to religion what physical science is to the practi
cal arts. It is not essential, though it would be an evident ad
vantage) if every artizan were a chemist, aid every navigator an

38 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES.
astronomer. Yet without science all art would be unintelligent
and limited. Theology defines religion, and sets it upon a more
certain ground. It purifies it from foreign alloy, and defends it
from all hostile attacks^ By making it more intelligent, it makes
it more worthy of God, and more effective for the salvation of
man. — Gaussen.
3. What is the distinction between natural and 'revealed the
ology ?
Natural theology is that science which proposes to itself the
solution of these two great questions, 1st, D^oes God exist ? and
2d, What may be. legitimately ascertained concerning the true
nature of God in himself, and concerning his relations to man,
from the principles of human reason and conscience, or from the
evidences of God's works, either in oreation or providence. A
distinction here must be carefully observed between that knowl
edge of God to which the human reason was able to attain by
means of its own unassisted powers independently of revelation,
e. g., the theology of Plato and Cicero, and that knowledge of
God which the human mind is now competent to deduce from the
phenomena of nature under the clear light of a supernatural reve
lation, e. g., the theology of the modern rationalistic philosophers,
Natural theology, as reached by unassisted reason, was fragmen
tary, inconsistent and uncertain. Natural theology, as .appropri
ated and vindicated by reason under the clear light of revelation,
is itself a strong witness to the truth and supernatural origin of
that revelation.
Revealed theology, on the other hand, is that science which
treats systematically, 1st, of the evidences authenticating the
Christian revelation as from God ; 2d, of the interpretation of
&.e records which transmit that revelation to us ; and 3d, of all
the information furnished by those records of God and his rela
tion to man, and of man and his relation to God.
4. What relation does philosophy sustain to lheology ?
Philosophy includes, 1st, the systematic treatment of all that
the reason of man teaches with regard to God, and those neces
sary and universal ideas, e. g., space and time, cause and effect,
right and wrong, etc., which He at the oasis of all human thought.

PHILOSOPHT AND THEOLOGY. 39
2d. The discovery and systematic treatment of all the known facts
of man's spiritual nature, i. e., psychology, or the science of mind.
3d. The discovery and systematic treatment of all the known
facts of God's works in material nature, i. e., physical, and physi
ological science in all their departments. 4th. The systematic
treatment of all the known facts of God's direction of human
actions in the events of history.
In its higher departments, philosophy includes the ground of
natural theology, as explained under the preceding question.
In all its departments philosophy sustains to revealed the
ology solely the relation of an humble handmaid : 1st. By dem
onstrating the weakness and narrow limits of human reason, and
the utter impossibility of the human mind, as at present consti
tuted, either solving or finally dismissing certain insolvabl'e ques
tions conditioning every system of theological or philosophical
thought. For " no difficulty emerges in theology which had not
previously emerged in philosophy." Thus teaching "that hu
mility is the cardinal virtue, not only of revelation, but of rea-'
son," (Sir W. Hamilton's Discussions, p. 588), and* thus proving
the necessity for a supernatural revelation, and inculcating the
necessity of a docile spirit upon the, part of the interpreters of
the inspired record. 2d. By helping us to understand more accu
rately the constitution of the human soul and the works of God
in creation, and thus to interpret more intelligently the doctrines
of revelation, as far as the constitution of man and the laws of
outward nature ale involved therein.
As a fact, however, the philosophy prevalent in any age or
nation has always, because of the presumption of the human in
tellect, been allowed to intrude upon and pervert in a greater or
less degree the cotemporaneous theology. Witness the influence
of Neo Platonism upon the early church ; the supreme reign of
the philosophy of Aristotle over the western church during the
middle ages ; the influence of the sensational philosophy of Hobes
and Locke over the theological thinking of the school of Priestly
in England, and of France during the last century, and of New
England until to-day ; the influence of the rationalistic philo
sophy of Leibnitz, Kant, etc., over the theology of Germany,
France of the present day, and the . followers of Coleridge and

40 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES.
Carlyle down to the Parker and Emerson school in America. — See
Pearson on Infidelity, part ii., chap. 2.
5. What is the true source of an authoritative theology ? and
what are the three great parties which stand opposed to one an
other on this subject ?
I. The Rationalists, who are of different schools, (see below,
question 8), yet unite in the common principle of exalting
human reason as either the sole and sufficient source, or at least
the measure and judge of all possible, knowledge of God on the
part of man.
^ II. The Romanists, who, denying that knowledge is necessary
to genuine faith, or that faith is founded in any sense upon reason,
maintain that the authority of the church as an infallible teacher
is the ultimate foundation of all confidence, and that the Holy
Scriptures, and ecclesiastical tradition as ascertained and inter
preted by the church, are the' sole sources of theological knowl
edge. — See below, chap. vi. and chap xxvii., question 6.
III. Protestants occupy an intermediate position between
the two extremes just stated. These hold (1.) That reason
is an original revelation of God to man, and therefore no subse
quent supernatural revelation can be given to man, which is not,
a, addressed to us as rational beings, and through the channel of
our reasons, and 5, consistent with the clear and certain deduc
tions of reason acting legitimately within her own sphere. (2.)
As reason has, by all experience, been proved insufficient to guide
man in religious knowledge, and as God has been pleased to put
into our hands an infallible record of a supernatural and all-suffi
cient revelation of himself, therefore the ultimate ground of our
confidence, and source of all our theological knowledge, is solely
the word of God 'signified in the Holy Scriptures. (3.) Never
theless, as revelation is addressed to our reason, (by reason includ
ing heart and conscience with the understanding), therefore its
evidences are to be authenticated to reason, and the words of the
record interpreted by reason according to her own laws.
6. How can the position of the Romish Church on this subject
le disproved ?
The Romish position with regard to ecclesiastical traditioD

RATIONALISM. 41
and the authority of the church as an inspired teacher are shown
to be false in the chapter <Jn " The Scriptures the only Rule of
Faith and Judge of Controversies."
I would say here in addition that the Romanist, in advocating
his system of implicit faith, has to reason in order to prove that
reason is a false guide. The Protestant, on the other hand, rea
sons in order to prove that reason in itself is insufficient, but that
in her last result she leads to a revelation that reaches beyond,
though it can not contradict her.
7. What are the different senses in which the term reason is
used ?
Sometimes the term reason is used as equivalent to the mere
understanding as distinct from the higher moral and intuitive
faculties of the soul. Sometimes it is used with exclusive refer
ence to the d priori exercises of reason, in exclusion of all the
materials of experience and history.
In this connection we, on the other hand4 use the word reason
to include the whole of man's faculty of knowing the truth as it
exists at present in his fallen condition, informed by all the lights
of his moral, emotional and spiritual nature, by his personal ex
perience, and by all the natural light of the world without, as the
works of God and the history of mankind.
8. What are the different positions held by the several classes
of Rationalists ?
The term Rationalist and Rationalistic have been used in dif
ferent schools in very different senses: In general, however, it
may be said, 1st, that in philosophy that system is rationalistic
which, in a greater or less degree, starts from d priori principles
constitutional to the human mind, and interprets all experience
and history, except in those extreme systems where the validity
of experience and history is altogether denied, in subordination'to
these principles. Thus every philosophical system may be said
in some sense to be rationalistic which does not draw all knowl
edge from the bodily senses. But, 2d, in Christian theology that
system is properly called rationalistic which either rejects the pos
sibility of a supernatural revelation altogether, or which inter
prets the records of that revelation in subordination to the pre-

42 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES.
viously settled conclusions of the human intellect, or the intuitive
sentiments of the human heart. Thus, when any philosophy
whatsoever is allowed to modify the interpretation of the Scrip
tures by its own independent principles, the result is a rational
istic system, whether the philosophy so modifying them is itself
rationalistic or eminently the reverse. For instance, 1st. The
rationalism of Priestly and the old school of English and American
Unitarians sprang from interpreting the Scriptures under the rule
of the lowest sensational and materialistic philosophy. 2d. The
rationalism of the modern Germans and their disciples in England
and America springs from subjecting all revelation to the supreme
rule of the & priori principles of reason. 3d. The rationalism of
the new school of Newman and Parker, self-styled " spiritual," has
its source in elevating the natural, moral intuitions and feelings
common to all men to the seat of supreme judge.
It will serve a good purpose to group the different classes of
rationalists thus.
I. Those who deny the possibility and necessity of a super
natural revelation at all.
(1.) The Pantheists of all schools. They maintain that since
God is equally in all things and in all events, all phenomena are
consequently equally .modifications, and therefore equally revela
tions of him. There is a higher, though not more real sense, in
which God reveals himself in man, and most conspicuously in
heroic men, so that in a1 rising scale of revelation, God is in the
same sense, though in different degrees, revealed in Plato, Moses,
Paul, and Jesus Christ.
(2.) Others, as F. W. Newman, Theodore Parker, etc., and in
tendency certainly Mr. Morell, in his "Philosophy of Religion,"
maintain that from the very nature of religion the object, and
from the constitution of man the subject, of divine knowledge, no
religious revelation is possible to man, except through the exer
cise of his natural faculty of spiritual intuition. Newman and
Parker maintain that this intuition is sufficient for man in its
normal state, and that there is therefore an element of permanent
and universal truth common to Christianity and all other relig
ions, while the special history and doctrines of all of them are the
mere outward symbols which thinkers of the nineteenth century
have outgrown. Morell, on the other hand, admits that in the

SUPERNATURAL REVELATION POSSIBLE. 43
case of the writers of the Christian Scriptures, this natural faculty
of spiritual intuition was exalted in a manner very much the same
as that which we understand by spiritual illumination, which ac
companies every case of genuine Christian sanctification ; thus
the apostles were inspired only in so far as they were preeminently
holy and profoundly experienced in divine things.
(3.) Others hold, like the old Deists, that no revelation has
been given, because none was needed. Stealing their conceptions
of God- from revelation, they argue from the sufficiency of the
knowledge which natural theology presents that no supernatural
revelation is necessary.
II. There remains another large class of rationalists, distin
guished among themselves however by many special triats, and
carrying their principles to very various degrees, who, while ad
mitting the fact of a divine revelation, assert the right of reason
to sit in judgment upon the truth, and to discriminate in the
record the true from the false. Thus, (1.) different inspired books
have been rejected on internal evidence. (2.) The supernatural
element has been declared irrational. The old school rationalists
denied that this element was in the Scriptures, and try by des
perate feats of exegesis to prove it not there. The result of that
controversy has anihilated that school of rationalists for ever.
The new school admit that there is a supernatural element in the
Scriptures, and that so far forth the Scriptures are not pure,
rational truth, and are to be improved upon. (3.) The distin
guishing doctrines of the gospel have either been rejected or radi
cally perverted, because regarded in their genuine form inconsist
ent with man's innate, moral sentiments'. — See Mansel's Lectures
of Religious Thought, Lecture 1, and Pearson on Infidelity, Part
I., chap. iii. and iv.
9. How may it be shown that a supernatural revelation is
possible ?
The natural sources through which men derive whatever
knowledge they may attain to by nature are, 1st, Their bodily
senses ; 2d, Their inward consciousness informing them through
the laws of their own mental, moral, and emotional constitution.
3d. By reflection and imagination these materials of knowledge
are with infinite variety rearranged in new relations, and new

44 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES.
consequences are logically deduced from them. 4th. The experi
ence and the results of the reflection of other men, conveyed to
them through language.
Now it appears self-evident that the God who made man may
at any time convey, to men any new knowledge their faculties are
capable of receiving.
I. Even new simple ideas may be excited within his mind by
means of a supernatural spiritual illumination and inward expe
rience. God does act upon the finite soul, though we can not
understand how he acts ; and yet we can understand that- if such
an experience be excited in the mind, the man would have the
same knowledge of the matter of this new experience that he has
of the matter of his perceptions through his bodily senses.
II. It is clear that God may convey by means of visions, lan
guage or otherwise any information not involving new elementary
ideas, just as any man may, by means of signs, convey any such
information that he is possessed of to the mind of another.
Many modern rationalists make a very senseless objection to
the possibility of what they call a " book revelation." They ar
gue that a book is composed of words, and that words- are mere
arbitrary signs which have power to excite only those ideas which
are already in the mind ; and therefore if Paul, by a divine influ
ence, had been elevated to the intuition of a new spiritual truth,
he could not by words communicate those spiritual truths to any
who have not already the same ideas latent in their minds. In
answer to this, we admit that simple or elementary ideas can not
be first taught by words. No man can know color without an
eye, or moral right without a moral sense. — (See Lock's Essay,
Book IV., chap, xviii, sect. 3.) But, on the other hand, it is too
plain to be denied.
I. That the revelations of the Bible consist principally of facts,
promises, commands, and threatenings, and that the reception of
no new elementary ideas, in the proper sense of that word, is in-
volved in Christian faith. The primary ideas of the soul, intellec
tual and moral, are involved in this revelation, and gloriously ex
alted in new combinations and relations. — See Alexander's Moral
Science, chaps, ii. and xii.
II. That God can convey to man, by means of language, in
formation with regard to himself and his purposes, not involving

SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NECESSARY. 45
new elementary ideas, just as clearly and as certainly as one man
can convey any new information to any other.
III. The Scriptures themselves teach that the spiritual beauty
and power of the revelation they convey can be discerned only by
means of a supernatural spiritual illumination and inward practi
cal experience. The work of the Spirit accompanying the word
completes the revelation ; and although the Spirit thus dispensed
communicates no new truth, but only leads the heart and con
science to the experience of the full spiritual idea conveyed by the
word, yet there is a true sense in which the Bible is a revelation
only to those who have the Spirit.
10. How may it be shown that a supernatural revelation is
necessary for man ?
I. From reason itself ; for, although in man's original con
dition reason doubtless was a sufficient guide, yet reason itself
teaches us (1.) that man's intellectual and moral nature is disor
dered and not capable of perfectly fulfilling its original functions.
(2.) That man's relations to God are complicated by guilt and
alienation, and that the light of nature discovers no remedy for
men in this state.
II. The human heart universal craves such revelation from
God, and has always manifested its readiness to receive even
counterfeits of one in the absence of the true.
III. Reason has never, in the entire course of human history,
availed to afford man religious comfort and certainty, and to lead
him in the way of moral rectitude. — 1 Cor. i., 20, 21. Revela
tion has. Both have been tried upon a wide scale, the one has
proved sufficient, the other has failed.
IV. The highest prophets of reason are not agreed among
themselves ; no two prominent rationalists agree as to what the
all sufficient and universal religious teaching of reason is. Their
mutual inconsistency demonstrates the worthlessness of their com
mon principle.
11. What is the distinction between reason and faith, and
what in the legitimate use of reason in the sphere of religion ?
The general definition of faith is, " assent to the truth upon
the exhibition of its appropriate evidence," (see Chapter on Faith.)

46 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES.
This assent in many of its modes is an act of the understanding
alone, and in all cases it involves the action of the understanding,
working concurrently with the will (or heart). But when we
contrast faith and reason as mutually exclusive, then we define
reason to be man's natural faculty of reaching the'truth, includ
ing his understanding, heart, conscience, and experience, acting
under natural circumstances, and without any supernatural as
sistance. And we define faith, on the other hand, to be the assent
of the mind to truth, upon the testimony of God, conveying knowl
edge to us through supernatural channels. As to the authority
and legitimate use of reason in' the sphere of theology, Protest
ants admit,
I. That reason is the original and fundamental revelation of
God to man.
II. Reason is therefore involved and presupposed in every
other revelation God will ever give to man. Tke Scriptures ad
dress us as rational creatures, and to the irrational they are no
more a revelation than light is to the blind.
III. God can not even be supposed to reveal any thing which
contradicts reason, acting legitimately within her own province.
For then (1.) would God, who speaks first hi reason, contradict
himself, and (2.) faith would be impossible. To believe is to as
sent to a thing as true. To see a thing to be contrary to reason
is to see it not to be true. These opposite states of mind can not
concur at the same time.
But, on the other hand, Protestants maintain that it is essen
tial for us to settle definitely the limits of the office of reason with
regard to divine things.
I. It is self-evident that there is a total difference between a
thing being above reason, and its being clearly contrary to reason,
acting legitimately in its own sphere. The ignorant boor has no
right to measure the philosopher by his standard ; and much less,
of course, has the philosopher a right to measure God by his.
Many things are claimed to be contrary to reason which only ap
pear to be such because of our ignorance. " Humility becomes
the cardinal virtue, not only of revelation but of reason."
II. Human reason utterly fails to grasp the idea of the in
finite, or to understand the relation of the infinite to the finite.
From this universal incapacity springs the mystery which attends

TRUE OFFICE OF REASON. 47
so many of the revelations and providential dispensations of the
infinite God. Hence the insolvable nature of such questions as
the origin of evil, divine foreknowledge, foreordination, and
concurrent providence with relation to the free agency of man,
etc., etc.
III. Hence it follows that reason can not be the measure of
our faith ; we must believe, and that rationally, much that we
can not understand. We must use reason to reach the knowledge
of what God means by his words, and what he would have us be
lieve. But to understand the meaning of words is one thing, and
to understand hoiv the thing we believe exists in all of its rela
tions, is entirely a different thing. We believe ten thousand
things with respect to the phenomena of our earthly life that we
can not understand ; how much more may we do so rationally
with respect to the information conveyed to us by a supernatural
revelation concerning divine things.
IV. Hence it follows that reason can not be the ultimate
ground of our faith ; this rests only upon the knowledge and
truth of God, who speaks to us in his word. Reason established
the fact that God speaks, but when we know what he says, we
beheve it because he says it.
The use of reason in the sphere of theology is, 1st, to exa
mine the authenticating evidence of revelation, and to decide the
fact that God is speaking therein.
2d. To interpret, with the help of every light of the most va
rious learning, the records of revelation,, and to determine impar
tially what God does say to us therein.
This work of interpretation includes besides the grammatical
rendering of every text by itself, the careful comparison of Scrip
ture with Scripture, the limitation of one class of passages by an
other bearing upon the same subject, and thus a development, by
an impartial induction from all Scripture, of the entire harmon
ious system of truth God has therein revealed.
3d. Be it remembered that reason can accomplish this much
successfully only as it is informed by a sanctified heart, and guided
by the Holy Ghost.
4th. Reason can be of further use in this matter only as the
servant and instrument of faith, in promulgating, illustrating, and
in defending the truth. ¦

48 THEOLOGY AND ITS SOURCES.
12. Give a summary statement of the different departments
of Christian theology ?
The three grand departments of Christian theology are, I.
The Exegetical, the object of which is to arrive at the exact mind
of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of the text. This depart
ment includes as preparatory the study of the original languages,
the critical settlement of the text in its integrity, also Bibhcal
geography, antiquities, and the science of the Old Testament types
in their relation to the gospel. ,
II. The Dogmatic, or Systematic, the object of which is by
means of a just comparison and impartial induction from the
sacred text truly interpreted, to present a scientific exhibition- of
all the doctrines of the Bible in their essential relations. This
includes (1.) Anthropology, or the teaching of the Scripture con
cerning man and his relation to God. (2.) Theology proper, or
the doctrine concerning God and his relation to man, and (3.)
Soterology, or the doctrine of salvation.
III. The Practical, the object of which is to deduce from the
doctrines and precepts of the Bible rules for the organization and
administration of the Christian Church in all her functions, and
for the guidance of the individual Christian in all the relations of
life.

CHAPTER III.
THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
1. How may the evidences authenticating the truth of Chris
tianity be classified ?
They have been most commonly classified as, 1st. External,
i e., Those evidences which accompanied the persons who acted as
the organs of revelation and authenticated their, claims, e. g., mir
acles and prophecy. 2d. Internal, i. e., Those evidences which
are inherent in the divine message and in the inspired records
thereof, such as may be decided without any reference to external
sources of fact and testimony, e. g., the moral perfection of the
Christian system, 'the miraculous harmony of all the books, the
supernatural intelligence they discover, the spiritual power of the
truth, etc., etc.
Another classification, less common, but more exact, may be
founded upon the distinction between the different principles of
the human soul to which the several kinds of evidence are ad
dressed. Thus, 1st. The rational evidence, or that which presents
itself to the rational faculties of man. This class embraces the
evidence of history, miracles, prophecy, undesigned coincidences,
general harmony of records, etc. 2d. The moral evidence, or that
which presents itself to the judgment of the moral sense. 3d.
Spiritual evidence, or that which can be judged only by the spirit
ual man as the result of his personal experience of the power of
these truths when spiritually discerned.
A third classification may be presented thus, 1st. These vari
ous sources of evidence theoretically considered, i. e., treated by
the understanding as the basis of a theoretical judgment. 2d.
That practical evidence which results from putting the principles
of Christianity, its precepts and promises to the test of practical
experience.

50. , THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Without following either of these principles exclusively, I
shall attempt to establish the following positions in the order.
1st. God and human nature, being what they are clearly known
to be in the meie light of reason and experience, a special revelation
from God to man is antecedently in the highest sense prqbable.
2d. The Old and New Testaments, whether the word of God
or not, are, beyond question, both genuine and authentic his
torical records.
3d. The miracles alleged in evidence of the Christian religion
are established as facts by abundant testimony, and when ad
mitted as facts they invincibly demonstrate the religion they ac
company to be from God.
4th. The same is true with regard to the prophesies contained
in the Scriptures. The truth of Christianity is established also —
5th. By the miraculous harmony of all the books, and by the
other phenomena of supernatural knowledge which they present.
6th. By the character of the moral system they teach.
7th. By the character of its Founder.
8th. By the spiritual power of Christianity, as testified in the
religious experience of its individual subjects, and also by its wider
influence over communities and nations in successive generations.
9th. By the history of its early successes.
2. How can it be proved that a supernatural revelation from
God to man is antecedently probable ?
We have already exhibited the evidences derived from the
evident traces of design in the creation, and from the no less evi
dent character of that design in its relation to sensitive creatures,
and from the phenomena of conscience, that God is infinitely in
telligent, benevolent, and righteous. He not only provides, for
all the wants of his creatures as they occur, but he always adapts
their condition and circumstances to the nature with which he has
endowed them.
But the preeminent characteristics of man are : 1st. That
he is a moral agent, and therefore needs a clearly revealed rule of
duty. 2d. That he is essentially religious. Universal history
proves the universality and supreme power of this principle in the
human heart.
In a state of nature this craving after God uniformly reveals

SCRIPTURES AUTHENTIC HISTORY. *51
man's moral and religious darkness. Fear and uncertainty char
acterize every one of the thousand forms assumed by false re
ligions, and the heart of man everywhere longs for light and cer
tainty. — Acts xvii., 23.
The intelligence of God leads us to hope that he has adapted
the means to the end, and that he will crown a religious nature
with a supernatural religion.
The benevolence of God leads us to hope that he will relieve
the grievous bewilderment and avert the danger of his creatures.
The righteousness of God leads us to hope that he will speak
in distinct and authorative tones to the conscience.
Having already revealed himself in nature, though only suf
ficiently to stimulate us to uncertain and painful action, we may
surely hope that' by a second revelation he will lead us to cer
tainty, if not to peace.
3. What two points are involved in the proposition, that the
sacred Scriptures, whether the word of God or not, are yet un
questionably genuine and authentic historical records ?
1st. That the Old and New Testaments were written respec
tively by the several writers, and in the several ages which they
themselves set forth, and that they have come down to us without
material change.
2d. That these writers were honest and intelligent, men who
proposed to themselves to write authentic history.
4. How can it be proved that these books were written by the
authors, by whom, and at the times in which they respectively
profess to have been written ?
The evidence establishing this fact in behalf of both Testa
ments is greater than that establishing the genuineness of all
other ancient writings put together. This evidence is set forth at
large under Chapter VI., on the Canon. They may be summarily
indicated thus : —
1st. These writings are in the precise language, dialect, and
general style which are known to be proper to their professed
authors and age.
2d. The Jews and Christians, who were cotemporaries of the
authors of these books, received them as inspired, circulated them

52" THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
in al! synagogues and churches, transcribed and preserved them
with superstitious care.
3d. There remain to this day, among both Jews and Chris
tians, those institutions and monuments the origin of which these
records relate as part of their cotemporaneous history ; the fact
of the institution verifying, of course, both the credibility of the
writings and the cotemporaneousness of their origin respectively
with that of the institutions they describe.
4th. As to the Old Testament. The Pentateuch has been in
the keeping of hostile parties, Jewish and Samaritan, since at
least six or seven hundred years before Christ. The whole Old
Testament has been in the custody both of Jews and Christians
ever since the birth of Christ.
5th. The evidence borne by ancient versions.
6th. The testimony of Josephus and the Christian Fathers of
the first three centuries, presented in their fists of the sacred books
and numerous quotations from them.
5. How can it be proved that these writings contain authentic
history ?
1st. Leslie, in his " Short Method with the Deisms," sets down
the four following marks as establishing, when they all meet to
gether, beyond all doubt the truth of any matter of fact.
(1.) That the matter of fact be such that men's outward
senses may be judges of it.
(2.) That it be done openly in the face of the world.
(3.) That not only public monuments be kept up in memory
of it, but some outward action be performed.
(4.) That such monuments and such actions be instituted,
and do commence from the time that the matter of fact was
done. All of these marks concur in establishing the truth of the
most remarkable facts related in the inspired records, and conse
quently in confirming their truth as a whole. These monuments
and actions are such as follows : The weekly Sabbath circum
cision, the passover, the yearly feasts, the Aaronic priesthood,
the temple and its services, baptism, the Lord's supper, and the
Christian ministry. These must date from the facts they com
memorate, and prove that the cotemporaries of those facts, and

MIRACLES. 53
every generation of tleir descendants since, have believed the
history to be authentic.
2d. Many of the principal facts are corroborated by nearly co-
temporary infidel writers, as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.
3d. Many of the facts of the gospel history are corroborated
by, it is said, as many as fifty Christian authors of the first four
centuries. — Angus' Bible Handbook, page 85.
4th. The sacred historians are perfectly accurate whenever they
allude to any facts of cotemporaneous profane history, e. g., Luke
ii., 1, etc. — See Conybeare and Howson's Life of St. Paul.
5th. The character of the writers. (1.) They were honest a
because their doctrine was holy — bad men never would have taught
such a code, good men would not wilfully deceive ; b, because both '
prophets and' apostles sealed their testimony by their sufferings
and death ; and c because of their evident candor in narrating
many things to their own disadvantage, personally, and appar
ently inimical to the interests of their cause. — See Paley's Evi
dences, Part II. (2.) They were not fanatics, because the modesty
and moderation of their words and actions is as manifest as their
zeal. •
6th. There exists the most accurate agreement between the
several historical books, as to matters of fact, and such subtle co
incidences as to details between narratives widely differing in form
and purpose, that all suspicion of fraud is rendered impossible. —
See Paley's Horse Paulinas and Blunt's Undesigned Coincidences.
7th. All of their geographical and local allusions and refer
ences to the customs of ancient nations are verified by modern re
search. 6. What is a miracle, and how are such events designated in
Scripture ?
A miracle is an act of God, the physical effect of which is visi
ble and evidently incapable of being rationally assigned to any
natural cause, designed as a sign authenticating the divine mis
sion of some religious teacher.
These are called, therefore, in the New Testament sometimes,
tgya, works, John v., 36 ; vii., 21 ; sometimes, orjfielov, a sign,
Mark xvi., 20 ; sometimes, dvvdfieig, translated in our version,
wonderful works, Matthew vii., 22, and mighty works, Matthew

54 THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
xi., 20, and miracles, Acts ii., 22 ; sometimes, repag, wonder.
" Signs, wonders, and powers, or miracles," occur together, Acts
ii., 22 ; 2 Corinthians xii., 12 ; Hebrews ii., 4.
7. What is Hume's famous argument against the credibility
of miracles, and how may that argument be disposed of?
Hume argues, 1st, that miracles are professedly established on
the evidence of human testimony. 2d. That the power of human
testimony to induce our faith arises from our experience of the
truthfulness of testimony. 3d. In cases of conflicting evidence
¦we must weigh the one against the other and decide for the
stronger. 4th. That a miracle is a violation of a law, of nature.
But the universal experience of ourselves, and of the whole human
family, prove that the laws of nature are uniform without excep
tion. We have, then, universal experience against the testimony
of a few men, and, on the other hand, only a partial experience
that human testimony is credible, for all testimony is not true.
No amount of human testimony, therefore, the credibility of
which is guaranteed only by a partial experience, can induoe a
rational belief that the laws of nature were suspended, because
their absolute uniformity is established by universal experience.
In answer we admit that universal experience, establishes the
uniformity of a law of nature as such. But it is this precisely
that makes a miracle possible, otherwise we could not discrimi
nate between the natural and the supernatural. A miracle is a
supernatural act, and universal experience testifies nothing upon
the subject, further than that nature being uniform, a supernat
ural act might be recognized as such, if it occurred. Negative
evidence has no force against well established positive evidence.
But the fact that men in China never saw a miracle in six? thou
sand years proves absolutely nothing as to whether men in Judea
did or did not see them on many occasions.
More men and worthier have seen miracles than ever were in
a condition to prove by testimony the descent of meteoric stones.
Does water never freeze because universal experience in Africa
knows nothing of such a phenomenon ?
Hume argued that miracles are incredible, that even if they
occurred they could not be established on the evidence of human
testimony. Stauss, and the German, Pantheists generally, main*

CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESMAMENT MIRACLES. 55
tain that miracles are impossible. They hold nature to be an
eternal and necessary development of God, it, therefore, can not
be suspended or violated. A miracle, therefore, being a suspen
sion of the laws of nature, is impossible.
8. How far do miracles, when the fact of their occurrence is
clearly established, avail to authenticate a divine revelation ?
Some object that miracles may be wrought by evil spirits in
support of the kingdom of darkness, Matthew xxiv., 24 ; 2 Thes-
salonians ii., 9 ; Revelations xiii., 13. To this class they refer
witchcraft, sorcery, spirit-rapping, etc., (see Trench on Miracles,
Preliminary Essays, chap, iii.) But surely the genuine miracle,
being an act of God, can always, as every other divine act, be dis
tinguished from the works of Satan. The marks are, the charac
ter of the person and of the doctrine in authentication of which
the miracle is wrought, and the character of the miracle itself.
Jesus constantly appeals to the miracles which he wrought as
conclusive evidence as to the divinity of his mission. — John v.,
36 and xiv., 11 ; Hebrews ii., 4.
9. In what essential qualities is the unquestionable genuine
ness of the New Testament miracles made manifest. ?
1st. The dignity, power and benevolence of the works them
selves. *.
2d. The peerless dignity and purity of the men whose missions
they authenticated.
3d. The purity and spiritual power of the doctrines they ac
company. 4th. Moreover, God's revelation constitutes one system, evolved
gradually through seventeen centuries from Moses to the Apostle
John, every step of which mutually gives and receives authentica
tion from all that precedes and follows. Taking the two dispen
sations in their historical, typical and prophetical relations, the
miracles performed id their several epochs mutually confirm one
another. Besides all this, the gospel miracles were definite, and unques
tionably supernatural events, and were easily seen and recognized
as such by all intelligent witnesses ; they were performed in the
sight of multitudes in various places, and on different occasions ;

56 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. — PROPHECY.
they were accurately recorded by several witnesses who, while
varying as to details, corroborate each other ; and they were never
disproved by early enemies, nor doubted by early friends.
10. What is a prophecy, and how does it avail to authenticate
a revelation claiming to be divine ?
Prophecy has been well described as a miracle of knowledge,
as those works of God, commonly so called, are miracles of power.
A prophecy is a communication by God of supernatural knowl
edge concerning the future, with the design of proving thereby the
divine origin of a message claiming to be from God.
A miracle of power proves itself such at once, and is then
handed down to future generations only by the testimony of eye
witnesses. A prophecy, or miracle of knowledge, proves itself to
be such only subsequently by its "fulfillment, while, on the other
hand, it has the advantage of always remaining a monument of
its own truth, cotemporaneous with every succeeding generation.
Besides verbal prophecies, the Old Testament is full of types,
or prophetical symbols, which have their exact fulfillment in the
person and works of Christ.
11. What are the discriminating marks which must neces
sarily concur in any unquestionably authentic prophecy ?
1st. It must have been uttered as a prophecy from the begin
ning. A happy coincidence must not be allowed to occasion such
a claim as an after-thought.
2d. The prophecy must have a definite meaning, which is
brought to light and put beyond question by the fulfillment.
The more definite the statement, and the greater number of de
tails corresponding between the prophecy and the event, the more
conclusive is the evidence.
3d. The prophecy must not be of such a character that it can
lead to its own fulfillment, by way of suggestion to the human
agents engaged therein.
4th. It must be worthy of God, as to dignity and purity, both
in its own character and in the system of faith and practice with
which it is associated. — Dr. McGill in University Lectures.
12. State some of the more remarkable instances of fulfilled
prophecy.

CONSTITUTION OF SCRIPTURE. 57
t
1st. Old Testament prophecies concerning, (1.), the present
state of the Jews. — Hosea, ix., 17/ ; Jer. xxiv., 9, and (2.), Tyre,
Isa. chap, xxiii. ; Joel iii., 4-6 ; Ezek. chaps, xxvi.-xxviii
Amos i., 9 and 10 ; Zech. ix., 1-8. (3.) Nineveh, Nahum, i.,
9 ; ii., 8-13 ; hi., 17-19, and Zeph. ii., 13-15. (4.) Babylon, Is
chaps, xiii., xiv., xii v., and xlv. ; Jer. chaps. 1. and li. (5.) The
Chaldean, Medeo-Persian, Grecian and Roman empires, Dan. ii
31-45 ; vii., 17-20, and chaps, viii. and ix.
2d. The Old Testament predictions concerning Christ. Gen.
xlix., 10 ; Is. vii., 14 ; ix., 6 and 7 ; xi., 1 and 2 ; xiii., 1-4, and
chap. liii. ; Dan. ix., 24-27 ; Ps. xvi., 10 ; Zech. xi., 12, 13 ; Hag.
ii., 6-9 ; Mai. iii., 1 ; Micah, v., 2.
3d. The predictions uttered by Christ and the Apostles. (1.)
The destruction of Jerusalem, Matt. chap, xxiv ; Mark, chap, xiii.,
and Luke, chap. xxi. (2.) The anti-Christian apostacy, 2 Thess.
:i., 3-12 ; 1 Tim. iv., 1-A. — Homes' Introduction.
13. Show that the relation which the different books of Scrip
ture and their contents sustain to each other prove them to con
stitute one divinely inspired whole.
This wonderful constitution of the sacred volume is a miracle
of intelligence, the authenticating evidence of which is, therefore,
analogous to that furnished by prophecy. It consists of sixty-
six separate books, including every form of composition on every
variety of subject, composed by about forty different writers of
every condition in life, from peasant to prince, writing at intervals
through seventeen centuries of time, from Moses to 'the death of
the Apostle John. These men develope a revelation which is
constantly unfolding itself through all those years. The pre
paratory portions served a temporary purpose in the immediate
circumstances under which they were written, yet their true sig
nificance lay hid in their typical and prophetical relation to the
parts that were to come. Now that we possess the whole, we can
easily see that during all those years those various writers elabor
ated, without concert, qne work ; each subordinate part finding
its highest reason in the great center and keystone of' the whole,
the person of Christ: Each successive part fulfilled all that has
preceded it, and adjusted itself prophetically to all that came
after. The preparatory system as a whole is fulfilled in the gos-

58 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
pel ; each type in its anti-type, each prophecy in its event. This
intelligence is the mind of God, which is the same through all
times, and which, adjusting all details, comprehends all in one
end. — Dr. R. J. Breckenridge in University Lectures.
14. In what other respects do the Scriptures pfesent the phe
nomena of a supernatural intelligence ?
Every other ancient writing, attempting to set forth the origin,
nature and destiny of man, whether' it be professedly divine, as
the Hindoo Veds, or simply the record of human speculation, as
the works of Aristotle and Plato, betrays total ignorance as to
astronomy, geography, terrestrial physics, and as to the intellec
tual and spiritual nature of man. Modern science overthrows the
claims of every uninspired ancient writing to authority on these
subjects. But observe,
1st. The Scriptures teach us all we know concerning the early
history of the human race and the colonization of the principal
divisions of the earth. The facts which they reveal explain much
otherwise dark, and th'ey come in contact with not one well estab
lished fact otherwise known. — Gen. chap. 10.
2d. This early history gives us the only known, and, in the
view of reason, a transcendently luminous explanation, of many
questions growing out of the painful mystery of man's present
moral condition and relations.
3d. These writings alone, of all ever written, are entirely free
from all the errors and prejudices of the age and people from whom
they sprang; and from the earliest ages' the results of human
science, in its gradual advance, have without a single exception
fallen into perfect narmony with them, so that the writings of
Moses, sixteen centuries b. c, stand fully abreast of the last attain
ments of the human mind in the ninteenth century after Christ.
4th. The Ten Commandments, as a generalized statement of
all human duties, the Proverbs of Solomon, as the highest lessons
of practical wisdom, the Psalms of David, as utterances of the
most profound rehgious experiences, all have remained for thirty
centuries unapproachably the best of their kind.
5th. No other writing has exercised such power over the human
conscience, or probed so deeply the human heart. This power it
has tested upon the ignorant and the learned, the savage and the

MORAL EVIDENCE. 59
*
refined, the virtuous and the vicious, the young and the old, of
every generation and tribe of men. Yet these books proceeded
from the Jewish nation, a people rude and ignorant, and more
narrow and bigoted than any other, and from writers chiefly drawn
from the least educated classes. Surely they must have been
moved by the Spirit of God.
15. How may the divine origin of Christianity be argued
from its moral character ?
It is neither a well-founded nor a safe position for the advo
cates of revelation to assume that they are competent to form an
d priori judgment of the kind of revelation that God ought to
make. Yet let it be considered that, although we cannot always
know what it is wise for God to do, nor see the wisdom of all he
has done, yet we can infallibly discern in his works the presence
of a supernatural intelligence. Precisely so we cannot prescribe
what it is right for God to do, nor always understand the right
eousness of what he has done, nevertheless we can infallibly dis
cern in his word a moral excellence and power altogether super
human. The moral system taught in the Bible is —
1st. The most perfect standard of righteousness ever known
among men. (1.) It respects the inward state of the soul. (2.)
The virtues which it inculcates, although many of them are re
pugnant to human pride, are, nevertheless, more essentially excel
lent than, those originally set forth in any other system, e. g., hu
mility, meekness, long-suffering, patience, love the fulfilling of the
law, and the intrinsic hatefulness and ill desert of all sin.
2d. This morality is set forth as a duty we owe to an infinite
God. His will is the rule, his love the motive, his glory the end
of all duty.
3d. It is enforced by the highest possible motives, e. g., infi
nite happiness and honor as the objects of God's approbation, or
infinite misery and shame as the objects of his displeasure.
4th. This moral system is perfectly adapted to the whole na
ture of man, physical, intellectual, moral, and to all of the multi
form relations which he" sustains to his fellow-men and to God.
It includes every principle and rules every thought and emotion,
and provides for every relation. It is never guilty of the least

60 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
*
solecism. It never falls below the highest right, and yet nevei
generates enthusiasm or fanaticism, nor does it ever fail in any
unexpected development of relations or circumstances.
Hence we conclude —
1st. That this system necessarily presupppses upon the part
of its constructors a supernatural knowledge of man's nature and
relations, and a supernatural capacity of adapting general princi
ples to the moral regulation of that nature under all relations.
2d. This system, when compared with all others known to
man, necessarily suggests the possession by its constructors of a
supernaturally perfect ideal of moral excellence.
3d. Bad men never could have conceived such a system, nor
having conceived it, would they have desired, much less died,/ to
to establish it. Good men never could have perpetrated such a
fraud as the Bible is if not true.
16. How is the divine origin of Christianity proved by the
character of its Founder ?
That character, as it is known to us, is the resultant of the
biographical contributions severally -of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John. They evidently write without concert, and each with a
special immediate object. They, in the most candid and inarti
ficial manner, detail his words and actions; they never generalize ¦
or sketch his character in' abstract terms, nor attempt to put
their subject, or the word or action related of him, in an advan
tageous light.
, Yet this character of Christ is —
1st. Identical, (see Paley's Ev., Part II., chap, iv.,) i. e., these
four different wiiters succeed in giving us one perfectly consistent
character in every trait of thought, feeling, word, and action.
They must have drawn therefore from the Hfe. Such a composi
tion by four different hands, writing in their inartificial, unsyste
matic way, would be the most incredible of all miracles.
2d. Unique and original. There have been many other
redeemers, prophets, priests, and incarnate gods portrayed in
mythology ; but this character confessedly stands without the
shadow of competition in universal history or fiction. And J ews
3f all men, were the authors of it.
3d. Morally and spiritually perfect, by the confession of all

EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 61
friends and foes. This perfection was not merely a negative free
dom from taint, but the most positive and active holiness, and
the miraculous blending of all virtues, strength, and gentleness,
dignity and lowliness, unbending righteousuess and long-suffering
patience and costliest grace.
He must then have existed as he is portrayed. The concep
tion and execution of such a character by man would, as J. J.
Rousseau confesses, be a greater miracle than its existence. If
he existed he must have been the divine being he claimed. A
miracle of intelligence, he could not have been deceived. A mir
acle of moral perfection, he could not have been an impostor.
17. How is the Christian religion proved to be divine by the
spiritual power of its doctrines, and by the experience of all who
sincerely put its precepts, provisions, and promises to the test of
a practical trial ?
Although man can not by his unassisted powers discover God,
yet surely it belongs essentially to his spiritual nature that he can
recognize God when he. speaks.
1st.- The word of God reaches to and proves its power upon
such deep and various principles of man's nature that even the
unregenerate man recognizes its origin It is a "fire and a
hammer ;" it is a " discerner of the thoughts and intents of the
heart. — Jer. xxiii., 29; Heb. iv., 12. This profound grasp that the
word takes of human nature is in spite of the fact that it degrades
human pride, forbids the gratification of lust, and imposes irk
some duties and restraints upon the will. The mass of men are
held subject to its power against their will. This is paralleled
in no other religion.
2d. All who faithfully put this revelation to the test of prac
tice finds it to be true in the deepest experiences of their souls.
(1.) They experience as realities all it sets forth as promises. It
does secure the forgiveness of their sins, their communion with
God and joy in the Holy Ghost. " Doing his will they know the
origin of his doctrines. — John vii., 17. (2.) They are witnesses to
others. Men are by nature aliens from God and servants of sin.
This revelation pledges itself that it can deliver them, and that
none other can. The sum of all human experience upon the point
is, that many Christians have been made thereby new and spiri-

62 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
tual men, and that no o thei system ever produced such an effect. — ¦
2 Cor. iii., 2, 3. Dr.R. J. Breckenridge's Univ. Lecture. (3.) This
revelation makes provision also for all human wants. The
more a man advances in religious experience the more does he
find how infinitely adapted the grace of the gospel is to all pos
sible spiritual exigencies and capacities ; witness regeneration,
justification, adoption, sanctification, the intercession of the Son,
the indwelling of the Spirit, the working together of all events in
the spheres of providence and grace for our good, the resurrection
of the body, eternal glory. And, as far as our earthly life goes,
all these* are actually experienced in their truth, their fullness, and
their infinite capability of accommodation to every form of char
acter and circumstance.
18. How may the divine origin of Christianity be proved
from its effects, as witnessed in the broad phenomena of commu
nities and nations ?
Christianity, when entering very disproportionately into any
community, has often been counteracted, by opposing influences
acting from without, and often adulterated by the intrusion of
foreign elements ; some philosophical, as the new Platonism of
the early church, and tl e Rationalism and Pantheism of the pre
sent day ; some traditional and hierarchical, as the Catholicism
of the middle ages. Its sacred name has thus often been sacri
legiously ascribed to religious systems' altogether alien to itself.
Our argument however is —
1st. That whenever the Christianity of the Bible is allowed
free course, to that extent its influence has been wholly bene
ficial. 2d. That this influence has, as an unquestionable historical
fact, availed to raise every race in the exact proportion of their
Christianity to an otherwise never attained level of intellectual,
moral and political advancement. If we compare ancient Greece
and Rome with England or America ; modern Spain, Italy and
Austria with Scotland ; the Waldenses with Rome of the Middle
Ages ; the Moravians with the Parisians ; ,the Sandwich Islands
and New Zealand with the gospel, with themselves before its' ad
vent, the conclusion is inevitable.
1st. That Bible Christianity alone furnishes a world embrac-

EARLY SUCCESSES. 63
, ing civilization, which adapted to man as man re-connects in one
system the scattered branches of the human family.
2d. That only under its light has ever been discovered among
men (1), a rational natural theology, or (2), a true philosophy
whether physical or psychological.
3d. That under its direct influence, and under its reign alone,
have (1), the masses of the people been raised, and general educa
tion diffused, (2), woman been respected and elevated to her true
position and influence, and (3), generally religious and civil
liberty realized upon a practical conservative basis.
4th. That precisely in proportion to its influence have the
morals of every community, or generation, been more pure, and
the active fruits of that holy love which is the basis of all moral
ity more abundant ; as witness the provision made for the relief
of all suffering, and the elevation of all classes of the degraded.
Hence we conclude, 1st. No imposture could have accomplished
such uniform good. 2d. No system, merely human, could have
achieved results so constant, so far-reaching and profound.
19. What argument for the truth of Christianity may be
drawn from the history of its early successes ?
Our argument is that Christianity extended itself over the
Roman empire, under circumstances and by means unparalleled
in the propagation of any other religion, and such as necessitates
upon our part the belief in the presence of a supernatural agency.
The facts are, 1st. Christianity was bitterly repudiated and
persecuted by the Jews among whom it originated, and to whose
Scriptures it appealed. . 2d. Its first teachers were Jews, the most
universally abominated race in the empire, and for the most part
illiterate men. 3d. It appealed to multitudes of witnesses for the
truth of many open facts, which if untrue could easily have been
disproved. 4th. It condemned absolutely every other religion,
and refused to be assimilated to the cosmopolitan religion of im
perial Rome. 5th. It opposed the reigning philosophies. 6th. It
humbled human pride, laid imperative restraint upon the govern
ing passions of the human heart, and taught prominently the
moral excellence of virtues which were despised as weaknesses by
the heathen moralists. 7th. From the first it settled and fought,
its way in the greatest centers of the worli's philosophy and re-

64 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
finement, as Antioch, Alexandria, Athens, Corinth and Rome,
and here it achieved its victories during the Augustan and imme
diately succeeding age. 8th. It was for three hundred years sub
ject to a persecution, at the hands both of the people and the
government, universal, protracted and intense. 9th. It achieved
its success only by means of the instrumentality of testimony,
argument, example and persuasion.
Nevertheless, the " little flock" became, soon after the ascension
five thousand, Acts, iv. 4, and increased continuously by multi
tudes, Acts, v. 14. The heathen writers Tacitus and Pliny tes
tify to the rapid progress of this religion during the first, and
Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Origen during the second and the
first part of the third century. So much so that the conversion
of Constantine during the first part of the fourth century was
politic, even if it was sincere, as the mass of the intelligence,
worth and wealth of the empire had passed over to Christianity
before him. — Paley's Ev., Part IL, chap, ix., sec. 1.
20. How does Gibbon attempt to destroy the force of this ar
gument in the fifteenth chapter of his history ?
Without denying the presence of any supernatural element,
he covertly insinuates that the early successes of Christianity may
be adequately accounted for by five secondary causes. 1st. " The
inflexible, or if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeaf of
the Christians." 2d. " The doctrine of a future life, improved by
every additional circumstance which could give weight and effici
ency to that important truth." 3d. "The miraculous powers as
cribed to the primitive church." 4th. " The pure and austere
morals of the Christians." 5th. " The union and discipline of
the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent
state in the midst of the Roman empire."
This is a very superficial view of the matter. As to the
" 1st." pretended secondary cause above quoted, it is itself the
effect that needs to be accounted for. In the face of contempt
and death it did not produce itself.
As to the "2d" cause cited we answer (1.) that this doctrine
could have produced no effect until it was believed, and the be
lief of men in it is the very effect to be accounted for. (2.) The

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT AND OBLIGING. 65
doctrine of future torments has not, in modern experience, been
found attractive to wicked men.
As to the " 3d" cause we answer, (1.) if the miracles were
'real, then Christianity is from God. (3.) If false, they certainly
would rather have betrayed than advanced the imposture.
As to the "4th" cause, the superior morality of Christians,
we admit the fact. *•
As to the " 5th" cause, we answer (1.) that this federative
union among Christians could not exist until after the previous
universal extension of their religion. (2.) That it did not exist
until the close of the second century ; and (3.) before Constantine
it was only the union in danger of a despised and persecuted sect. —
See Dr, M. D. Hoge's University Lecture.
21. Does the whole- of the foregoing evidence in vindication
of Christianity amount to a demonstration ?
This evidence, when fully_ brought out and applied, has availed
in time past to repel the just force of every infidel objection, and
to render invincible the faith of many of the most powerful and
learnedly informed intellects among men. It is adapted to reach
and influence the minds of all classes of men ; it addresses itself
to every department of human nature, to the reason, the emotions,
the conscience, and it justifies itself by experience ; in its full
ness it renders all unbelief sin, and sets intelligent faith within
impregnable bulwarks. It is not, however, of the nature of
mathematical demonstration. The evidence being that of testi
mony, of the moral power of truth, and of the practical verifica
tion of experience, of course prejudice, moral obliquity, refusal to
apply the test of experience, must all prevent the evidence from
producing conviction. Faith must be free, not mechanically co
erced. Besides, many difficulties and absolutely insolvable enig
mas attend this subject, because of the natural insurmountable
limits of human thought. The evidences of Christianity thus
constitute a considerable dement in man's present probation, and
a very adequate test of moral cliaracter.
22. What, in fact, is the principal class of evidence to which
the Scriptures appeal, and upon which the faith of the majority
of believers rests ? » 5

66 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.
I. The moral evidence inherent in the truth and in the person
of Jesus. — See questions 15 and 16.
II. The sanctifying effect of Christianity, as exhibited in the
persons of Christian acquaintances.
III. The personal experience of the spiritual power of Chris
tianity. — See question 17.
This kind of evidence stands first in practical importance, be
cause, 1st. The Scriptures command faith (1.), as soon as the Bible
is opened upon intrinsic evidence, (2.) of all men, without excep
tion, even the most ignorant.
2d. The Scriptures make belief a moral duty and unbelief a
sin, Mark xvi., 14.
3d. They declare that unbelief does not arise from excusable
weakness of the reason, but from an " evil heart," Hebrews iii., 12.
4th. A faith resting upon such grounds is more certain and
stable than any other, as the noble army of martyrs witness.
5th. A faith -founded upon moral' and spiritual evidence sur
passes all others in its power to purify the heart and transform
the character.

CHAPTER IV.
INSPIRATION.
The Christian religion having been proved to be from God,
it remains to inquire what is the infallible source through which
we may derive the knowledge of what Christianity really is. The
Protestant answer to this question is, that the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments, having been given by inspiration of
God, are the only arid all-sufficient rule of faith and judge of
controversies. We will now establish the first of these propo
sitions.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are

1. What, in general terms, is the nature of inspiration ?
Inspiration is that divine influence which, accompanying the
sacred writers equally in all they wrote, secured the infallible'
truth of their writings in every part, both in idea and expression,
and determined the selection and distribution of their material
according to the divine purpose. The nature of this influence,
just as the nature of the divine operation upon the human soul
in providence, in regeneration, or in sanctification, is of course
entirely inscrutable. The result of this influence, however, is both
plain and certain, viz., to render their writings an infallible rule
of faith and practice. — See Dr. Hodge's article on Inspiration,
Bib. Rep., October 1857.
2. In what respects do inspiration and revelation differ ?
Revelation properly signifies the supernatural communication
of any truth not before known. This revelation may be made
either immediately to the mind of the recipient, or mediately
through words, signs, or vision, or through the intervention of an

68 INSPIRATION.
inspired piophet. Inspiration, on the other hand, signifies sim
ply that divine influence which renders a writer or speaker infal
lible in communicating truth, whether previously known or not.
Some men have received revelations who were not inspired to
communicate them, e. g., Abraham. Nearly all the sacred writers
were inspired to communicate with infallible accuracy much that
they knew by natural means, such as historical facts; much that
they reached by the natural use of their faculties, such as logical
deduction, and much that was suggested by their own natural
affections. Inspiration, therefore, while it controlled the writer, so that
all he wrote was infallibly true, and to the very purpose for which
God designed it, yet left him free in the exercise of his natural
faculties, and to the use of materials drawn from different sources,
both natural and supernatural. On the other hand, revelation
supernaturally conveyed to the writer only that knowledge which,
being unknown to him, was yet necessary to complete the design
of God in his writing. This revelation was effected in different
ways, as by mental suggestion or visions, or audible voices, etc.
' Sometimes the revelation was made to the writer's conscious
intelligence, and then he was inspired to transmit an infallible
record of it. ' Sometimes the writer was used by the Holy Spirit as
a mere instrument in executing an infallible record of that which
to himself conveyed no intelligible sense, e .g., some of the pro
phesies.— 1 Pet. i., 10-12.
3. How do inspiration and spiritual illumination differ ?
Spiritual illumination is an essential element in the sanctify
ing work of the Holy Spirit common to all true Christians. It
never leads to the knowledge of new truth, but only to the per
sonal discernment of the spiritual beauty and power of truth
already revealed in the Scriptures.
Inspiration is a special influence of the Holy Spirit peculiar
to the prophets and apostles, and attending them only in the
exercise of their functions as accredited teachers. Most of them
were the subjects both of inspiration aud spiritual illumination.
Some, as Balaam, being unregenerate were inspired, though des
titute of spiritual illumination.

ITS DEFINITION. 69
4. State what is meant by theological writers by the inspira
tion " of superintendence," " of elevation," " of direction," and
" of suggestion."
Certain writers on this subject, confounding the distinction
between inspiration and revelation, and using the former term to
express the whole divine influence of which the sacred writers
were the subjects, first, in knowing the truth, second, in writing
it, necessarily distinguish between different degrees of inspiration
in order to accommodate their theory to the facts oT the case.
Because, first, some of the contents of Scripture evidently might
be known without supernatural aid, while much more as evidently
could not ; second, the different writers exercised their natural
faculties, and carried their individual peculiarities of thought,
feeling, and manner into their writings.
By the " inspiration of superintendance," these writers meant
precisely what we have above given as the definition of inspira
tion. By the " inspiration of elevation," they meant that divine
influence which exalted their natural faculties to a degree of
energy otherwise unattainable.
By the " inspiration of direction," they meant that divine in
fluence which guided the writers in the selection and disposition
of their material!
By the " inspiration of suggestion," they meant that divine
influence which directly suggested to their minds new, and other
wise unattainable truth.
5. What objections may be fairly made to these distinctions ?
1st. These distinctions spring from a prior failure to distin
guish between revelation the frequent, and inspiration the con
stant phenomenon presented by Scripture ; the one furnishing the
material, when not otherwise attainable, the other guiding the
writer at evciy point, (1.) in securing the infallible truth of all he
writes ; and (2.) in the selection and distribution of his material.
2d. It is injurious to distinguish between different degrees of
inspiration, as if the several portions of the Scriptures were in
different degrees God's word, while in truth the whole is equally
and absolutely so.
6. What are the different views which have been maintained
as io the extent of inspiration ?

70 INSPIRATION. '
1st. Some infidels, as Strauss, have maintained that the Scrip
tures are merely a collection of pre-historical myths.
2d. Some Socinians and extreme rationalists, as represented by
Dr. Priestly, admit that the sacred writers were honest men, and
' competent witnesses as to the main facts which they record, but, for
the rest, fallible men, as liable to error in opinion and fact as others.
3d. Others have confined the attribute of infallibility to the
personal teachings of Christ, regarding the Apostles as highly
competent*though fallible reporters.
4th. Many, as the Quakers, and Dr. Arnold of Rugby, regard
the inspiration of the sacred writers as only a preeminent degree
of that spiritual illumination which in a less degree is common
to all Christians.
5th. Some, as Michaelis, admit that the inspiration of the
sacred writers rendered them infallible in teaching religious and
moral truth only, while, as to external facts of history, and opin
ions as to science they were liable to err. ,
6th. Many transcendental philosophers of the present day, as
represented by Morell in his " Philosophy of Religion," hold that
the inspiration of the sacred writers was nothing more than an
exaltation of their " intuitional consciousness," i. e., that this di
vine assistance took the place in them of great genius and of great
goodness, and effected nothing more than the best results of the
highest exercise of their own faculties. And thus their writings
have no other authority over us than that which their words sev
erally manifest to our consciousness, as inherent in themselves, as
we see and feel them to be preeminently wise and good.
7th. The true doctrine is that their inspiration was plenary, and
their writings in every part infallible truth. — Bib. Rep., October,
1857, Dr. T. V. Moore's Univ. Lect., and Gaussen on Inspiration.
7. What is meant by "plenary inspiration ?"
A divine influence full and sufficient to secure its end. The
end in this case secured is the perfect infallibility of the Scriptures
in every part, as a record of fact and doctrine both in thought
and verbal expression. So that although they come to us through
the instrumentality of the minds, hearts, imaginations, consciences
and wills of men, they are nevertheless in the strictest sense the
¦word of God.

EXTENDS TO THE WORDS. 71
8. On what ground is it held that the sacred writers were in
spired as historians as well as in their character of religious
teachers ?
1st. The two elements are inseparable in Scripture. ReUgion
is everywhere based upon and illustrated by the facts of history.
Imperfection in one respect would invalidate the authority of its
teaching in every department. t-
2d. The Scriptures themselves claim to be the word of God as
a whole (2 Timothy iii., 16), and never hint at any distinction
as to the different degrees of authority with Which their several
portions are clothed.
3d. The perfect historical accuracy and agreement of so many
authors, of such various ages and nations, which we find in the
Scriptures, itself demands the assignment of a supernatural cause.
9. On what grounds is it assumed that their inspiration ex
tended to their language as ivell as to their thoughts ?
The doctrine is, that while the sacred writers thought and
wrote in the free exercise of all their powers, nevertheless God ex
erted such a constant influence over them that, 1st, they were al
ways furnished, naturally or supernaturally, with the material
necessary ; 2d, infallibly guided in its selection and distribution ;
and, 3d, so directed that they always wrote pure truth in infalli
bly correct language.
That this influence did extend to the words appears, 1st, from
the very design of inspiration, which is, not to secure the infalli
ble correctness of the opinions of the inspired men themselves
(Paul and. Peter differed, GaL ii., 11, and sometimes the prophet
knew not what he wrote), but to secure an infallible record of the
truth. But a record consists of language.
2d. Men think in words, and the more definitely they think
the more are their thoughts immediately associated with an ex
actly appropriate verbal expression. Infallibility of thought can
not be secured or preserved independently of an infallible verba]
rendering. i
3d. The Scriptures affirm this fact, 1 Cor. ii., 13 ; 1 Thess
ii., 13.
4th. The New Testament writers, while quoting from the

72 INSPIRATION.
Old Testament for purposes of argument, often base their argu
ment upon the very words used, thus ascribing authority -to the
word as well as the thought. — Matt, xxii., 32, and Ex. iii., 6, 16 ;
Matt, xxii., 45, and Psalms ex.', 1 ; Gal. iii., 16, and Gen. xvii., 7.
10. What are the sources of our knowledge that the Scrip
tures are inspired •?
The only possible sources of information on this subject are,
of course, the phenomena of the Scriptures themselves ; the claims
they present, and their intrinsic character taken in connection
with the evidences by which they are accredited.
11. How can the propriety of proving the inspiration of a
book by the assertions of its author be vindicated ?
1st. Christ, the prophets and apostles claim to be inspired, and
that their word should be received as the word of God. The " evi
dences" above detailed prove them to be divinely commissioned /
teachers. The denial of inspiration logically involves the rejec
tion of Christianity.
2d. The Bible, like every other book, bears internal evidence
of the attributes of its author. The known attributes of human
nature can not account for the plain phenomena of the Scriptures.
A divine influence must be inferred from the facts. If partially
divine, they must be all whatsoever they claim to be.
12. What d priori argument in favor of the inspiration of
the Scriptures may be' drawn from the necessity of the case, the
fact of a divine revelation being presumed ?
The very office of a supernatural revelation is to lead men to
an adequate and certain knowledge of God and his will, other
wise unattainable to them. But an infallible record is the only
channel through which a certain knowledge of a divine revelation,
made by God to the men of one age and nation, can be conveyed
to men of all ages and nations. Without inspiration the opin
ions of Paul would be of less authority than the opinions of Lu
ther would be with an inspired Bible. And if the record be not
inspired, the revelation as it comes down to us would not be more
certain than the unassisted conclusions of reason.

PROVED BY MIRACLES. * 73
13. How may the inspiration of the apostles be fairly inferred
from the fact that they wrought miracles ?
A miracle is a divine sign {prfueiov) accrediting the person to
whom the power is delegated as a divinely commissioned agent,
Matt, xvi., 1, 4 ; Acts xiv., 3 ; Heb. ii., 4. This divine testimony
not only encourages, but absolutely renders belief obligatory.
Where the sign is God commands us to beheve. But he could
not unconditionally command us to believe any other than- Un
mixed truth infallibly conveyed.
14. How may it be shown that the gift of inspiration was
promised to the apostles ?
Matt, x., 19 ; Luke xii., 12 ; Joha xiv., 26 ; xv., 26, 27 ;'
xvi., 13 ; Matt, xxviii., 19, 20 ; John xiii., 20.
15. In what several ways did they claim to have possession
of the Spirit ?
They claimed —
1st. To have the Spirit in fulfillment of the promise of
Christ. — Acts ii., 33 ; iv., 8 ; xiii., 2-4 ; xv., 28 ; xxi., 11 ; 1
Thes. i., 5.
2d. To speak as the prophets of God. — 1 Cor. iv., 1 ; ix., 17;
2 Cor. v., 19 ; 1 Thes. iv., 8.
3d. To speak with plenary authority. — 1 Cor. ii. 13 ; 1 Thes.
ii. 13 ; 1 John iv. 6 ; Gal. i., 8, 9 ; 2 Cor. xiii., 2, 3, 4. They
class their writings on a level with the Old Testament Scrip
tures.— -2 Pet. iii., 16 ; 1 Thess. v., 27 ; Col. iv., 16 ; Rev. ii.,
7. — Dr. Hodge.
16. How was their claim confirmed ?
1st. By their holy, simple, temperate yet heroic lives.
2d. By the holiness of the doctrine they taught, and its spiri
tual power, as attested by its effect upon communities and indi
viduals. 3d. By the miracles they wrought. — Heb. iL, 4; Acts xiv., 3;
Mark xvi., 20. .
4th. All these testimonies are accredited to us not only by
their own writings, but also by the uniform testimony of the earlj
Christians, their cotemporaries, and their immediate successors.

74 INSPIRATION.
17. Show that the writers of the Old Testament claim to be
inspired ?
1st. Moses claimed that he wrote a part at least of the Pen
tateuch by divine command. — Deut. xxxi., 19-22 ; xxxiv., 10 ;
Num. xvi., 28, 29. David claimed it. — 2 Sam. xxiii., 2,
2d. As a characteristic fact, the Old Testament writers speak
not in their own name, but preface their messages with, " Thus
saith the Lord," " The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, "etc. —
Jer. ix., 12 ; xiii., 13 ; xxx., 4 ; Isa. viii., 1 ; xxxiii., 10 ; Mic.
iv., 4 ; Amos iii., 1 ; Deut. xviii., 21, 22 ; 1 Kings xxL, 28 ; 1
Chron. xvii., 3. — Dr. Hodge.
18. How was their claim confirmed ?
1st. Their claim was confirmed to their cotemporaries by the
miracles they wrought, by the fulfillment of many of their pre
dictions, (Num. xvi., 28, 29), by the holiness of their fives, the
moral and spiritual perfection of their doctrine, and the practical
' adaptation of the religious system they revealed to the urgent
wants of men.
2d. Their claim is confirmed to us principally, (1.) By the
remarkable fulfillment, in fa» subsequent ages, of many of their
prophesies. (2.) By the evident relation of the symbolical reli
gion which they promulgated to the facts and doctrines of Chris
tianity, proving a divine preadjustment of the type to the anti
type. (3.) By the endorsation of Christ and his apostles.
19. What are the formulas by which quotations from the. Old
Testament are vntm&dmced into the New, and how do these forma
of expression prove Mike inspiration of the ancient Scriptures ?
" The Holy Ghost *aith," Heb. iii., 7. " The Holy Ghost this
signifying," Heb. ix., 8. "God saith," Acts ii., 17, and Isa. xii v.,
3 ; 1 Cor. ix., 9, 10, and Deut xxv., 4. "The Scriptures saith,"
.Rom- iv., 3 ; Gal. iv., 30. "It is written," Luke xviii., 31; xxi.,
22 ; John ii., 17 ; xx., 31. " The Lord by the mouth of his ser
vant David says," Acts iv., 25, and Ps. ii., 1, 2. " The Lord
limiteth in David a certain day, saying," Heb. iv., 7; Ps. xcv. 7.
" David in spirit says," Matt, xxii., 43, and Ps. ex., 1.
Thus these Old Testament writings are what God saith, what

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 75
God saith by David, etc., and are quoted as the authoritative
basis for conclusive argumentation, therefore they must have been
inspired. 20. How may the inspiration of the Old Testament writers be
proved by the express declarations of the New Testament I
Luke L, 70 ; Heb. L, 1 ; 2 Tim. iii., 16 ; 1 Pet. L, 10-12 ; 2
Pet. L, 21.
21, What is the argument on this subject drawn from the
manner in which Christ and his apostles argue from the Old
Testament as of final authority ?
Christ constantly quotes the old Testament, Matt, xxi., 13 ;
.xxii., 43. He declares that it can not be falsified, John vii., 23 ;
x., 35 ; that the whole law must be fulfilled, Matt, v., 18 ; and
ill things also foretold concerning himself " in Moses, the prophets,
and the psalms/' Luke xxiv., 44. The apostles habitually quote
the Old Testament in the same manner, " That it might be ful
filled which was written," is with them a characteristic formula,
Matt. L, 22 ; ii., 15, 17, 23 ; John xii., 38 ; xv., 25, etc. They
all appeal to the words of Scripture as of final authority. This
certainly proves infallibility.
22. What is the objection to the doctrine of inspiration drawn
from the diversity of style and manner observable among the sev
eral sacred writings, and the answer to it ?
It is an acknowledged fact that all of the national and sec
tional peculiarities and individual qualities and habits of each of
the sacred' writers appear in his work, because his natural facul
ties were freely exercised after their kind in its production. Some
have argued from this fact that it is absurd to believe that those
faculties could at the same time, and with reference to the same
object, have been subject to any determinating divine influence.
However it may be with the Arminian, the Calvinist can find
no special difficulty here. We can not understand how the infin
ite .Spirit acts upon the finite spirit in providence or in grace
The case of inspiration is so far forth precisely analogous. Gnd
Works by means', from the beginning pre-adjusting the means to
the end, and then concurrently directing them while they freely

76 ? INSPIRATION.
act to that end. God surely might as easily guide the free souls
of men in spontaneously producing an infallible Scripture, as in
spontaneously realizing in act the events foreordained in his eter
nal decree.
23. What is the objection to this doctrine drawn from the free
manner in which the New Testament writers quote those of the
Old Testament, and the answer to that objection ?
In a majority of instances the New Testament writers quote
those of the Old Testament with perfect verbal accuracy. Some-
turies they quote the Septuagint version, when it conforms to the
Hebrew ; at others they substitute a new version ; and at other
times again they adhere to the Septuagint, when it differs from the
Hebrew. In a number of instances, which however are compara
tively few, their quotations from , the Old Testament are made
very freely, and in apparent accommodation of the. literal sense.
Rationalistic interpreters have argued from this last class of
quotations that it is impossible that both the Old Testament
writer quoted from, and the New Testament writer quoting could
have been the subjects of plenary inspiration, because, say they, if
the ipsissima verba were infallible in the first instance, an infal
lible writer would have transferred them unchanged. But surely
if a human author may quote himself freely, changing the expres
sion, and giving a new turn to his thought in order to adapt it
the more perspicuously to his present purpose, the Holy Spirit
may take the same liberty with his own. The same Spirit that
rendered the Old Testament writers infallible in writing only pure
truth, in the very form that suited his purpose then, has rendered
the New Testament writers infallible in so using the old mate
rials, that while they elicit a new sense, they teach only the truth
the very truth moreover contemplated in the mind of God from
the beginning, and they teach it with divine authority. — See Fair-
bairn's Herm. Manual, Part III. Each instance of such quota
tion should be examined in detail, as Dr. Fairbairn has done.
24. Upon what principles are we to answer the objections
founded upon the alleged discrepances between the sacred writers
and upon their alleged inaccuracies in matters of science ?
If either of these objections were founded on facts, it would

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 77
cleaily disprove the doctrine we maintain. That neither of them
is founded on fact can be shown only by a detailed examination
of each instance alleged. As a general principle it is evident —
1st. With regard to apparent discrepancies between the sacred
writers, that nothing presents any difficulty short of a clear and
direct contradiction. Different writers may, of course, with per
fect accuracy represent different details of the same occurrence, or
different views of the same fact, and different elements and rela
tions of the same great doctrine, as may best suit their several
designs. Instead of this course proving inconsistency, it is pre
cisely God's plan for bringing the whole truth most fully and
clearly to our knowledge.
2d. With respect to apparent inaccuracies in matters of science,
that the sacred writers having for their design to teach moral and
religious truth, and not physical science, use on all such subjects
the common language of their cotemporaries, always speaking of
natural phenomena as they appear, and not as they really are.
And yet revelation does not present one single positive statement
which is not consistent with all the facts known to men, in any
department of nature. In the progress of science, human ignor
ance and premature generalization have constantly presented diffi
culties in the reconciliation of the word of God with man's theory
of his works. The advance of perfected knowledge has uniformly
removed the difficulty.

CHAPTER V.
the rule of faith and practice.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, hav
ing, been GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, ARE THE ALL-SUFFI
CIENT AND ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE, AND JUDGE OF
controversies. (This chapter is compiled from Dr. Hodge's
unpublished Lectures on the Church.)
1. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures arc the only
infallible rule of faith and practice H
Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority.
Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings
and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during
the present dispensation, God conveys' to us a knowledge of his
will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what
duties he requires of us.
2. What does the Romish Church declare to be the infallible
rule of faith, and practice ?
The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and
practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching
of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the church.
Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth
not contained in the Scriptures ; and, 2d, to interpret Scripture.
The church being the divinely constituted depository and judge
of Both Scripture and tradition. — Decrees of Council of Trent,
Session IV, and Dens Theo., Tom. IL, N. 80 & 81.
3. By what arguments do they seek lo establish the authority
of tradition ? By what criterion do they distinguish true tra
ditions from false, and on what grounds do they base the au
thority of the traditions they receive ?

TRADITION. 79
1st. Their arguments in behalf of tradition are (1.) Scripture
authorizes it, 2 Thess. ii., xv ; iii., 6. (2.) The early fathers
asserted its authority and founded their fitith largely upon it.
(3.) The oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, when clearly
ascertained, is intrinsically of equal authority with their writings.
The Scriptures' themselves are handed down to us by the evidence
of tradition, and the stream can not rise higher than its source.
(4.) The necessity of the case, a, Scripture is obscure, needs
tradition as its interpreter, b, Scripture is incomplete as a rule
of faith and practice ; since there are many doctrines and institu
tions, universally recognized, which are founded only upon tra
dition as a supplement to Scripture. (5.) Analogy. Every state
recognizes both written and unwritten, common and statute law.
2d. The criterion by which they distinguish between true and
false traditions is Catholic consent. The Anglican ritualists con
fine the application of the rule to the first three or four centuries.
The Romanists .recognize that as an authoritative consent which
is constitutionally expressed by the bishops in general council,
or by the Pope ex-cathedra, in any age of the church whatever.
3d. They defend the traditions which they hold to be true.
(1.) On the ground of historical testimony, tracing them up to
the apostles as their source. (2.) The authority of the Church
expressed by Catholic consent. »
4. By what arguments may the invalidity of all ecclesiastical
tradition, as apart of our rule of faith and practice, be shown ?
1st. The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral
tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in, the passage cited,
(2 Thess. ii., 15, and iii., 6,) signifies all his instructions, oral and
written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed
down.- On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the
Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt, xv., 3, 6 ;
Mark vii., 7.
2d. It is improbable d priori that God would supplement
Scripture with tradition as part of our rule of faith. (1.) Be
cause Scripture, as will be shown below (questions 7-14), is certain,
definite, complete, and perspicuous. (2.) Because tradition, from
its very nature, is indeterminate, and liable to become adulterated
with every form of error. Besides, as will be shown below

80 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PEACTICE.
(question 20), the authority of Scripture does not rest ultimately
upon tradition.
3d. The whole ground upon which Romanists base the au
thority of their traditions (viz., history and church authority) is
invalid. (1.) History utterly fails them. For more than three
hundred years after the apostles they have very little, and that
contradictory, evidence for any one of their traditions. They are
thus forced to the absurd assumption that what was taught in the
fourth century was therefore taught in the third, and therefore in
the first. (2.) The church is not infallible, as will be shown be
low (question 18.)
4th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own principles.
Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they do not re
ceive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent inventions
unknown to the ancients.
5th. Many of their traditions, such as relate to the priesthood,
the sacrifice of the Mass, etc., are plainly in direct opposition to
Scripture. Yet the infallible church affirms the infallibility of
Scripture. A house divided against itself can not stand.
5. What is necessary to constitute a sole and infallible rule of
faith ?
Plenary inspiration, completeness, perspicuity, and acces
sibility. 6. What arguments do the Scriptures themselves' afford in
favor of the doctrine that they are the only infallible rule of faith ?
1st. The Scriptures always speak in the" name of God, and
command faith and obedience.
2d. Christ and his apostles always refer to the written Scrip- '
tures, then existing, as authority, and to no other rule of faith
whatsoever. — Luke xvi., 29 ; x., 26 ; John v., 39 ; Rom. iv., 3 ;
2 Tim. iii., 15.
3d'. The Bereans are commended for bringing all questions,
even apostolic teaching, to this test. — Acts xviL, 11 ; see also
Isa. viii., 16.
4th. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for adding to and pervert.
ing the Scriptures. — Matt, xv., 7-9 ; Mark vii., 5-8 ; see als:
Rev. xxii., 18, 19, and Deut. iv., 2 ; xii., 32 ; Josh. L, 7.

SCRIPTURES COMPLETE. 81
7. In what sense is the completeness of Scripture as a rule of
faith asserted ?
It is not meant that the Scriptures contain every revelation
which God has ever made, to man, but that their contents are the
only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man,
and that this revelation is abundantly sufficient for man's guid
ance in all questions of faith, practice, and modes of worship, and
excludes the necessity and the right of any human inventions.
8. How may this completeness be proved from the design of
Scripture ?
The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is neces
sary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule,
as tradition is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it.
" Incompleteness here would be falsehood." But while one sacred
writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of
them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of
any other rule. — John xx., 31 ; 2 Tim. iii., 15-17. -
9. By what other arguments may this principle be proved ?
As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so
they have always been practically found to be such by the true
spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and
harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary prin
ciples for tfhe government of the private lives of Christians, in
every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the adminis
tration of the affairs of his kingdom ; and they repell all pre
tended traditions and priestly innovations.
10. In what sense do Protestants affirm and Romanists deny
the perspicuity of Scripture ?
Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the
Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. Many of
them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they
affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspi
cuously expounded, many of the prophesies being perfectly
enigmatical until explained by the event. But they do affirm
that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly
6

82 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This
much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on
the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and
critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian
church is constantly making progress in the accurate interpreta
tion of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the
system therein taught.
Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and un
learned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Scripture
for themselves.11. How can the perspicuity of Scripture be proved from the
fact that it is a law and a message ?
We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false,
from its own professed design. We now prove its perspicuity
upon the same principle. It professes to be (1.) a law to be
obeyed ; (2.) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received
by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal death. To
suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of com
manding and teaching, is to charge God with dealing with us in
a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.
i 12. In what passages is their perspicuity asserted?
Ps. xix., 7, 8 ; cxix., 105, 130 ; 2 Cor. iii., 14 ; 2 Pet. L, 18,
19 ; Hab. ii., 2 ; 2 Tim. iii., 15, 17.
13. By what other arguments may this point be established ?¦
1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all
men promiscuously, or else to the whole body of believers as such. —
Deut. vi., 4-9 ;. Luke L, 3 ; Rom. L, 7 ; 1 Cor. L, 2 ; 2 Cor. L,
1 ; iv., 2 ; GaL L, 2 ; Eph. L, 1 ; Phil. L, 1 ; Col. L, 2 ; James
L, 1 .; 1 Peter L, 1 ; 2 Peter L, 1 ; 1 John ii., 12, 14 ; Jude L, 1 ;
Rev. L, 3, 4; ii., 7. The only exceptions are the epistles, to
Timothy and TiJ;us.
2d. All Christians promiscuously are commanded to search
the Scriptures.— 2 Tim. iii., 15, 17 ; Acts xvii., 11 ; John v., 39.
3d. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the
light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property

ROMISH DOCTRINE. 83
*
in the sun. The argument to the contrary is an insult to the un
derstanding of the whole world of Bible readers.
4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all
circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every
age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open
Scriptures. 14. What was the third quality required to constitute the
Scriptures the sufficient rule of faith and practice ?
Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the preeminent
characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, which is
in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every other pre
tended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this mat
ter is simply to give all currency to the word of God.
15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the
judge as well as the rule in questions of faith ?
" A rule is a standard of judgment ; a judge is the expounder
and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases." The
Protestant doctrine is— ¦
1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith
and practice.
2d. (1.) Negatively. That there is no body of men who are
either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or to
apply their principles to the decision of particular questions, in a
sense binding upon the faith of their fellow Christians. (2.) Pos-
sitively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church,
and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious
help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1
John ii., 20-27), by each individual for himself, with the assistance,
though not by the authority of his fellow Christians. Creeds and
confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess
them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly
what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.
16. What is the Romish doctrine as to the authority of the
church as the infallible interpreter of the rule of faith and the au
thoritative judge of all controversies ?
The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infalli-

84 JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES.
ble in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely
authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her
office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her
inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting
the original revelation communicated through the apostles.
The church, therefore, authoritatively determines, 1st, What
is Scripture ? 2d. What is genuine tradition ? 3d. What is the
true sense of Scripture and tradition, and what is the true appli
cation of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief
or practice. This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official
capacity, and in the bishops as a body ; as when assembled in
general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of
pope or council. — Decrees of Council of Trent, Session IV., Deus
Theo., N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. Bellarmine, Lib. III., de
eccles., cap. xiv., and Lib. IL, de concil., cap. ii.
17. By what arguments do they seek to establish this authority ?
1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apos
tles, and to their official successors, securing their infallibility,
and consequent authority. — Matt, xvi., 18 ; xviii., 18-20 ; Luke
xxiv., 47^49 ; John xvi., 13 ; xx., 23.
2d. The commission given to the church as the teacher of the
world. — Matt, xxviii., 19, 20 ; Luke x., 16, etc
3d. The church is declared to be " the pillar and ground of
the truth," and it is affirmed' that " the gates of hell shall never
prevail against her."
4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and
he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. —
Matt, xvi., 19 ; xviii., 15-18.
5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between truth
and error, and must consequently be qualified and authorized to
do so.— 2 Thes. iii., 6 ; Rom. xvi., 17 ; 2 John 10.
6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an
ever-living, visible and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and
Judge. 7th. From universal analogy every community among men
has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would
be of no value without the other.

ROMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED, 85
8th. This power is necessary to -secure unity and universality,
which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true
church. 18. By what arguments may this claim of the Romish church
be shown to be utterly baseless ?
1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous
can be established only by the most clear and certain evidence,
and the failure to produce such converts the claim into a treason
at once against God and the' human race.
2d. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to
preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of
them go the length of pledging infallibility. The utmost prom
ised is, that the true people of God shall never perish entirely
from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the
faith. 3d. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were
addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the
body of true believers. Compare John xx., 23 with Luke xxiv.,
33, 47, 48, 49, and 1 John ii., 20, 27. '
4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to which the pre
cious promises of the Scriptures are pledged is not an external,
visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a
perpetual line of apostles. For (1.) the word church. (iK^rjoia,) .
is a collective term, embracing the effectually called (jtXrrrai}) or
regenerated. — Rom. i., 7 ; viii., 28 ;' 1 Cor., L, 2 ; Jude i. ; Rev.
xvii., 14 ; also Rom. ix., 24 ; 1 Cor. vii., 18-24'; Gal. L, 15 ; 2
Tim. L, 9 ; Heb. ix., 15 ; 1 Pet. ii., 9 ; v., 10 ; Eph. L, 18 ; 2
Pet. L, 10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it
to consist aUne of the true, spiritual people of God as such. —
Eph. v., 27 ; 1 Pet. ii., 5 ; John x., 27 ; Col. L, 18, 24. (3.)
The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations
explain that phrase as equivalent to " the called." " the saints,"
" all true worshipers of God ;" witness the salutations of 1st
and 2d Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1st and 2d Peter and
Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the
true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles. —
1 Cor. L, 30 ; iii., 16 ; vi., 11, 19 ; Eph. ii., 3-8, and 19-22 ;
1 Thes. v., 4, 5 ; 2 Thes. ii., 13 ; Col. i.; 21 ; ii., 10 ; 1 Pet. ii., 9.

86 JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES.
5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There
is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.)
While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices
of presbyter and deacon, (1 Tim. iii., 1-13,) there are no directions
given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is per
fect silence concerning the continued existence of any apostles in
the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name
and the thing ceased. (4.) None ever claiming to be one of their
successors have possessed the " signs of an apostle." — 2 Cor. xii.,
12 ; 1 Cor. ix., 1 ; Gal. L, 1, 12 ; Acts L, 21, 22.
6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope,
is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Scrip
ture. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the
bishops, expressed, in their general consent, it is unscriptural for
the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since
their universal judgment never has been and never can be impar^
tially ..collected and pronounced.
7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self-con^.
sistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been
self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught different doc
trines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infalli
bility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a sys
tem plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense ;
witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the Mass, penance, of
works, and of Mary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides '
the Scriptures from the people.
8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual re
ligion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the
world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the
reverse. If, therefore, we admit that the Romish syitem is true,
we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself,
viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion,
and the witness^of the Holy Ghost.
19. By what direct arguments may the doctrine that the Scrip
tures are the final judge of controversies be established ?
That all Christians are. to study the Scriptures for themselves,
and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is
to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts : 

ROMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED. 87
1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13.
2d. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above,
question 13.
3d, All Christians are commanded to search the Scriptures,
and by them to judge all doctrines and all professed teachers. — ¦
John v., 39 ; Acts xvii., 11 ; Gal. L, 8 ; 2 Cor. iv., 2 ; 1 Thess.
v., 21 ; 1 John iv., 1, 2.
4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and inter
preter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John
xx., 23 with Luke xxiv., 47-49 ; 1 John ii., 20, 27 ; Rom. viii.,
9 ; 1 Cor. iii., 16, 17.
5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Chris
tian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself, on
the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not
on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could
not be a moral act, nor could it " purify the heart." Faith derives
its sanctifying power from the truth which it immediately appre
hends on its own experimental evidence. — John xvii., 17, 19 ;
James L, 18 ; 1 Pet. i., 22.
20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this
doctrine, on the ground that the church is our only authority for
believing that the Scriptures are the word of God ?
Their objection is, that as we receive the Scriptures as the
word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church,
our faith in the Scriptures is only another form of our faith in
the church, and the authority of the church, being the foundation
of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount.
Thisis absurd, for two reasons —
1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we
receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the
church, but (1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as
is evident a from the nature of their doctrine, b from their mira-
cles, c their prophecies, d our personal experience and observation
of the power of the truth. (2.) These vejy writings which we
possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is -evident, a from
internal evidence, b from historical testimony rendered by all
competent cotemporaneous witnesses in the church or out of it.
2d. Even if the fact assumed was true, viz., that we know the

88 JUDGE OF CONTROVERSIES.
Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's tes
timony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would
be absurd. The witness who proves the identity or primogeni
ture of a prince does not thereby acquire a right to govern' the
kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince.
> 21. How is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge j
derived from thd diversities of sects and doctrines among Pro
testants, to be answered ?
1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Pro
testants is infallible, but only that when exercised in an humble,
believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of
essential truth. '
2d. The term Protestant is simply negativej and is assumed
by many infidels who protest as much against the Scriptures as
they do against Rome. But Bible Protestants, among all their
circumstantial differences, are,, to a wonderful degree, agreed upon
the essentials of faith and practice^ Witness their hymns and
devotional literature.
3d. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure
in applying faithfully the Protestant principles for which we
contend. Men do not simply and without prejudice take their
creed from the Bible.
4th. The Catholic church, in her last and most authoritative
utterance through the Council of Trent, has proved herself a most
indefinite judge. Her doctrinal decisions need an infallible inter
preter infinitely more than the Scriptures.
22. How may it be shown that the Romanist theory, as well
as the Protestant, necessarily throws upon the people the obliga
tion of private judgment ?
Is there a God ? Has he revealed himself ? Has he estab
hshed a church ? Is that church an infallible teacher ? Is
private judgment a blind leader ? Which of all pretended
churches is the true one ? Every one of these questions evidently
must be settled in the private judgment of the inquirer, before he
can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment tc
the direction of the self-asserting church. Thus of necessity Ro
manists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures can

ROMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED. 89
not be understood, and address arguments to the private judg
ment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus
basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argu
ment to prove is baseless.
23. How may it be proved that the people are far more com
petent to discover what the Bible teaches than to decide, by the
marks insisted upon by the Romanists', which is the true church ?
The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by which
the true church is to be discriminated from all counterfeits.
These are (1.) Unity (through subjection to one visible head, the
Pope ;) (2.) Holiness ; (3.) Catholicity ; (4.) Apostolicity, (in
volving an uninterrupted succession from the apostles of canoni-
cally ordained bishops.) — Cat. of Council of Trent, Part I., Cap.
10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent application of these
marks involve a great amount of learning and intelligent capacity
upon.the part of the inquirer. He might as easily prove himself
to be descended from Noah by an unbroken series of legitimate
marriages, as establish the right of Rome to the last mark. Yet
he can not rationally give up the right of studying the Bible for
himself until that point is made clear.
Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual
power, make less exhaustive demands upon the resources of pri
vate judgment.

CHAPTER VI.
THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
1. What is meant by the phrase, canon of Scripture ?
The Greek word aavwv, canon, signifies primarily a reed, a
staff, and then a measuring rod, then a rule of life and doctrine. —
Gal. vi., 16 ; Phil, iii., 16. The canon of Holy Scripture is the
entire word of God, consisting of all the books which holy men
of old wrote as they were moved by the Spirit of God, constitut- .
ing our complete and only rule of faith and practice.
In order to determine this canon we have to prove, 1st. That
the writings now recognized by Protestants as a part of God's
word were, in fact, written by the inspired men whom they claim
as their authors. 2d. That they have not been materially altered
in their transmission to us. 3d. That no other extant writings
have any valid claim to a place in the canon.
2. What is meant by the genuineness and what by the authen
ticity' of a book ?
A book is said to be genuine when it was really written by
the person from whom it professes to have originated, otherwise
it is spurious. A book is said to be authentic when its con
tents correspond with the truth on the subject concerning which
it treats, otherwise it is fictitious.
A novel, though) always fictitious,- is genuine when it bears
the name of its real author. A history is both genuine and au
thentic, if it was written by its professed author; and if its narra
tions correspond with the facts as they occurred.
3. What are the general principles upen which Protestants
settle the canon of Scripture, and wherein do they differ from
those upon which Romanists proceed ?

OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 91
Protestants found their defense both of the genuineness and
authenticity of the books severally constituting the canon of
Scripture, as received by them, upon the same historical and criti
cal evidence that is uniformly relied upon by literary men, to
establish the genuineness and authenticity of any ancient writings
whatever. The only difference is, that in the case of tlie books
constituting Holy Scripture, these evidences are preeminently
numerous and conclusive.
These evidences are generally, 1st. Internal, such as language,
style", nature and mutual harmony of subjects. 2. External, such
as testimony of cotemporaneous writers, the universal consent of
cotemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from inde
pendent, credible sources.
The Romish theologians, while referring to all these sources
of evidence as of corroborating though subordinate value, yet
maintain the plenary infallibility and authority of the church,
upon which they found the credibility of Scripture, and of its
several parts.
4. When was the canon of the Old Testament completed ?
When the five books of Moses were completed, they were de
posited in the ark of the covenant. — Deut. xxxi., 24-26. The
writings of the subsequent prophets were accredited and generally
received as they appeared, and were then preserved with pious
care by the Jews.
The uniform Jewish tradition is, that the collection and seal
ing of the Old Testament canon was accomplished by Ezra and a
number of other holy men, who, after the building of the second
temple, formed with him the " Great Synagogue," consisting of
one hundred and twenty members, among whom, however, they
enumerated many who lived in far separate ages.
"The more probable conclusion is," says Dr. Alexander, "that
Ezra (B. C. 457) began this work, and collected and arranged all
the saored books which belonged to the canon before his time, and
that a succession of pious and learned men continued to pay at
tention to the canon," (the last prophetical writer being Malachi,
B. C. 400,) " until the whole was completed about the time of
Simon the Just," (B. C. 300,) who appears to have carried

92 THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
down the genealogical fists to his own day. — Neh. xii., 22 ; 1
Chron. iii., 19, etc.
5. Give a synopsis of the argument by which the genuineness
of the books constituting our received canon of the Old Testament
is established ?
1st. The canon of the Jewish Scriptures, as it existed in the
time of our Lord and his apostles, was abundantly witnessed to
by them as both genuine and authentic. (1.) Christ refers to
these writings as an infallible rule. — Mark xiv., 49 ; John v., 39;
x., 35. He quotes them by their comprehensive and generally
recognized title — the law, the prophets, the holy writings — the
last division being sometimes called the Psalms, from the first book
it contained. — Luke xxiv., 44. (2.) The apostles refer to these
books as divine, and quote them as final authority. — 2 Tim. iii.,
15, 16 ; Acts L, 16, etc. (3.) Christ often rebuked the Jews for
disobeying, never for forging or corrupting, the text of their Scrip
tures. — Matt, xxii., 29.
2d. The canon of the Old Testament Scriptures, as it is
received by all Protestants, is the same as that which was authen
ticated by Christ and his apostles. (1.) The New Testament
writers quote as Scripture almost every one of the books we now
recognize, and they quote no other as Scripture. The number of
direct quotations and implied allusions to the language of the
Old Testament occurring in the New have been traced in up
wards of six hundred instances. (2.) The Septuagint, or Greek
translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, made in Egypt B. C. 285,
which was itself frequently quoted by Christ and his apostles,
embraced every book we now recognize. (3.) Josephus, who was
born A. D. 37, in his first book in answer to Apion, enumerates
as Hebrew Scriptures the same books by their classes. (4.) The
uniform testimony of the early Christian writers, e. g., " Melito,
A. D. 177 ; Origen, A. D. 230 ; Athanasius, A. D. 326 ; Jerome
A. D. 390 ; Augustine A. D. 395." (5.) Ever since the time of
Christ, Jews and Christians have been severally custodians of the
same canon. Their agreement with us to-day demonstrates the
identity of our Scriptures with those of the Jews of the first
century.

APOCRYPHA. 93
6. What are the Apocrypha ?
The word Apocrypha, from dirb and Kov-nru, signifying any
thing hidden, concealed, has been applied to certain ancient writ
ings whose authorship is not manifest, and in behalf of which
unfounded claims have been set up for a place in the canon of
Scripture. Some of these are associated with the Old and others
with the New Testament canon. This name, however, is more
prominently associated with those spurious writings for which a
place is claimed among the Old Testament Scriptures, because an
active controversy concerning these exists between Romanists and
Protestants. They were also styled by the early church ecclesi
astical, to distinguish them from the acknowledged word of
God. In later times they have been styled by some Romanists
Deutero-canonical, as occupying a certain secondary place in the
canon, some say as to authority, others merely as to succession
in time. These are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruk, and
the two books of Maccabees. They also add six chapters to the
book of Esther. They prefix to the book of Daniel the History of
Susannah, and insert in the third chapter the Song of the Three
Children, and add to the end of the book the History of Bel and
the Dragon. The Romish church, on the other hand, rejects as
Spurious certain other books which are found side by side with
the above in the early Greek Scriptures, and in their Latin trans
lations, e. g., the third and fourth books of Esdras, the third book
of Maccabees, the 151st Psalm, the appendix to Job, and the
preface to Lamentations. — Council of Trent, Sess. 4.
See Alexander on Canon, and Kitto's Bib. Ency., Art. " Deu-
tero Canonical."
7. How did they become associated with Holy Scripture, and
upon what ground do the Romanists advocate their place in the
canon ? I
They are believed to have been written by Alexandrian Jews
between the ages of Malachi and Christ. They first appear in
certain history in the Greek language, and in connection with the
Septuagint translation of the genuine Scriptures, among which it
is probable they were surreptitiously introduced by heretics.

94 THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. '
The Romanists argue, 1st. That they appear in the first Greek
copies of the Old Testament, and in the Latin translation from
them. 2d. That they were highly reverenced and quoted by the
early fathers. 3d. That the church in her plenary authority has
authenticated them at the Council of Trent, A. D. 1546.
8. Give a synopsis of the argument by which their right to a
place in the canon is disproved ?
1st. These books never formed part of the Hebrew Scriptures.
2d. The Jews were the divinely appointed guardians of the
ancient oracles. — Rom. iii., 2. Christ charged them with making
the written word of none effect by their traditions, but never with
mutilating the record. — Matt, xv., 6. Yet the Jews'' have uni
formly denied the spurious books in question from the time of
Josephus to the present. — Josephus' Answer to Apion, Book I.,
sec. 8.
3d. These books were never quoted either by Christ or his
apostles. 4th. Although held by the early fathers to be useful as his
tory for the general purposes of edification, they were never held
as authoritative in settling matters of faith. They were not em
braced in the earliest lists of the canon. Jerome, the most learned
of the fathers, living in the latter half of the fourth century, re
jected their claims. They were held ' as of very doubtful and
secondary authority by many prominent Romanist teachers up
to the very time of the Council of Trent, e. g., Erasmus, Cardinal
Cajetan, etc.
5th The internal evidence presented by their contents confirms
the external evidence above set forth. (1.) None of them make
any claim to inspiration ; the best of them plainly disclaim it,
e. g., Ecclesiasticus, 1st and 2d Maccabees. (2.) The contents of
many of them consist of childish fables ; they are inconsistent in
fact and defective in morality.
6th. All Protestants agree in rejecting them. — See 6th Article
of Religion in the Episcopal Prayer-Book, and Confession of Fuith,
chap. L, sec. 3. Alexander on Canon, and Home's Introduction,
Vol. I., Appendix 5.
9. What is the Talmud, and how is it regarded by the Jews ?

TALMUD. 95
The Jews pretend that when Moses was with the Lord in the
mount he received one law which he was to reduce to writing,
and another law, explanatory and supplementary to the former,
which he was to commit to certain leaders of the people to be
transmitted through oral tradition to the remotest generations.
This oral law he did thus commit through Aaron, Eliezer, and
Joshua, to the prophets, and through the prophets to the rabbins
of the early centuries of the Christian era, who reduced it to
writing, because such a precaution was then necessary for its pre
servation under the dispersed and depressed condition of Israel.
This oral law, as written, constitutes the Mishna, or text, which,
together with the Gemara or commentary thereon, constitutes the
Talmud. There are two Gemaras, and, consequently, two Talmuds.
The Jerusalem Gemara, compiled some say in the third, and others
in the fourth century. The Babylonian, compiled in the sixth
century. This last, together with the Mishna, constitutes the
Talmud which is most highly esteemed by the modern Jews, and
is really, to the exclusion of the Holy Scriptures, the fountain of
their religion.
It is reputed by competent scholars as beyond parallel trivial,
and full of intellectual and- moral darkness. It derives not one
iota of support from a single word of Scripture. Its incipient
spirit was severely condemned by Christ in the Pharisees of his
day.— Matt, xv:, .1-9 ; Mark vii., 1-13.
10. When was the canon of the New Testament settled, and
by what authority ?
The authority of every inspired writing is inherent in itself as
God's word, but the fact 'of its being the work of inspired men is
ascertained to us by the testimony of cotemporaries, who were the
only competent witnesses on the subject. Every gospel epistle or
prophecy written by an apostle, or by a known companion of an
apostle, and claiming scriptural authority, was received as such
by all Christians to whom it was known. Considering the pov
erty of the early Christians, the persecutions to which they were
subject, the imperfect means of multiplying copies of Scripture at
their disposal, the comparative infrequency of intercommunication
in those days, the apostolic writings were disseminated with a

96 THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
rapidity, and acknowledged with a universality of consent truly
wonderful. Such writings as were directed -to particular churches
were immediately accredited ; while the circular letters or epistles
generally were longer left in doubt. Each individual church and
teacher received all of the apostolic writings which they were in a
position to ascertain by legitimate evidence. With regard to
most of the books composing our present Bibles general consent
was established from the first, while with regard to a few a period
of doubt and investigation intervened. During this period they
were distributed into two classes. 1st. The homologoumena or
universally received, comprising the large majority of the books we
possess. 2d. The antilegomena or the controverted, 2d Peter,
James, Jude, 2d and 3d John, Revelations, and Hebrews.- Most
of this last class, however, were received by the majority of Chris
tians from the beginning, and their evidences, after the most
thorough scrutiny, . secured universal assent by the fourth cen
tury. — See Jones' New Method, Part I., chap. v. ; Kitto's Bib.
Ency., Art. " Antilegomena."
11. Give a synopsis of the argument establishiny the genuine
ness of the books contained in the received canon of the New Tes
tament. ' .;
1st. Any writing proved to be written by an apostle, or under
the supervision of an apostle, is to be regarded as part of the canon
of Scripture. 2d. The universal or the i nearly universal consent of the early
Christians to the fact of the derivation of a writing from an
apostle, or from one writing under an apostle's supervision,
conclusively establishes the right' of such a writing to a place in
the canon.
3d. The fact that the early Christians unite in testifying to
the genuineness of most of the books constituting our New Testa
ment, and that a majority of these witnesses testify to the genu
ineness of all of them, is abundantly proved.
(1.) The early Christian writers in all parts of the world con
sent in quoting as ' Scripture the writings now embraced in our
canon, while they quote all other writings only for illustration,
not authority.
(2.) The earliest church fathers, beginning with Origen, about

NEW TESTAMENT. 97
A. D. 210, furnish for the guidance of their disciples catalogues
of the books they held to be canonical. Jones, in his work on
the New Testament Canon, Vol. I., pp. 60-63, cites thirteen of
the earliest catalogues, ranging from A. D- 210 to A. D. 390 ;
seven of these agree perfectly with ours ; three others agree per
fectly with ours, only omitting Revelations ; one other omits
only Revelations and Hebrews ; one other agrees with ours, only
speaking doubtful of Hebrews ; and one other speaks doubtfully
of James, Jude, 2d Peter,- 2d and 3d John.
(3.) The earliest translations of the Scriptures into other lan
guages prove that, at the time they were made, the books they
contain were recognized as Scripture, a. The' Peshito or ancient
Syriac translation, made during the first or second century, includes
the four gospels, Acts, all the epistles of Paul, the epistle of James,
and the 1st epistle of John, and the 1st of Peter. Revelations
was probably longer in being recognized, because its contents were
so mysterious that it was not as much read or as diligently circu
lated as the others. 6. The Italic or early Latin version is not
now extant, but it is believed to have contained the same books
afterwards embraced in the vulgate or version of St. Jerome, A. D.
385, which agrees wholly with ours.
4th. The internal evidences corroborate the external testimony.
(1.) The language in which these books were written (later
Greek qualified by Hebrew idiom) proves their authors to have
lived in Palestine, and at the precise age of the world in' which
their reputed authors did live there.
(2.) They present precisely that unity in essentials with cir
cumstantial diversities which is most convincing. Paley (in his
Horas Paulinee) has demonstrated that the Acts and the Pauline
Epistles mutually confirm each other. See also Blunt's Unde
signed Coincidences, and the various Harmonies of the Gospels.
The whole New Testament forms an inseparable whole.
(3.) They have all been found precious by God's spiritual
church of all ages, and are quick and powerful to the conscience.
5th. With respect to those smaller writings, the testimony for
which is not as absolutely unanimous as for the rest, there re
mains this invincible presumption, that God would not permit
his true people all over the world and of all ages to corrupt his
word with the admixture of human compositions.
1

98 THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
12. What special questions do the writings of Mark and
Luke present ?
The testimony that the second and third gospels were really
written by these men is unanimous and unquestioned, but as they'
were not apostles the question is as to the proof that their writ
ings are inspired. ^
Although not themselves apostles, they were the immediate
associates of those princes of the church, and there was a well-
accredited tradition among the fathers that Mark wrote his gospel
under the direction of Peter, and that Luke wrote his under the
direction of Paul. Their writings were widely circulated thirty
years before the death of John, and while Peter and Paul were
living, and yet they were among the very first Scriptures to be
universally received as canonical. They therefore must have been
approved by at least the apostle John. Besides this, their in
ternal evidence, literary, moral, and spiritual, and their harmony
with the other Scriptures in spirit and as to fact, establishes their
claim. — See Alexander on Canon, Part II., Sec. 7.
13.* By what marks have the Apocryphal writings of the New
Testament era been discriminated from the genuine writings of
the apostles ?
The writings thus discriminated by the early Christians were
of two kinds —
1st. The genuine writings of holy men who lived in the age
immediately subsequent to the apostles, and who wrote edifying
epistles and treatises on topics of Christian doctrine or practice.
These were called ecclesiastical, and were often read in the
churches for edification, though never appealed to as author
ity, e. g., Epistle of Clemens Romanus and the Shepherd of
Hermas. 2d. Spurious compositions, falsely set forth as the writings of
Christ or of his apostles, or of their disciples. Some of these were
well intentioned pious frauds ; others were the forgeries ofr here
tics. A few of these appeared in the second, but most in the
fourth century, and the greater part are now lost. As far as their
names can be recovered, Mr. Jones has given a complete list both
of those now extant and of those that have been lost.— Jones'
New Method, Part I., chap. iii, and Part III. The principal writ-

SACRED TEXT. 99
ings' of this, class now extant are the Letter of our Saviour to
Abgarus, king of Edessa ; the Constitutions and Creed of the
Apostles ; the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy ; Letters of Paid
to Seneca ; the Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc.
Mr. Jones has set down several marks in his work, Part I.,
chaps, xi., xii., xiii., by which all these writings may be proved to
constitute no part of Holy Scripture. The sum of the results of
his investigations in the first and second parts of his work are,
that all these writings are proved by their contents to be unworthy
of a place in the canon ; by their style not to be the work of their
reputed authors ; by frequent contradictions not to be consistent
with the received Scriptures. That not one of them was ever
quoted or enrolled as canonical by any competent number of cotem-
poraneous witnesses. That nearly all of them were expressly repu
diated as spurious, or at least as uninspired, by the early church.
14. What are the sources from which the true text of the Old
Testament is ascertained ?
1st. Ancient manuscripts. The Jews have always copied and
preserved their manuscripts with superstitious care, even count
ing the words and letters. " In the period between the sixth
and tenth centuries they had two celebrated academies, one at
Babylon, in the East, and the ' other at Tiberias, in the West,
where their literature was cultivated, and their Scriptures fre
quently transcribed. Hence arose two distinct recensions or
editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, which were collated in the
eighth or ninth centuries," and the text thus prepared is the
masoretic or traditional text which we now have in our Hebrew
Bibles. The most ancient existing Hebrew manuscripts date
from the ninth or tenth centuries. The majority range from
A. D. 1000 to A. D. 1457. The oldest extant printed Hebrew
Bible dates A. D. 1488. Dr. Kennicott collated in preparation
for his critical edition of the Hebrew Bible six hundred and thirty
manuscripts, and M. de Rossi collated nine hundred and fifty-
eight. The various readings presented by these manuscripts in
very few cases involve the sense of the passage, and chiefly relate
to differences in the vowel points, accents, etc.
2d. We may correct the existing text by comparing it with
(1.) The Samaritan Pentateuch, or the edition of the hV books

100 THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
of Moses which the Samaritans inherited from the ten tribes.
(2.) The Targums, which are eleven books in number, some of them
dating from the first century before Christ, and being generally '
very accurate paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures in the an
cient Chaldee. (3.) With the early translations of the Scriptures
into other languages, a The Greek Septuagint, made B. Cf
285. b " The Peshito or ancient Syriac version, A. D. 100 about.
c The Latin Vulgate made by Jerome A. D. 385. — Home's
Introduction,, 15. What are the sources from which the true text of the New
Testament Scripture is ascertained ?
1st. Ancient manuscripts. The oldest and most authorita
tive Greek manuscripts now extant : (1.) The Codex Alexandri-
nus of the fifth century, (called A.) now in the British Museum.
(2.) The Codex Vaticanus of the fourth century, (called B.) now
in the Vatican Library at Rome. (3.) Codex Regius of the sixth
century, (called C.) now in the Royal Library, Paris: (4.) The
Codex Bezss of the sixth century, (called D.) now in the Univer
sity Library, Cambridge. Manuscripts succeeding these in age,
up tovthe end of the fifteenth century, abound all over Europe.
Upwards of six hundred have been diligently collated in prepara
tion for recent editions of the Greek Testament. The results of
the most thorough investigations is uniformly declared by the
most competent scholars to establish beyond question the integ
rity of the sacred text.
2d. The numerous and accurate quotations of the Scriptures
preserved in the writings of the early Christians. " In not less
than one hundred and eighty ecclesiastical writers, whose works
are still extant, are quotations from the New Testament intro
duced, and so numerous are they, that from the works of those
that flourished before the seventh century the whole text of the
New Testament might have been recovered, if the originals had
perished." 3d. Early translations into other languages. (1.) The Peshito
or ancient Syriac version about A .D. 100. (2.) The Latin Vulgate
of Jerome A. D. 385. (3.) The Coptic of the fifth century, and
others of less critical value. — Home's Intro., and Angus' Bible
Hand-Book.

CHAPTER VII.
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
A.S the result of the argument for the being of God presented in
the first chapter, we found (Chap. I., question 20) that even the
light of nature surely discovers that there is a God, and that he is a
personal spirit, infinite, eternal, self-existent, the first cause of
all things, infinitely intelligent, powerful, free of will, righteous, ¦
and benevolent. It remains for us in the present chapter te
attempt to collect and present that additional and clearer knowl
edge of the divine nature which the Scriptures make known to us
by means of his names and his attributes.
1. State the etymology and meaning of the several names ap
propriated to God in the Scriptures.
1st. Jehovah, from the Hebrew verb n;n, to be. It expresses
self-existence and unchangeableness ; it is the incommunicable
name of God, which the Jews superstitiously refused to pro
nounce, always substituting in their reading the word Adonai,
Lord. Hence it is represented in our English version by the word
Lord, printed in capital letters.
Jah, probably an abbreviation of the name Jehovah, is used
principally in the Psalms. — Ps. lxviii., 4. It constitutes the con
cluding syllable of hallelujah, praise Jehovah.
God gave to Moses his peculiar name, " I am that I am,'*
Ex. iii., 14, from the same root," and bearing the same funda
mental significance as Jehovah.
2d. El, might, power, translated Godi and applied alike to
the true and to the false gods. — Isa. xii v., 10.
3d. Elohim and Eloah, the same name in its singular and
plural form, derived from n^R, to fear, reverence. "In its singular
form it is used only in the latter books and in poetry." In the

102 . THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
plural form it is sometimes used with a plural sense for gods, but
more commonly as a pluralis excellentife, for God. It is applied
to false gods, but preeminently to Jehovah as the great object of
adoration. 4th. Adonai, the Lord, a pluralis excellentice, applied ex
clusively to God, expressing possession and sovereign dominion,
equivalent to kvoioc, Lord, so frequently applied to Christ in the
New Testament.
5th. Saddai, 'almighty, a pluralis excellentias. Sometimes it
stands by itself. — Job v., 17 ; and sometimes combined with a
preceding El. — Gen. xvii., 1.
6th. Elyon, Most High, a verbal adjective, from nV», to go up,
ascend. — Ps. ix., 3; xxL, 8.
7th. The term Tzebaoth, of hosts, is frequently used as an
epithet qualifying one of the above-mentioned names of God.
Thus, Jehovah of Hosts, God of Hosts, Jehovah, God of Hosts. — ¦
Amos iv., 13; Ps. xxiv., 10. Some have thought this equivalent
to God of Battles. The true force of the epithet, however, is
u sovereign of the stars, material hosts of heaven, and of the an
gels their inhabitants." — Dr. J. A. Alexander, Com. on Ps. xxiv.,
10, and Gesenius' Heb. Lex.
8th. Many other epithets are applied to God metaphorically,
to set forth the relation he sustains to us and the offices he ful
fills, e. g., King, Lawgiver, Judge. — Isa. xxxiii., 17 ; Ps. xxiv.,
8 ; L, 6. Rock, Fortress, Tower, Deliverer. — 2 Sam. xxii., 2, 3 ;
Ps. lxii., 2. Shepherd, Husbandman. — Ps. xxiii., 1; John, xv., 1.
Father, Matt, vi , 9 ; John xx., 17, etc.
2. What are the divine attributes ?
As God is infinite in his being, and in all the affections and
modes thereof, it is manifestly impossible for any creature to con
ceive of him as he is in himself, or as he apprehends his own infi
nite being in his infinite knowledge. Yet he has mercifully con
descended to reveal himself to us under the form of certain finite
conceptions, which are possible to us only after the analogy of
our own spiritual constitution, and because of the revealed fact
that man was created in the image of God. They are imperfect,
because finite conceptions ; they are true, because revealed by God
himself to man created in his own image. The word attribute

• classification. 103
signifies that which in human thought, on the authority of divine
revelation, is to be truly attributed to or predicated of God,
They are not, however, to be conceived of as properties dis
tinct from his essence, but as modes of conceiving of his essence.
His knowledge is his essence knowing, as his love is his essence
loving. Concerning the nature and operations of God, we can know
only what he has vouchsafed to reveal to us, and with every con
ception, either of his being or his acts, there must always attend
an element of incomprehensibility, which is inseparable from in
finitude. His knowledge and power are as truly beyond all under
standing as his eternity or immensity. — Job. xi., 7-9 ; xxvi., 14 ;
Ps. cxxxix., 5, 6; Isa. xl., 28. The moral elements of his glorious
nature are the norm or original law of our moral faculties ; thus
we are made capable of comprehending the ultimate principles of
truth and justice upon which he acts. Yet his action upon those
principles is often a trial of our faith, and an occasion of our
adoring wonder. — Rom. xi., 33-36 ; Isa. Iv., 8, 9.
3. How are we to understand those . passages of Scripture
which attribute to God bodily parts and the infirmities of human
passion ?
The passages referred to are such as speak of the face of God,
Ex. xxxiii., 11, 20 ; his eyes, 2 Chron., xvi., 9 ; his nostrils, 2
Sam. xxii., 9, 16; his arms and feet, Isa. Iii., 10, and Ps. xviii., 9;
and such as speak of his repenting and grieving, Gen. vi., 6, 7 ;
Jer. xv., 6 ; Ps. xcv., 10 ; of his being jealous, Deut. xxix., 20,
etc. These are to be understood only as metaphors. They rep
resent the truth with respect to God only analogically, and as
seen from our point of view.
When he is said to repent, or to be grieved, or to be jealous,
it is only meant that he acts towards us as a man would
when agitated by such passions. These metaphors occur princi
pally in the Old Testament, and in highly rhetorical passages of
the poetical and prophetical books.
4. How may the divine attributes be classified ?
From the vastness of the subject and the incommensurateness
of our faculties, it is evident that no classification of the divine

104 THE attributes of god.
attributes we can form can be anything more than approximately
accurate and complete. The most common classifications rest
upon the following principles : — ¦¦
1st. The attributes of God, distinguished as communicable
and incommunicable. The communicable are those to which the
attributes-of the human spirit bear the nearest analogy, e. g., his
power, knowledge, will, goodness, and righteousness. The incom
municable are those to which there is in the creature nothing an
alogous, as eternity, immensity, etc. This distinction, however,
must not be pressed too far. God is infinite in his relation to
space and time ; we are finite in our relation to both. But he is
no less infinite as to his knowledge, will, goodness, and righteous
ness in all their modes, and we are finite in all these respects.
All God's attributes known to^us, or conceivable by us, are com
municable, in as much as they have their analogy in us, but they
are all alike incommunicable, in as much as they are all infinite.
2d. The attributes of God, distinguished as natural and moraL
The natural are all those which pertain to his existence as an in
finite, rational Spirit, e. g., eternity, immensity, intelligence, will,
power. The moral are those additional attributes which belong
to him as an infinite, righteous Spirit, e. g., justice,- mercy, truth.
I would diffidently propose the following four-fold clasification:
(1.) Those attributes which equally qualify all the rest— In-*
finitude, that which has no bounds ; absoluteness, that which is
determined either in its being or modes of being or action by
nothing whatsoever .without itself. This includes immutability.
(2.) Natural attributes. God is an infinite Spirit, self-exist-.
ent, eternal, immense, simple, free of will, intelligent, powerful.
(3). Moral attributes. God is a Spirit infinitely righteous,
good, true, and faithful.
(4.) The consummate glory of all the divine perfections in
union. The beauty of holiness.
THE UNITY OF GOD.
5. In what sense is God one ?
1st. There is only one God, to the exclusion of all others.
2d. Notwithstanding the threefold personal distinction in the
unity of, the, Godhead, yet these three are one in substance, and
constitute one indivisible God.

UNITY. 105
6. How may the proposition, that God is one and indivisible,
be proved ?
1st. There appears to be a necessity in reason for conceiving
of God as one. That which is absolute and infinite can not but
be one and indivisible in essence. If God is not one, then it will
necessarily follow that there are more gods than one.
2d. The uniform representation of Scripture. — John x., 30.
7. Prove from Scripture that the proposition, there is but
one God, is true.
Deut. vi., 4 ; 1 Kings viii., 60 ; Isa. xliv., 6 ; Mark xii., 29,
32 ; 1 Cor. viii., 4 ; Eph. iv., 6.
8. What is the argument from the harmony of creation in
favor of the divine unity ?
The whole creation, between the outermost range of telescopic
and of microscopic observation, is manifestly one indivisible sys
tem. But we have already* (Chapter I.) proved the existence of
God from the phenomena of the universe ; and we now argue
upon the same principle that if an effect proves the prior opera
tion of a cause, and if traces of design prove a designer, then
singleness of plan and operation in that design and its execution
prove that the designer is one.
9. What is the argument upon this point from necessary
existence ?
The existence of God is said to be necessary, because it has its
cause from eternity in itself. It is the' same in all duration and
in all space alike. It is absurd to conceive of God's not existing
at any time or in any portion of space, while all other existence
whatsoever, depending upon his mere will, is contingent. But the
necessity which is uniform in all times and in every portion of
space, is evidently only one and indivisible, and can be the ground
of the existence only of one God.
This argument is logical, and has been prized highly by many
distinguished theologians. It however appears to involve the error
of presuming human logic to be the measure of existence.
10. What is the argument from infinite perfection, in proof
that there can be but one God /

106 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
God is infinite in his being and in all of his perfections, But
the infinite, by including all, excludes all others. If there were
two infinite beings, each would necessarily include the other, and
be included by it, and thus they would be the same, one and
identical. It is certain that the idea of the co-existence of two
infinitely perfect beings is as repugnant to human reason as to
Scripture. 11. What is polytheism ? and what dualism ?
Polytheism, as the etymology of the word indicates, is a gen
eral term designating every system of religion which teaches the
existence of a plurality of gods.
Dualism is the designation of that system which recognizes
two original and independent principles in the universe, the one
good and the other evil. At present these principles are in a rela
tion of ceaseless antagonism, the good ever struggling to, oppose
the evil, and to deliver its province from its baneful intrusion.
12. What is meant by the phrase simplicity, when appUed to
God? The term simplicity is used, first, in opposition to material
composition, whether mechanical, organic, or chemical ; second,
in a metaphysical sense in negation of the relation of substance
and property, essence and mode. In the first sense of the word
human souls are simple, because they are not composed of ele
ments, parts, or organs. In the second sense of the word our
souls are complex, since there is in them a distinction between
their essence and their properties, and their successive modes or
states of existence. As, however, God is infinite, eternal, self-
existent from eternity, necessarily the. same without succession,
theologians have maintained that in him essence, and property,
and mode are one. He always is what he is, and he is what he is
essentially, and by the same necessity that he exists. Whatever
is in God,' whether thought, emotion, volition, or act, is God.
Although this distinction has the sanction of the highest names,
it appears to involve at least a questionable application of humaD
reason to subjects so far transcending the analogy of human con
sciousness. 13. What is affirmed when it is said that God is a spirit ?

SPIRITUALITY. 107
We know nothing of substance except as it is manifested by
its properties. Matter is that substance whose properties mani
fest themselves directly to our bodily senses. Spirit is that sub
stance whose properties manifest themselves to us directly in
self-consciousness, and only - infer entially by words and other
signs or modes of expression through our senses.
When we say God is a Spirit we mean —
1st. Negatively, that he does not possess bodily parts or pas
sions ; that he is composed of no material elements ; that he is
not subject to any of the limiting conditions of material exist
ence ; and, consequently, that he is not to be apprehended as the
object of any of our bodily senses.
2d. Positively, that he is a rational being, who distinguishes
with infinite precision between the true and the false ; that he is
a moral being, who distinguishes between the right and the wrong;
that he is a free agent, whose action is self-determined by his own
will ; and, in fine, that all the essential properties of our spirits
may truly be predicated of him in an infinite degree. — John iv., 24;
Chap. I., questions 23, 24, 27, 30.
god's relation to space.
14. What is meant by the im,mensity of God ?
The immensity of God is the phrase used to express the fact
that God is infinite in his relation to space, *. e., that the entire
indivisible essence of God is at every moment of time cotempo-
raneously present to every point of infinite space.
This is not in virtue of the infinite multiplication of his Spirit,
since he is eternally one and individual ; nor does it result froin
the infinite diffusion of his essence through infinite space, as air
is diffused over the surface of the earth, since, being a Spirit, he is
not composed of parts, nor is he capable of extension, but the
whole Godhead in the one indivisible essence is equally present in
every moment of eternal duration to the whole of infinite space,
and to every part of it. .
15. How does immensity differ from omnipresence ?
Immensity characterizes the relation of God to space viewed
abstractly in itself. Omnipresence characterizes the relation of

108 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
God to his creatures as they severally occupy their several posi
tions in space. The divine essence is immense in its own being,
absolutely. It is omnipresent relatively to all his creatures.
16. What are the different modes of the divine presence, and
how may it be proved that he is everywhere present as to his
essence ?
God may be conceived of as present in any place, or with any
creature, in several modes, first, as to his essence ; second, as to
his knowledge ; third, as manifesting that presence to any intelli
gent creature; fourth, as exercising his power in any way in or
upon the creature. As to essence and knowledge, his presence is
the same everywhere and always. As to his" self-manifestation
and the exercise of his power, his presence differs endlessly in
different cases in degree and mode. Thus God is present to the
church as he is not to the world. Thus he is present in hell in
the manifestation and execution of righteous wrath, while he is
present in heaven in the manifestation and communication of
gracious love and glory.
That God is everywhere present as to his essence is proved,
first, from Scripture (1 Kings viii., 27 ; Ps. cxxxix., 7-10 ;
Isa. lxvi., 1 ; Acts xvii., 27, 28) ; second, from reason. (1.) It
follows necessarily from his infinitude. (2:) From the fact
that his knowledge is his essence knowing, and his actions are
his essence acting. Yet his knowledge and his power reach to
all things. 17. State the different relations that bodies created spirits
and God sustain to space.
Turretin says : Bodies are conceived of as existing in space
circumscriptively, because occupying a certain portion of space
they are Hounded by space upon every side. Created spirits do
not occupy any portion of space, nor are they embraced by any,
they are, however, in, space definitely^ as here and not there.
God, on the other hand, is in space repletively, because in a tran
scendent manner his essence fills all space. He is included in no
space ; he is excluded from none. Wholly present to each point,
he comprehends all space at once.

RELATION TO TIME. 109
THE RELATION OF GOD TO TIME.
18. What is eternity ?
Eternity is infinite duration ; duration discharged from all
limits, without beginning, without succession, and without end.
The schoolmen phrase it punctum stans, an ever-abiding present.
We, however, can positively conceive of eternity only as du
ration indefinitely extended from the present moment in two
directions, as to the past and as to the future. These are im
properly expressed as eternity a parte ante, or past, and eternity
a parte post, or future. The eternity of God, however, is one
and indivisible.
19. What is time ?
Time is limited duration, measured by succession, either of
thought or motion. It is distinguished in reference to our per
ceptions into past, present, and future.
20. What relation does time bear to eternity ?
Eternity, the unchanging present, without beginning or end,
comprehends all time, and co-exists as an undivided moment,
with all the successions of time as they appear and pass in their
order. Thought is possible to us, however, only under the limitations
of time and space. We can conceive of God only under the finite
fashion of first purposing and then acting, of first promising or
threatening and then fulfilling his word, etc. He that inhabiteth
eternity infinitely transcends our understanding. — Isa. lvii., 15.
21. When we say that God is eternal, what do we affirm, and
what do we deny ?
We affirm, first, that as to his existence, he never had any
beginning, and never will have any end ; second, that>as to the
mode of his existence, his thoughts, emotions, purposes, and acts
are, without succession, one and inseparable the same for ever ;
third, that he is immutable. y
We deny, first, that he ever had a beginning or ever will have
an end ; second, that his states or modes of being occur in suc
cession ; third, that his essence, attributes, or purposes will ever
change.

110 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
22. In tohat sense are the acts of God spoken of as past, pre
sent, and future ?
The acts«of God are never past, present, or future as" respects
God himself, but only in respect to the objects and effects of his
acts in the creature. The efficient purpose comprehending the
precise object, time, and circumstance was present to him always
and changelessly ; the event, however, taking place in the crea
ture, occurs in time, and is thus past, present, or future to our
observation. 23. In what sense are events past or future as it regards
God ?
As God's knowledge is infinite, every event must, first, be
ever equally present to his knowledge from eternity to eternity ;
second, these events must be known to him as they actually occur
in themselves, e. g., in tlieir true nature, relations, and succes
sions. This distinction,, therefore, holds true — God's knowledge
of all events is without beginning, end, or succession ; but he
knows' them as in themselves occurring in the successions of time;
past, present, or future, relatively to one another.
24. What is meant by the immutability of God ?
By his immutability we mean that it follows from the infinite
perfection of God ; that he can' not be changed by anything
from without himself ; and that he will not change from any
principle within himself. That as to his essence, his will, andJiis
states of existence, he is the same from eternity to eternity.
Thus he is absolutely immutable in himself. He is also immutable
relatively to the creature, in so much as his knowledge, purpose,
and truth, as these are conceived by us and are revealed to us, can
know neither variableness nor shadow of turning. — James L, 17.
25. Prove from Scripture and reason that God is immu
table. 1st. Scripture : Mai. iii., 6 ; Ps. xxxiii., 11 ; Isa. xlvi., 10 ;
James L, 17.
2d. Reason: (1.) God is self-existent. As he is caused by none,
but causes all, so he can be changed by none, but changes all.
(2.) He is the absolute being. Neither his existence, nor the man-

RELATION TO TIME. Ill
ner of it, nor his will, are determined by any necessary relation
which they, sustain to any thing exterior to himself. As he pre
ceded all and caused all, so his sovereign will freely determined
the relations which all things are permitted to sustain to him.
(3.) He is infinite in duration, and therefore he can not know
succession or change. (4.) He is infinite in all perfection, knowl
edge, wisdom, righteousness, benevolence, will, power, and there
fore can not change, for nothing can be added to the infinite nor
taken from it. Any change would make him either less than in
finite before, or less than infinite afterwards.
' 26. Hoio can the creation of the world and the incarnation
of the Son be reconciled with the immutability of God ?
1st. As to the creation. The efficacious purpose, the will
and power to" create the world dwelleth in God from eternity
without change, but this very efficacious purpose itself provided
that the effect should take place in its proper time and order.
This effect took place from God, but of course involved no sha
dow of change in God, as nothing was either taken from him or
added to him.
2d. As to the incarnation. The divine Son assumed a created
human nature into personal union with himself. His uncreated
essence of course was not changed. His eternal person was not
changed in itself, but only brought into a new relation. The
change effected by that stupendous event occurred only in the
created nature of the man Christ Jesus.
THE INFINITE INTELLIGENCE OF GOD.
27. How does God's mode of knowing differ from ours ?
God's knowledge is, 1st, his essence knowing ; 2d, it is one
eternal, all-comprehensive, indivisible act.
(1.) It is not discursive, i. e., proceeding logically from the
known to the unknown ; but intuitive, i. e., discerning all things
directly in its own light.
(2.) It is independent, i. e., it does in no way depend upon
his creatures or their actions, but solely upon his own infinite
intuition of all things possible in the light of his own reason,
and of all things actual and future in the light of his own eternal
purpose.

112 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
' (3.) It is total and simultaneous, not successive. It is one
single, indivisible act of intuition, beholding all things in them
selves, their relations and successions, as ever present.
(4.) It is perfect and essential, not relative, i. e., he knows all
things directly in their hidden essences, while we know them only
by their properties, as they stand related to our senses.
28. How may the objects of divine knowledge be classified ?
1st. God himself in his own infinite being. It is evident that
this, transcending the sum of all other objects, is the only ade
quate object of a knowledge really infinite.
2d. All possible objects, as such, whether they are or ever
have been, or ever will be or not, seen in the light of his own in
finite reason.
3d. All things which have been, are, or will be, he compre
hends in one eternal, simultaneous act of knowledge, as ever pre
sent actualities to him, and as known ,to be such in the light of
his own sovereign and eternal purpose.
29. What is the technical designation of the knowledge of
things possible, and what- is the foundation of that knowledge .?
Its technical designation is scientia simplicis intelligently,
knoioledge of simple intelligence, so called, because it is conceived
by us as an act simply of the divine intellect, without any con
current act of the divine will. For the same reason it has been
styled scientia necessaria, necessary knowledge, i, e., not volun
tary, or determined by will. The foundation of that knowledge ,
is God's essential and infinitely perfect knowledge of his own
omnipotence. 30. What is the technical designation of the knowledge of
things actual, whether past, present, or future, and what is tne
foundation of that knowledge ?
It is called scientia visionis, knowledge of vision, and scientia
libera, free knowledge, because his intellect is in this case con
ceived of as being determined by a concurrent act of his will.
The foundation of this knowledge is God's infinite knowledge
of his own all-comprehensive and unchangeable eternal purpose.

INFINITE INTELLIGENCE. 113
31. Prove that the knowledge of God extends to future con
tingent events.
The contingency of events in our view of them has a two-fold
ground : first, their immediate causes may be by us indeterminate,
as in the case of the dice ; second, their immediate cause may be
the volition of a free agent. The first class are in no sense con
tingent in God's view. The second class are foreknown by him
as contingent in their cause, but as none the less certain in their
event. That he does foreknow all such is certain —
1st. Scripture affirms it. — 1 Sam. xxiii., H, 12 ; Acts ii., 23;
xv., 18 ; Isa. xlvi., 9, 10.
2d. He has often predicted contingent events future, at the
time of the prophecy, which the event has fulfilled. — Mark xiv., 30.
3d. God is infinite in all his perfections, his knowledge, there
fore, must (1.) be perfect, and comprehend all things future as
well as past (2.) independent of the creature. He knows all
things in themselves by his own light, and can not depend upon
the will of the creature to make his knowledge either more cer
tain or more complete.
32. How can the foreknowledge of God be reconciled with the
freedom of moral agents in their acts ?
The difficulty here presented is of this nature. God's foreknowl
edge is certain ; the event, therefore, must be certainly future ;
if certainly future, how can the agent be free in enacting it.
In order to avoid this difficulty some theologians, on the one
hand, have denied the reality of man's moral freedom, while
others, on the other hand, have maintained that, God's knowl
edge being free, he voluntarily abstains from knowing what his
creatures endowed with free agency will do.
We remark —
1st. God's certain foreknowledge of all future events and man's
free agency are both certain facts, impregnably established by
independent evidence. We must believe both, whether we can
reconcile them or not. '
2d. Although necessity is inconsistent with liberty, moral
certainty is not, as is abundantly shown in Chapter XVIII.,
question 12. 8

114 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
• 33. What is scientia media ?
This is the.technical designation of God's knowledge of future
contingent events, presumed, by the authors of this distinction, to
depend not upon the eternal purpose of God making the event
certain, but upon the free act of the creature as foreseen by a spe
cial intuition. It is called scientia media, middle knowledge,
because it is supposed to occupy a middle ground between the
knowledge of simple intelligence and the knowledge of vision. It
differs from the former, since its object is not all possible things,
but a special class of things actually future. It differs from the
latter, since its ground is not the eternal purpose of God, but the
free action of the creature as simply foreseen.
34. By whom was this distinction introduced, and for what.
purpose ?
By the Jesuit doctors, for the purpose of explaining how God
might certainly foreknow what his free creatures would do in the
absence of any sovereign foreordination on his part, determining
their action. Thus making his foreordination of men to happi
ness or misery to depend upon his foreknowledge of their faith
and obedience, and denying that his foreknowledge depends upon
his sovereign foreordination.
35. Wliat are the arguments against the validity of this dis
tinction ?
1st. The arguments upon which it is based are untenable.
Its advocates plead, (1.) Scripture. — 1 Sam. xxiiL, 9-12 ; Matt.
xi., 22, 23. (2.) That this distinction is obviously necessary, in
order to render the mode of the divine foreknowledge consistent
with man's free agency.
To the first argument we answer, that the events mentioned
in the above-cited passages of Scripture were not future. They
simply teach that God, knowing all causes, free and necessary, ,
knows how they would act under any proposed condition. Even
we know that if we add fire to powder an explosion would ensue.
This comes under the first class we cited* above, (question 29,) or
the knowledge of all possible things. To the second argument
we answer, that the certain foreknowledge of God involves the
certainty of the future free act of his creature as much as his'fore-

INFINITE INTELLIGENCE. 115
ordination does ; and that the sovereign foreordination of God,
with respect to the free acts of men, only makes them certainly
future, and does not in the least provide for causing those acts
in any other way than by the free will of the creature himself
acting freely.
2d. This middle knowledge is unnecessary, Because all possible
objects of knowledge, all possible things, and all things actually
to be, have already been embraced under the two classes already
cited, (questions, 29, 30.)
3d. If God certainly foreknows any future event, then it must
be certainly future, and he must have foreknown it to be certainly
future, either because it was antecedently certain, or because his
foreknowing it made it certain. If his foreknowing it made it
certain, then his foreknowledge involves foreordination. If it
was antecedently certain, then we ask, what could have made it
certain, except what we affirm, the decree of God, either to cause
it himself immediately, or to cause it through some necessary
second cause, or that some free agent should cause it freely ?
We can only choose between the foreordination of God and a
blind fate.
4th. This view makes the knowledge of God to depend upon
the acts o^his creatures without himself. This is both absurd
and impious, if God is infinite, eternal, and absolute.
5th. The Scriptures teach that God does foreordain as well as
foreknow the free acts of men. — Isa. x., 5-15 ; Acts ii., 23 ; iv., 27, 28.
36. How does wisdom differ from knowledge, and wherein does
the wisdom of God consist ?
Knowledge is a simple act of the understanding, apprehend
ing that a thing is, and comprehending its nature and relations,
or how it is.
Wisdom presupposes knowledge, and is the practical use which
the understanding, determined by the will, makes of the material
of knowledge. God's wisdom ; is infinite and eternal. It is con
ceived of by us as selecting the highest possible end, the mani
festation of his own glory, and then in selecting and directing in
every department of his operations the best possible means to
secure that end. This wisdom is gloriously manifested to us in
the great theaters of creation, providence, and grace.

116 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
THE INFINITE POWER OF GOD.
37. What is meant by the omnipotence of God ?
Power is that efficiency which, by an essential law of thought,
we recognize as inherent in a cause in relation to its effect. God
is the uncaused first cause, and the causal efficiency of his will is
absolutely limitless,
38. In what sense have theologians admitted that the power
of God is limited ?
1st. By his own infinitely perfect nature. He can not act
either unwisely or unjustlyJ
2d. By the nature of things. He can not work an essential
contradiction. We regard this language as inaccurate. For with regard to
the first limit, his own nature, his power, resides in his will, and
he certainly can do whatsoever he wills to do. It would be more
accurate, therefore, to say that his infinitely wise and righteous
will always chooses wisely and righteously, than to say that wis
dom or righteousness limits his power.
With regard to the second limit. Contradictions are not
things. To be and not to be at the same time, and in the same
sense is a mere logical quibble. *
39. How can absolute omnipotence be proved to belong to
God? 1st. It is asserted by Scripture. — Jer. xxxii., 17 ; Matt, xix,,
26 ; Luke L, 37 ; Rev. xix., 6.
2d. It is necessarily involved in the very idea of God as an
infinite being.
3d. Although we have seen but part of his ways, (Job xxvi.,
14), yet our constantly extending experience is ever revealing to
us new and more astonishing evidences of his power, which always
indicate an inexhaustible reserve.
THE WILL OF GOD.
40. What is meant by the will of God ?
The will of God is the infinitely and(eternally wise, powerful,
and righteous essence of God willing. In our conception it is

INFINITE WILL. 117
that attribute of the Deity to which we refer his purposes and
decrees as their principle.
41. In what sense is the will of God said to be free, and in
what sense necessary ?
The will of God is the wise, powerful, and righteous essence
of God willing. His will, therefore, in every act is certainly and
yet most freely both wise and righteous. The liberty of indiffer
ence is evidently foreign to his nature, because the perfection of
wisdom is to choose the most wisely, and the perfection of right
eousness is to choose the most righteously.
On the other hand, the will of God is" from eternity absolutely
independent of all his creatures and all their actions.
42. What is intended by the distinction between the decretive
and the preceptive will of God ?
The decretive will of God is God efficaciously purposing the
certain futurition of events. The preceptive will of God is God,
as moral governor, commanding his moral creatures to do that
which he sees it right and wise that they in their circumstances
should do.
These are not inconsistent. What he wills as our duty may
very consistently be different from what he wills as his purpose.
What it is right for him to permit may be wrong for him to ap
prove, or for us to do.
43. What is meant by the distinction between the secret and
revealed will of God ?
The secret will of God is his decretive will, called secret, be
cause although it is sometimes revealed to man in the prophecies
and promises of the Bible, yet it is for the most part hidden in
God. The revealed will of God is his perceptive will, which is
always clearly set forth as the rule of our duty. — Deut. xxix., 29.
44. In what sense do the Arminians maintain the distinction
between the antecedent and consequent will of God, and what are
the objections to their' view of the subject ?
This is a distinction invented by the schoolmen, and adopted

118 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
by the Arminians, for reconciling the will of God with their
theory of the free agency of man.
They call that an antecedent act of God's will which precedes
the action of the creature, e. g., before Adam sinned God willed
him to be happy. They call that a consequent act of God's will
which followed the act of the creature, and is consequent upon
that act, et g., after Adam sinned God willed !him to suffer the
penalty due to his sin. *
It is very evident that this distinction does not truly repre
sent the nature of God's will, and its relation to the acts of his
creatures : first, God is eternal, and therefore there can be no
distinction in his acts as to time ; second, God is eternally om
niscient and omnipotent. . If he wills anything, therefore, he
must from the beginning will the means to accomplish it, and
thus secure the attainment of the end willed. Otherwise God
must have, at the same time, two inconsistent' wills with regard
to the same object. The truth is that God, eternally and un
changeably, by one comprehensive act of will, willed all that
happened to Adam from beginning to end in the precise order
and succession in which each event occurred ; third, God is in
finitely independent. It is degrading to God to conceive of him
as first willing that whic"h he has no power to effect, and then-
changing his will consequently to the independent acts of his
creatures. It is true, indeed, that because of the natural limits of our
capacities we necessarily conceive of the several intentions of
God's one, eternal, indivisible purpose, as sustaining a certain
logical, (not temporal,) relation to each other as principle and
consequent. Thus we conceive of God's first (in logical order)
decreeing to create man, then to permit him to fall, then to elect
some to everlasting life, and then to provide a redemption.—
Turrettin. 45. In what sense do Arminians hold the distinction ^between
the absolute and conditional will of God, and what are the objec
tions to that view ?
In their view that is the absolute will of God which is sus
pended upon no condition without himself, e. g., his decree to
create man. That is the conditional will of God which is sus-

INFINITE WILL. 119
peuded upon a condition, e. g., his decree to save those that be
Ueve, i. e., on condition of their faith.
It is evident that this view is entirely inconsistent with the
nature of God as an eternal, self-existent, independent being, in
finite in all his perfections. It degrades him to the position of
being simply a coordinate part of the creation, mutually limiting
and being limited by the creature.
The mistake results from detaching a fragment of God's will
from the one whole, all-comprehensive eternal purpose. It is
evident that, when properly viewed as eternal and one, God's
purpose must comprehend all conditions, as well as their conse
quents. God's will is suspended upon no condition, but he eter
nally wills the event as suspended upon its condition, and its
condition as determining the event.
It is admitted by all that God's preceptive will, as expressed
in commands, promises, and threatenings, is often suspended upon
condition. If we believe we shall certainly be saved. This is the
relation which God has immutably established between faith as
the condition, and salvation as the consequent, i. e., faith is the
condition of salvation. But this is something very different from
saying that the faith of Paul was the condition of God's eternal
purpose to save him, because the same purpose determined the
faith as the condition, and the salvation as its consequent. See
further, Chapter IX., on the decrees.
46. In what sense is me will of God said to be eternal ?
It is one eternal, unsuccessive, all-comprehensive act, absolutely
determining either to effect or to permit all things, in all of their
relations, conditions, and successions, which ever were, are, or
ever will be.
47, In what sense may the will of God be said to be the rule
of righteousness ?
It is evident that in the highest sense, with respect to God
willing, his mere will can not be regarded as the ultimate ground
Of all righteousness, any more than it can be as the ultimate
ground of all wisdom. Because, in that case, it would follow,
first that there would be no essential difference between right
and wrong in themselves, but only a difference arbitrarily consti-

120 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
tuted by God himself ; and, second, that it would be senseless
to ascribe righteousness to God, for then that would be merely" to
say that he wills as he wills. The truth is, that his will acts as
his infinitely righteous wisdom sees to be right.
On the other hand, God's revealed will is to us the absolute
and ultimate rule of righteousness, alike when he commands
things in themselves indifferent, and thus makes them right, as
when he commands things in themselves essentially right, .be
cause they are right. THE INFINITE JUSTICE OF GOD.
48. What is meant by the distinctions absolute and relative,
rector al, distributive, and punitive or vindictive justice of God ?
The absolute justice of God is the infinite moral perfection or
universal righteousness of his own being.
The relative justice of God is his infinitely righteous nature,
viewed as exercised in his relation to his moral creatures, as their
moral governor.
This last is called rectoral, when viewed as exercised gen
erally in administering the affairs of his universal government, in
providing for and governing his creatures and their actions. It
is called distributive, when viewed as exercised in giving unto
each creature his exact proportionate due of rewards or punish
ment. It is called punitive or vindictive, when viewed as de
manding and inflicting the adequate and proportionate punish
ment of all sin, because of its intrinsic ill desert.
49. What are the different opinions as to the nature of the
punitive justice of God, i. e., what are the different reasons as
signed why God punishes sin ?
The Socinians deny the punitive justice of God altogether,
and maintain that he punishes sin simply for the good of the in
dividual sinner, and of society, only so far as it may be interested
in his restraint or improvement. The new school theologians,
maintaining the governmental theory of the Atonement, hold
that God punishes sin not because of a changeless principle in
himself demanding its punishment, but for the good of the uni
verse, on the basis of great and changeless principles of govern-

INFINITE JUSTICE. 121
mental policy. Thus resolving justice into a form of general
benevolence. — See Beman on the Atonement.
Some hold that the necessity for the punishment of sin is only
hypothetical, i. e., results only from the eternal decree of God.
The true view is that God is immutably determined by his
own eternal and essential righteousness to visit every sin with a
proportionate punishment.
t)0. How may it be argued from the independence and absolute
self-sufficiency of God, that punitive justice is an essential attri
bute of his nature ?
It is inconsistent with these essential attributes to conceive
of God as obliged to any course of action by the external exigen
cies of his creation. Both the motive and the end of his action
must be in himself. If he punishes sin because determined so to
do by the principles of his own nature, then he acts indepen
dently. But if he resorts to this merely as the necessary means
of restraining and governing his creatures, then their actions
control his.
51. What argument in support of this doctrine may be drawn
from the instinctive sense of justice which is essentially inherent
in our nature ?
Man, especially as to his moral nature, was created in the
image of God. We necessarily refer to him in an infinite degree
pur highest ideal of moral excellence. Conscience, as the organ
of the moral law in our hearts, echoes the voice, and discovers
to us the moral character of the great Lawgiver.
Now, the universal testimony of the human conscience is, that
ill desert is of the essence of sin ; that, irrespective of any gen
eral consequences to society, the malefactor deserves punishment;
and that no amount of pubhc benefit can justify the judicial in
jury of the innocent. This is implied in all human laws, in all
superstitious fears, and in the penances and expiatory sacrifices
which, in one form or another, have constituted a prominent ele
ment in all religions.
. 52. How may this principle be inferred from God's love of
holiness and hatred of sin ?

122 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
If the reason for God's punishing sin was founded simply in
his own arbitrary will, then he could not be said to hate sin, but
only to love his own will. Or if his reason for punishing sin
rested solely upon governmental considerations, then he could not
be strictly said to hate sin, but only its consequences.
But both our consciences and Scripture teach positively that
God does hate sin and love holiness for their own sakes. — Hab.
L, 13 ; Ps. v., 4, 5 ; xiv., 6, 7 ; cxlv., 17 ; Prov. xi., 20 ; Deut.
iv., 24. *
To deny this doctrine is to deny the very essence of moral
goodness, to resolve righteousness into prudence, and right into
advantage. 53. How may it be proved from what the Scriptures say of
the death of Christ ?
The Scriptures teach that our sins were laid upon Christ ;
that he was made sin ; that he suffered the just for the unjust
that God might justly justify the unjust. — Isa. liiL, 5-11 ; Rom.
iii., 24-26 ; Gal. iii., 13, 14 ; 1 Pet. iii., 18 ; also see Chapter.
XXII. But if the necessity for the punishment of sin arises
simply from the arbitrary will of God, then the sacrifice of Christ
involved no punishment of sin at all, but a mere gratification of
God's arbitrary will. Or if, on the other hand, it derives its
necessity purely from govermental considerations, *'. e., from the
necessity of restraining sinners and preventing the spread of sin
by manifesting to the universe a stupendous evidence that sin
shall be punished, what would this be but to make the awful
death of Christ a well-intentioned fiction. For if Christ died,
not because all sin intrinsically deserves punishment, not because
there is an immutable principle in God demanding its punish-
ishment, but only that further sin may be prevented, then sin
was not punished. Yet the Scriptures declare that it was. But
if our doctrine be true, that God is immutably determined to
punish all sin, then we can understand why, without the shed
ding of blood, there can be no remission, and a sufficient reason
is given for the awful sacrifice of the incarnate Word.
54. How may it be proved from the law of God ?
The penalty is as essential an element of the law as the pre-

INFINITE GOODNESS. 123
cept, and together they constitute one inseparable and perfect
rule of moral rectitude. The language of the law is, " the soul
that sinneth it shall die." Now, if this rule be based upon the
mere will of God, then it is no revelation of his moral nature, and
no display of his essential righteousness. If, on the other hand,
it is based on mere governmental considerations of general advan
tage, then there remains no distinction between right and wrong.
We hold, however, that the one all-perfect law exhibits at once
what God's infinitely perfect righteousness determines him tp
demand of his moral creatures, and in case of disobedience to
inflict. THE INFINITE GOODNESS OF GOD.
55. What distinctions are signified by the terms benevolence,
complacency, mercy, and grace ?
The infinite goodness of God is a glorious perfection which
preeminently characterizes his nature, and which he, in an in
finitely wise, righteous, and sovereign manner, exercises towards
his creatures in various modes according to their relations and
conditions. Benevolence is the goodness of God viewed genetically. It
embraces all his creatures, except the judicially condemned on
account of sin, and provides for their welfare.
The love of complacency is that approving affection with
which God regards his own infinite perfections, and every image
and reflection of them in his creatures, especially in the sanctified
subjects of the new creation.
God's mercy, of which the more passive forms are pity and
compassion, is the divine goodness exercised with respect to the
miseries of his creatures, feeling for them, and making provision
for their relief, and in the case of impenitent sinners, leading to
long-suffering patience.
The grace of God is his goodness seeking to communicate his
favors, and, above all, the fellowship of his own life and blessed
ness to his moral creatures, who, as creatures, must be destitute
of all merit, and preeminently his electing love, securing at infinite
cost the blessedness of its objects, who, as sinful creatures, were
positively ill deserving.

124 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
56. What are the sources of our knowledge of the fact that
God is benevolent ?
1st. Reason. 'Benevolence is an essential element of moral
perfection. God is infinitely perfect, and therefore infinitely
benevolent. 2d. Experience and observation. The wisdom of God in de
signing, and the power of God in executing, in the several spheres
of creation, providence, and revealed religion, have evidently been
constantly determined by benevolent intentions.
3d. The direct assertions of Scripture. — Ps. clxv., 8, 9 ; 1
John iv., 8.
57. How may it be proved that God is gracious and willing
to forgive sin ?
Neither reason nor conscience can ever raise a presumption on
this subject. It is the evident duty of fellow-creatures mutually to
forgive injuries, but we have nothing to do with forgiving sin as sin.
It appears plain that there can be no moral principle making
it essential for a sovereign ruler to forgive sin as transgression of
law. All that reason or conscience can assure us of in that regard
is, that sin can not be forgiven without an atonement. The gra
cious affection which should prompt such a ruler to provide an
atonement, must, from its essential nature, be perfectly free and
sovereign, and therefore it can be known only so far as it is gra
ciously revealed. The gospel is, therefore, good news confirmed by
signs and wonders. — Ex. xxxiv., 6, 7 ; Eph. L, 7-9.
58. What are the different theories or assumptions on which
it has been attempted to reconcile the existence of sin with the
goodness of God ?
1st. It has been argued by some that free agency is essential
to a moral system, and that absolute independence' of will is
essential to free agency. That to control the wills of free agents
is no more an object of power than the working of contradictions;
and consequently God, although omnipotent, could not prevent
sin in a moral system without violating its nature. — See Dr. N.
W. Taylor's Concio ad Clerum, 1828.
2d. Others have argued that sin was permitted by God in in-

INFINITE GOODNESS. 125
finite wisdom as the necessary means to the largest possible meas
ure of happiness in the universe as a whole.
On both of these we remark —
1st. That the first theory above cited is founded on a false
view of the conditions of human liberty and responsibility, (see
below, Chapter XVIII.) ; and, further, that it grossly limits the
power of God by representing him as desiring and attempting
what he can not effect, and that it makes him dependent upon his
creatures. 2d. With reference to the second, theory it should be remem
bered that God's own glory, and not the greatest good of the
universe, is the great end of God in creation and providence.
3d. The permission of sin, in its relation both to the righteous
ness and goodness of God, is an insolvable mystery, and all at
tempts to solve it only darken counsel with words without knowl
edge. It is, however, the privilege of our faith to know, though
not of our philosophy to comprehend, that it is assuredly a most
wise, righteous, and merciful permission ; and that it shall re
dound to the glory of God and to the good of his chosen.
59. How can the attributes of goodness and justice be shown
to be consistent ?
Goodness and justice are the several aspects of one un
changeable, infinitely wise, and sovereign moral perfection. God
is not sometimes merciful and sometimes just, nor so far merciful
and so far just, but he is eternally infinitely merciful and just.
Relatively to the creature this infinite perfection of nature pre
sents different aspects, as is determined by the judgment which
infinite wisdom delivers in each individual case.
Even in our experience these attributes of our moral nature
are found not to be inconsistent in principle, though our want
both of wisdom and knowledge, a sense of our own unworthiness,
and a mere physical sympathy, often sadly distract our judgments
as well as our hearts in adjusting these principles to the individual
cases of life. god's infinite truth.
60. What is truth considered as a divine attribute ?
The truth of God in its widest sense is a perfection which

126 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
qualifies all his intellectual and moral attributes. His knowledge
is infinitely true in relation to its objects, and his wisdom un
biassed either by prejudice or passion. His justice and his good
ness in all their exercises are infinitely true to the perfect standard
of his own nature. In all outward manifestations of his perfec
tions to his creatures, God is always true to his nature — always
self-consistently divine. This attribute in its more special sense
qualifies all God's intercourse with his rational creatuTes. He is
true to us as well as to himself ; and thus is laid the foundation
of all faith, and therefore of all knowledge. It is the foundation
of all confidence, first, in our senses ; second, in our intellect
and conscience ; third, in any authenticated, supernatural reve
lation. The two forms in which this perfection is exercised in relation
to us are, first, his entire truth in all his communications; second,
his perfect sincerity in undertaking and faithfulness in discharg
ing all his engagements.
61. How can the truth of God be reconciled with the apparent
non-performance of some of his threatenings ?
The promises and threatenings of God are sometimes absolute,
when they are always infallibly fulfilled in the precise sense in
which he intended them. They are often also conditional, made
to depend upon the obedience or repentance of the creature. —
Jonah iii., 4, 10 ; Jer. xviii., 7, 8. This condition may be either
expressed or implied, because the individual case is understood to
be, of course, governed by the general principle that genuine
repentance and faith delivers from every threatening and secures
every promise.
62. How can the invitations and exhortations of the Scrip
tures, addressed to those whom God does not propose to save, be
reconciled with his sincerity ?
See above, (question 42,) the distinction between God's pre
ceptive and his decretive will. His invitations and exhortations
are addressed to all men in good faith : first, because it is every
man's duty to Repent and believe, and God's preceptive will that
that every man should ; second, because nothing ever prevents
the obedience of any sinner, except his own unwillingness; third,

INFINITE SOVEREIGNTY. 127
because in every case in which the condition is fulfilled the pro
mise implied will be performed ; fourth, God never has promised
to enable every man to believe ; fifth, these invitations and ex
hortations are not addressed to the reprobate as such, but to all
sinners as such, with the avowed purpose of saving thereby the elect.
THE INFINITE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.
63. What is meant by the sovereignty of God ?
His absolute right to govern and dispose of all his creatures,
simply according to his own good pleasure.
64. Prove that this right is asserted in Scripture.
Dan. iv., 25, 35 ; Rev. iv., 11 ; 1 Tim. vi., 15 ; Rom. ix.,
15-23. 65. On what does the absolute sovereignty of God rest ?
1st. His infinite superiority in being and in all his perfections
to any and to all his creatures.
2d. As creatures they were created out of nothing, and are
now sustained in being by his power, for his own glory and ac
cording to his own good pleasure'. — Rom. xi., 36.
3d. His infinite benefits to us, and our dependence upon and
blessedness in him, are reasons why we should not only recognize,
but rejoice, in this glorious truth. The Lord reigneth, let the
earth rejoice.
66. Is there any sense in which' there are limits to the sov
ereignty of God ?
The sovereignty of God, viewed abstractly as one attribute
among many, must of course be conceived of as qualified by all
the rest. It can hot be otherwise than an infinitely wise, right
eous,, and merciful sovereignty.
But God, viewed concretely as an infinite sovereign, is abso
lutely unlimited by any thing without himself. "He doeth
according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the in
habitants of the earth."— Dan. iv., 35.
THE INFINITE HOLINESS OF GOD.
67. What is meant by the holiness of God ?
The holiness of God is not to Ife conceived of as one attribute

128 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
among others ; it is rather a general term representing the con
ception of his consummate perfection and -total glory. It is his
infinite moral perfection crowning his infinite intelligence and
power. There is a glory of each attribute, viewed abstractly, and
a glory of the whole together. The intellectual nature is the
essential basis of the moral. Infinite moral perfection is the crown
of the Godhead. Holiness is the total glory thus crowned.
Holiness in the Creator is the total perfection of an infinitely .
righteous intelligence. Holiness in the creature is not mere moral
perfection, but perfection of the created nature of moral agents
after their kind, in spiritual unipn and fellowship with the in
finite Creator. — 1 John L, 3.
The word holiness, as applied to God in Scripture, represents,
first, moral purity. — Lev. xi., 44 ; Ps. cxlv., 17 ; second, his tran-
scendently august and venerable majesty. — iBa. vi., 3 ; Ps. xxii.,
3 ; Rev. iv., 8.
, To "sanctify the Lord," i. e., to make him holy, is to declare
and adore his holiness by venerating his august majesty wherever
and whereinsoever his person or character is represented. — Isa,
viii., 13 ; xxix., 23 ; Exek. xxxviii., 23 ; Matt, vi., 9 ; 1 Pet,
iii., 15.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE HOLY TRINITY.

1. What is the etymology and meaning of the word Trinity,
and when u as it introduced into the language of the church ?
This word, in its Latin form, Trinitas, is derived from the
adjective trinus, three-fold, or three in one, and it thus exactly
expresses the divine mystery of three persons in the unity of one
Godhead. It is said to have taken its place in the language of Christian
theology, for the first time, in an apologetic work of Theophylus,
bishop of Antioch, in Syria, from A. D. 168 to A. D. 183. — See
Mosheim's Eccle. Hist., Vol. I.,, p. 121, Note 7.
2. What is the theological meaning of the term substantia
- (substance), and what change has occurred in its usage ?
Substantia, as now used, is equivalent to essence, independent
being. Thus, in the Godhead, the three persons are the same in
in substance, i. e., of one and the same indivisible, numerical
essence. The word was at first used by one party in the church as
equivalent to subsistentia (subsistence), or mode of existence.
In which sense, while there is but one essence, there are three
substantias or persons, in the Godhead. — See Turrettin, Tom. I.,
locus iii., ques. 23.
3. What is the theological meaning of the word subsistentia
(subsistence) ?
It is used to signify that mode of existence which distin
guishes one individual thing from every other individual thing,
one person from every other person. As applied to the doctrine
9

130 THE HOLY TRINITY.
of the Trinity, subsistence is that mode of existence which is
peculiar to each of the divine persons, and which in each consti
tutes the one essence a distinct person.
4. What is the New Testament sense of the word imaoTaoic,
.(hypostasis) ?
This word, as to its etymology, is precisely equivalent to sub
stance ; it comes from v^>iarr\ui, " to stand under."
In the New Testament it is used five times —
1st. Figuratively, for confidence, or that state of mind which
is conscious of a firm foundation, 2 Cor. ix., 4 ; xi., 17 ; Heb. iii.,
14, which faith realizes, Heb. xi., 1.
2d. Literally, for essential nature, Heb. L, 3. — See Sampson's
Com. on Heb.
5. In what sense is this word used by the ecclesiastical -
writers ?
Until the middle of the fourth century this word, in connection
with the doctrine of the Trinity, was generally used in its primary
sense, as equivalent to substance. It is used in this sense in the
creed published by the Council of Nice A. D. 325, and again in
the decrees of the Council of Sardica, in Illyria, A. D. 347. These
agreed in affirming that there is but one hypostasis in the God
head. Some, however, at that time understanding the word in
the sense of person, its usage was changed by general consent,
chiefly through the influence of Athanasius, and ever since it has
been established in theological language in the sense of person, in
contradistinction to bvala, essence; It has been transferred into
the English language in the form of an adjective, to designate the
hypostatical or personal union of two natures in the God man.
6. What is essential to personality, and how is the word per
son to be defined in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity ?
The Latin word, " suppositum," signifies a distinct individual
existence, a. g., a particular tree or horse. A person is " supposi
tum intellectuale," a distinct individual existence, to which be
longs the properties «f reason and free will. Throughout the
entire range of our experience and observation of personal exist
ence among creatures, personality rests upon and appears to be

DEFINITIONS. 131
inseparable from distinction of essence. Every distinct person
is a distinct soul, with or without a body.
That distinguishing mode of existence which constitutes the
one divine essence coordinately three separate persons, is of course
an infinite mystery which we can not understand, and therefore
can not adequately define, and which we can know only so far as
it is explicitly revealed. All that we know is, that this distinc
tion, which is called personality, embraces all those incommuni
cable properties which eternally belong to Father, Son, or Holy
Ghost separately, and not to .all in common ; that it lays the
foundation for their concurrence in counsel, their mutual love and
action one upon another, as the Father sending the Son, and the
Father and Son sending the Spirit, and for use of the personal
pronouns I, thou, he, in the revelation which one divine person
gives of himself and of the others.
7. What is meant by the terms 6fj.oovai.ov (of the same substfance),
and b\ioiovaiov, (of similar substance) ?
In the first general council of the church which, consisting of
three hundred and eighteen bishops, was called together by the
Emperor Constantine at Nice, in Bithyhia, A. D. 325, there were
found to be three great parties representing different opinions
concerning the Trinity.
1st. The orthodox party, who maintained the opinion now
held by all Christians, that the Lord Jesus is, as to his divine na
ture, of the same identical substance with the Father. These
insisted upon applying to him the definite term dfioovoiov, (ho-
moqusion), compounded of 6u6g, same, and ovaia, substance, to
teach the great truth that the three persons of the Godhead are
one God, because they are of the same numerical essence.
2d. The Arians, who maintained that the Son of God is the
greatest of all creatures, more like God than any other, the only-
begotten son of God, created before all worlds, through whom God
created all other things, and in that sense only divine.
3d. The middle party, styled Semi- Arians, who confessed that
the Son was not a creature, but denied that he was in the same
sense God as the Father is. They held that the Father is the
only absolute self-existent God ; yet that from eternity he, by his
own free will, -caused to proceed from himself a divine person of

132 THE HOLY TRINITY.
like nature and properties. They denied, therefore, that the Son
was of the same substance (homoousion) with the Father, but
admitted that he was of an essence truly similar, and derived from
the Father (homoiousion, dfioiovowv, from, ouoiog, like, and 6vaia.
substance). The opinions of the first, or orthodox party, prevailed at that
council, and have ever since been represented by the technical
phrase, homoousian.
For the creed promulgated by that council, see Appendix A.
8. What are the several propositions essentially involved in
the doctrine of the Trinity ?
1st. There is but one God, and this God is one, i. e., indivisible.
2d. That the one indivisible divine essence, as a whole, exists
eternally as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost ; that each
person possesses the whole essence, and is constituted a distinct
person' by certain incommunicable propertiesj not common to him
with the others.
3d. The distinction between these three is a personal distinc
tion, in the sense that it occasions (1.) the use of the personal
pronouns, I, thou, he, (2.) a concurrence in counsel, (3.) a dis
tinct order of operation.
4th. These persons are distinguished as first, second, and
third, to express an order indicated in Scripture ; (1.) of subsist
ence, insomuch as the Father is neither begotten nor proceedeth,
while the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit
eternally proceedeth from the Father and the Son ; (2.) of opera
tion, insomuch that the first person sends and operates through
the second, and the first and second send and operate through the
third. In order, therefore, to establish this doctrine in all its parts
by the testimony of Scripture, it will be necessary for us to prove
the following propositions in their order :
1st. That God is one.-
2d. That Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, was truly
God, yet a distinct person from the Father.
3d. That the Holy Spirit is truly God, yet a distinct person.
4th. That the Scriptures directly teach a trinity of persons in
one Godhead.

SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENT. 133
5th. It will remain to gather what the Scriptures reveal as to
the eternal and necessary relations which these three divine per
sons sustain to each other. These are distributed under the fol
lowing heads : (1.) The relation which the second person sustains
to the first, or the eternal generation of the Son ; (2.) the relation
which the third person sustains to the first and second, or the
eternal procession of the Holy Ghost ; and, (3.) their personal
properties and order of operation, ad extra.
I. God is one, and there is but one God.
The proof of this proposition, from reason and Scripture, has
been fully set forth above, in chap, vii, on the Attributes of God,
questions 5-10.
The answer to the question, How the coordinate existence of
three distinct persons in the Trinity can be reconciled with this
fundamental doctrine of the divine unity is given below in ques
tion 85 of this chapter.
II. Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, is truly
God, and yet a distinct person from the Father. '
9. What different views have been entertained with respect to
the person of Christ ?
The orthodox doctrine as to the person of Christ, is that he
from eternity has existed as the coequal Son of the Father, con
stituted of the same infinite self-existent essence with the Father
and the Holy Ghost.
The orthodox doctrine as to his person as at present consti
tuted, since his incarnation, is set forth in chap. 20. An account
of the different heretical opinions as to his person are given below,
in questions 87-91, of this chapter.
10. How far did the Jews at the time of Christ expect the
Messiah to appear as a divine person ?
When Christ appeared, it is certain that the great mass of the
Jewish people had ceased to entertain the Scriptural expectation
of a divine Saviour, and only desired a temporal prince, in a pre
eminent sense, a favorite of heayen. It is said, however, that
scattered hints in some of the rabbinical writings indicate that

134 THE HOLY TRINITY. »
some of the more learned and spiritual still continued true to the
ancient faith.
11. How may the preexistence of Jesus before his birth by the
Virgin be proved from Scripture ?
1st. Those passages which say that he is the creator of the world,
—John i., 3 ; Col. L, 15-18.
2d. These passages which directly declare that he was .with the
Father before the world was ; that he was rich, and possessed
glory. — John L, 1, 15, 30 ; vi., 62 ; viii., 58 ; xvii., 5 ; 2 Cor.
viii., 9.
3d. Those passages which declare that he " came into the
world," " came down from heaven." — John iii., 13, 31 ; xiii., 3 ;
xvi., 28 ; 1 Cor. xv., 47.
12. How can it be proved that the Jehovah who manifested
himself as the God of the Jews under the old economy was the
second person of the Trinity, who became incarnate in Jesus of
Nazareth ?
As this fact is not affirmed in any, single statement of Scrip
ture, it can be established only by a careful comparison of many
passages. The evidence, as compiled from Hill's Lects., Book
III., ch. v., may be summed. up as follows :
1st. All the divine appearances of the ancient economy are
referred to one person. Compare Gen. xviii., 2, 17 ; xxviii., 13 ;
xxxii., 9, 31 ; Ex. iii., 14, 15 ; xiii., 21 ; xx., 1, 2 ; xxv., 21 ;
Deut. iv., 33, 36, 39 ; Neh. ix., 7-28. This one person is called
Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God, and at the same time
angel, or one sent. Compare Gen. xxxi., 11, 13 ; xlviii., 15, 16 ;
Hosea xii., 2, 5. Compare Ex. iii., 14, 15, with Acts vii., 30-35 ;
and Ex. xiii., 21, with Ex. xiv., 19 ; and Ex. xx., 1, 2, with Acts
vii., 38 ; Is. lxiii., 7, 9.
2d. But God the Father has been seen by no man (John i.,
18 ; vi., 46) : neither could he be an angel, or one sent by any
other ; yet God the Son has been seen (1 John L, 1, 2), and sent
(John v., 36).
3d. This Jehovah, who was at the same time the angel, or
one sent, of the old economy, was also set forth by the prophets
as the Saviour of Israel, and the author of the new dispensation.

DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 135
In Zech. ii., 10, 11, one" Jehovah is represented as sending another
See Micah v., 2. In Mai. iii., 1, it is declared that " the Lord,"
" the messenger of the covenant," shall come to his own temple.
This applied to Jesus (Mark L, 2). Compare Ps. xcvii., 7, with
Heb. L, 6 ; and Is. vi., 1-5, with John xii., 41.
4th. Certain references in the New Testament to passages in
the Old appear directly to imply this fact. Compare Ps. lxxviii.,
15, 16, 35, with 1 Cor. x., 9.
5th. The Church is one under all dispensations; and Jesus
from the beginning is the Redeemer and Head of the Church ;
it is, therefore, most consistent with all that' has been revealed to
us as to the offices of the three divine persons in the scheme of
redemption, to admit the view here presented. See also John
viii., 56, 58 ; Matt, xxiii., 37 ; 1 Pet. L, 10, 11.
13. What evidence of the divinity of the Messiah does the 2d
Psalm present ?
It declares him to be the Son of God, and as such to receive
universal power over the whole earth and its inhabitants. All
are exhorted tp submit to him, and to trust him, on pain of his
anger. In Acts xiii., 33, Paul declares that Psalm refers to Christ.
14. What evidence is furnished by the 45th Psalm?
The ancient Jews considered this-Psalm addressed to the Mes
siah, and the fact is established by Paul (Heb. L, 8, 9). Here,
therefore, Jesus is called God, and his throne eternal.
15. ' What evidence is furnished by Psalm 110 ?
That this Psalm refers - to the Messiah is proved by Christ
(Matt, xxii., 43, 44), and by Paul (Heb. v., 6 ; vii., 17. He is
here called David's Lord (Adonai), and invited to sit at the right
hand of Jehovah until all his enemies be made his footstool.
16. What evidence is furnished by Isaiah ix., 6 ?
This passage self-evidently refers to the Messiah, as is con
firmed by Matt, iv., 14-16. It declares explicitly that the child
born " is also the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince
of peace."

136 THE HOLY TRINITY.
.17. What is the evidence furnished by Micah v., 2 ?
This was understood by the Jews to refer to Christ, which is
confirmed by Matt, ii., 6, and John vii., 42. The passage' declares
that his goings forth have been "from ever of old," i. e~, from
eternity. 18. What evidence is furnished by Malachi iii., 1, 2 ? jt
This passage self-evidently refers to the Messiah, as is con
firmed by Mark L, 2.
The Hebrew term (Adonai), here translated Lord, is never
applied to any other than the supreme God. The temple, which
was sacred to the presence and worship of Jehovah, is called his
temple. And in verse 2d, a divine work of judgment is ascribed
to him. 19. What evidence is afforded by the way in which the writers
of the New Testament apply the writings of the Old Testament to
Christ ? *
The apostles frequently apply the language of the Old Testa
ment to Christ, when it is evident that the original writers in
tended to speak of Jehovah, and not of the Messiah as such.
Psalm 102 is evidently an address to the supreme Lord,
ascribing to him eternity, creation, providential government, wor
ship, and the hearing and answering of prayer. But Paul (Heb.
L, 10-12) affirms Christ to b'e the subject of the address. In Is.
xiv., 20-25, Jehovah speaks and asserts his own supreme Lord
ship. But Paul, in Rom. xiv., 11, quotes a part of Jeh'ovah's
declaration with -regard to himself, to prove that we must all
stand before the judgment-seatof Christ. Compare also Is. vi..
3, with John xii., 41.
20. What is the general character of the evidence upon this
subject afforded by the New Testament ?
This fundamental doctrine is presented to us in every individ
ual writing, and in every separate paragraph of the New Testa
ment, either by direct assertion or by necessary implication, as
may be ascertained by every honest reader for himself. The mass
of this testimony is so great, and is so intimately interwoven
with every ether theme in every passage, that I have room here

DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 137
to present only a ".general sample of the evidence, classified undei
the usual heads.
21. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine titles to
Christ. John L, 1 ; xx., 28 ; Acts xx., 28 ; Rom. ix., 5 ; 2 Thess. L,
12 ; 1 Tim. iii.', 16 ; Titus ii., 13 ; Heb. L, 8 ; 1 John, v., 20.
22. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine perfections
to Christ. Eternity. — John L, 2 ; viij., 58 ; xvii., 5 ; Rev. i., 8, 17, 18 ;
xxii., 13.
Immutability. — Heb. i., 11, 12, and xiii., 8.
Omnipresence. — John iii., 13 ; Matt, xviii., 20 ; xxviii., 20.
Omniscience. — Matf. xi., 27 ; John ii., 23-25; xxi., 17; Rev.
ii.,-23. Omnipotence. — John v., 17 ; Heb. L, 3 ; Rev. L, 8 ; xi., 17.
23. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine works to
Christ. Creation. — John i., 3, 10 ; Col. L, 16, 17.
Preservation and Providence. — Heb. i, 3 ; Col. L, 17 ; Matt.
xxviii., 18.
Miracles.— John v., 21, 36.
Judgment.— 2 Cor. v. 10; Matt, xxv., 31, 32 ; John v., 22.
A work of grace, including election. — John xiii., 18.
Sanctification, Eph. v., 26 ; sending the Holy Ghost, John
xvi., 7, 14; giving eternal life, John x., 28; Turrettin, Tom. I.,
L. 3, Q. 28.
24. Prove that the New Testament teaches that supreme wor
ship should be paid to Christ.
Matt, xxviii., 19 ; John v., 22, 23 ; xiv., 1 ; Acts vii., 59, 60 ;
1 Cor. L, 2 ; 2 Cor., xiii., 14 ; PhiL ii., 9, 10 ; Heb. L, 6 ; Rev.
L, 5, 6 : v., 11, 12 ; vii., 10.
25. Prove that the Son, although God, is a distinct person
from the Father.
This fact is so plainly taught in Scripture, and so universally

138 THE HOLY TRINITY.
implied, that the SabeUian system, which denies it,, has never
obtained any general currency.
Christ is sent by the Father, comes from him, returns to him,
receives his commandment, does his will, loves him, is loved by
him, addresses prayer to him, uses the pronouns thou and he
when speaking to and of him. This is necessarily implied, also,
in the relative titles, Father and Son. See the whole New Tes
tament. III. The Holy Ghost is truly God, yet a distinct
person. , ,
26. What sects have held that the Holy Ghost is a creature ?
The divinity of the Holy Ghost is so dearly revealed in Scrip
ture that very few have dared to call it in question. The early.
controversies of the orthodox with the Arians precedent and con
sequent to the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, to such a degree ab
sorbed the mind of both parties with the question of the divinity
of the Son, that very little prominence was given in that age to
questions concerning the Holy Ghost. Arius, however, is said to
have taughyt that as the Son is the first and greatest creature of
the Father, so the Holy Ghost is the first and greatest creature
of the Son ; a uricim Krianarog, a creature of a creature. — See
Neander's Ch. Hist., vol. i., pp. 416-420.
Some of the disciples of Macedonius, .who lived about the
middle of the fourth century, are said to have held that the Holy
Ghost was not Supreme God. These were condemned by the
second General Council, which met at Constantinope A. D. 381.
This council defined and guarded the orthodox faith, by adding
definite clauses to the . simple reference which the ancient creed
had made to the Holy Ghost.— See the Creed of the Council of
Constantinople, in Appendix A.
27. By whom has the Holy Spirit been regarded merely as
an energy of God ?
Those early heretical sects, generally styled Monarchians and
Patripassians, all with subordinate distinctions taught that there
was but one person as well as one essence in the Godhead, who*,
in different relations, is called Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. -In

mVINITY AND PERSONALITY OF THE SPIRIT. 139
/he sixteenth century Socinus, who taught that Jesus Christ was
a mere man, maintained that the term Holy Ghost is in Scripr
ture used as a designation of G°d's energy, when exercised in a
particular way. This is now the opinion of all modern Uni
tarians and Rationalists.
28. How can it be proved that all the attributes of personality
are ascribed to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures ?
The attributes of personality are such as intelligence, volition,
separate agency. Christ uses the pronouns I, thou, he, when
speaking of the relation of the Holy Spirit to himself and the
Father : " I will send him." " He will testify of me." " Whom
the Father will send in my name." Thus he is sent ; he testi
fies ; he takes of the things of Christ, and shows them to us.
He teaches and leads to all truth. He knows, because he searches
the deep things of God. He works all supernatural gifts, divid
ing to every man as he wills. — John xiv., 17, 26; xv., 26; 1 Cor.
ii., 10, 11 ; xii., 11. He reproves, glorifies, helps, intercedes. —
John xvi., 7-13 ; Rom. viii., 26.
29. How may his personality be argued from the offices which
he is said in the Scriptures to execute ?
The New Testament throughout all its teachings discovers
the plan of redemption as essentially involving the agency of the
Holy Ghost in applying the salvation which it was the work of
the Son to accomplish. He inspired the prophets and apostles ;
he teaches and sanctifies the church; he selects her officers, quali
fying them by the communication of special gifts at his will. He
the advocate, every Christian is his client. He brings all the
grace of the absent Christ to us, and gives it effect in our persons
in every moment of our lives. His personal distinction is ob
viously involved in the very nature of these functions which
he discharges. — Luke xii., 12 ; Acts v., 32 ; xv., 28 ; xvi., 6 ;
xxviii., 25 ; Rom. xv., 16 ; 1 Cor. ii., 13 ; Heb. ii., 4 ; iii., 7 ; 2
Pet. i., 21.

•j

30. What argument for the personality of the Holy Ghost
may be deduced from the formula of baptism ?
Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father, Son, aDd

140 THE HOLY TRINITY.
Holy Ghost." It would be inconsistent with every law of lan«
guage and reason to speak of the "name" of an energy, or to asso
ciate an energy coordinately with two distinct persons.
31. How may his personality be proved by what is said of
the sin against the Holy Ghost ?
In Matt, xii., 31, 32 ; Mark iii., 28, 29 ; Luke xii., 10, this
sin is called " blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." Now, blas
phemy is a sin committed against a person, and it is here distin
guished from the same act as committed against the other per
sons of the Trinity.
32. How can such expressions as "giving," and "pouring
out the Spirit," be reconciled with his personality ?
These and other similar expressions are used figuratively to
set forth our participation in the gifts and influences of the Spirit.
It is one of the most natural and common of all figures to desig
nate the gift by the name of the giver. Thus we are said " to
put on Christ," " to be baptized into Christ," etc. — Eph. v., 30 ;
Rom. xiii., 14 ; Gal. iii., 27.
33. Show that the names of God a/re applied to the Spirit.
Compare Ex. xvii., 7, and Ps. xcv., 7, with Heb. iii., 7-11.—
See Acts v., 3, 4.
34. What divine attribute dc the Scriptures ascribe to him ?
Omnipresence. — Ps. cxxxix., 7 ; 1 Cor. xii., 13.
Omniscience. — 1 Cor. ii., 10, 11.
Omnipotence. — Luke L, 35 ; Rom. viii., 11.
35. What agency in the external world do the Scriptures
ascribe to him ?
Creation.— Gen. L, 2 ; Job xxvi., 13 ; Ps. civ., 30.
The power of working miracles.— Matt, xii., 28 ; 1 Cor. xii,
9-11. 36. How is his supreme divinity established by what the
Scriptures teach of his agency in redemption ?
He is declared to be the immediate agent in 'regeneration,
John iii., 6 ; Titus iii., 5 ; and in the resurrection of our bodies,

DIRECTLY TAUGHT. 141
Rom. viii., 11. His agency in the generation of Christ's human
nature, in his resurrection, and in the inspiration of the Scriptures,
were exertions of his divine power in preparing the redemption
which he now applies.
37. How can such expressions as, " he shall not speak of him
self," be reconciled with his divinity ?
This and other similar expressions are to be understood as
referring to the official work of the Spirit ; just as the Son is
said in his official character to be sent by and to be subordinate
to the Father. The object of the Holy Ghost, in his official work
in the hearts of men, is not to reveal the relations of his own per
son to the other persons of the Godhead, but simply to reveal
the mediatorial character and work of Christ.
IV. The Scriptures directly teach a trinity of persons
in one Godhead.
38. How is this trinity of persons directly taught in the for
mula of baptism ? '
Baptism in the name of God implies the recognition of God's
divine authority, his covenant engagement to give us eternal life,
and our engagement to render him divine worship and obedience.
Christians are baptized thus into covenant relation with three
persons distinctly named in order. The language necessarily im- .
plies that each name represents a person. The nature of the
sacrament proves that each person must be divine. — See Matt.
xxviii., 19.
39. How is this doctrine directly taught in the formula of the
apostolical benediction ?
See 2 Cor. xiii., 14. We have here distinctly named three per
sons, and each communicating a separate blessing, according to
his own order and manner of operation. The benevolence of the
Father in designing, the grace of the Son in the acquisition, the
communion of the Holy Ghost in the application of salvation.
These are three distinct personal names, three distinct modes of
pergonal agency, and each equally divine.

142 THE HOLY TRINITY.
40. What evidence is afforded by the narrative of Chrisfs
baptism ?
See Matt, iii., 13-17. Here also we have presented to us three
persons distinctly named and described as severally acting, each
after his own order. The Father speaking from heaven, the Spirit
descending like a dove and lighting upon Christ, Christ acknowl
edged as the beloved Son of God ascending from the water.
41. State the argument from John xv., 26, and the context.
In this passage again we have three persons severally named
at the same time, and their relative action affirmed. The Son Is
the person speaking of the Father and the Spirit, and claiming
for himself the right of sending the Spirit. The Father is the
person from whom the Spirit proceeds. Of the Spirit the Son
says that "he will come," "he will be sent," "he proceedeth,"
" he will testify."
42. What is the state of the evidence with regard to the gen
uineness of 1 John v., 7 ?
I have not room in which to present a synopsis of the argu
ment for and against the genuineness of the disputed clause which
could be of any value. — See Home's Intro., Vol. IV., Part II.,
chapter iv., section 5.
It will suffice to say —
1st. The disputed clause is as follows, including part of the
eighth verse : " in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost ; and these three are one. And there are three that bear
witness in earth."
2d. Learned and pious men are divided in their opinions as to
the preponderance of the evidence ; the weight of opinion inclining
against the genuineness of the clause.
3d. The doctrine taught is so scriptural, and the grammatical
and logical connection of the clause with the rest of the passage
is so intimate, that for the purpose of edification, in the present
state of our knowledge, the clause ought to be retained, although
for the purpose of establishing doctrine, it ought not to be relied
upon. 4th. The rejection of this passage does in no degree lessen

DIRECTLY TAUGHT. 143
the irresistible weight of evidence of the truth of the orthodox
doctrine of the Trinity which the Scriptures afford.
43. What passages in the Old Testament imply the existence
of more than one person in the Godhead ?
Mark the use of the plural in the following passages. — Gen.
i., 26 ; iii., 22 ; xi., 7 ; Isa. vi., 8. Compare the three-fold repe
tition of the name Jehovah (Num. vi., 24-26) with the apostoli
cal benediction. — 2 Cor. xiii., 14. Mark also in Isa. vi., 3, the
threefold repetition of the ascription of holiness.
44. What passages in the Old Testament speak of the Son as
a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine ?
In Ps. xiv., '6, 7, we have the Father addressing the Son as
God, and anointing him. — See also Ps. ex., 1; Isa. xliv., 6, 7, 14.
The prophecies always set forth the Messiah as a person dis
tinct from the Father, and yet he is called " Mighty God," etc. —
Isa. ix., 6 ; Jer. xxiii., 6.
45. What passages of the Old Testament speak of the Spirit
as a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine ?
Gen. L, 2 ; vi., 3; Ps. civ., 30; exxxix., 7; Job xxvi., 13; Isa.
xlviii., 16.
V. IT REMAINS FOR US TO CONSIDER WHAT THE SCRIPTURES
TEACH CONCERNING THE ETERNAL AND NECESSARY RELATIONS
WHICH THE THREE DIVINE PERSONS SUSTAIN TO EACH OTHER.
(I.) The relation which the second person sustains to
THE FIRST, OR THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON.
46. What is the idiomatic use of the Hebrew word ¦)? (son) ?
It is used in the sense, 1st, of son ; 2d, of descendant ; hence
in the plural "children of Israel," for Israelites. Also when
joined to a name of place or nation to denote inhabitant's or
citizens thereof, as "sons of Zion," etc.; 3d. of pupil, disciple,
worshipper ; thus " sons of the prophets," (1 Kings xx., 35,) and
" sons of God," applied, (1.) to kings, Ps. ii., 7 ; (2.) to angels,
Gen. vi. 2 ; (3.) to worshippers of God, his own people, Deut,

144 THE HOLY TRINITY.
xiv., 1; 4th, in combination with substantives, expressing age or
quality, etc.; thus, "son of years," for aged, Lev. xii., 6; "son of
Belial," for worthless fellow, Deut. xiii., 13 ; " son of death," for
one deserving to die, 1 Sam. xx., 31 ; "a hill son of fatness,"
for a fruitful hill. The same idiom has been carried into the
Greek of the New Testament. — See Gesenius' Heb. Lex.
47. In ivhat sense are men called "sons of God" in Scrip
ture ?
The general idea embraced in the relation of sonship includes,
1st, similarity and derivation of nature ; 2d, parental and filial
love; and 3d, heirship.
In this general sense all God's holy, intelligent creatures are
called his sons. The term is applied in an eminent sense to kings
and magistrates who receive dominion from God, (Ps. lxxxii., 6,)
and to Christians who are the subjects of spiritual regeneration
and adoption, (Gal. iii., 26,) the special objects of divine favor,
(Matt, v., 9,) and are like him, (Matt, v., 45.) When applied to
creatures, whether men or angels, (Job i., 6,) this word is always
used in the plural. In the singular it is applied only to the
second person of the Trinity, with the single exception • of its
application once to Adam, (Luke iii., 38,) when the reason is
obviously to mark the peculiarity of his derivation from God
immediately without the intervention of a human father.
48. What different views with regard to the sonship of Christ
have been entertained ?
1st. Some Socinians hold that he is called Son of God only as
an official title, as it is applied in the plural to ordinary kings
and magistrates.
2d. Other Socinians hold that he was called Son of God only
because he was brought into being by God's supernatural agency,
and not by ordinary generation. To maintain this they appeal
to Luke L, 35. For an explanation of this passage see below,
question 70.
3d. Arians hold that he is so called because he was created
by God more in his own likeness than any other creature, and
first in the order of time.
4th. The orthodox doctrine is, that Christ is called Son of

ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 145
God to indicate his eternal and necessary personal relation in the
Godhead to the first person, who, to indicate his reciprocal rela
tion, is called the Father.
49. What is the distinction which some of the fathers made
between the eternal, the ante-mundane, and the mundane genera
tion of the Son ?
1st. By his eternal generation they intended to mark his
essential relation to the Father as his consubstantial and eternal
Son. 2d. By his ante-mundane generation they meant to signify the
commencement of the outgoings of his energy, and the manifesta
tion of his person beyond the bosom of the Godhead, in the sphere
of external creation, etc. — Col. i., 15.
3d. By his mundane generation they intended his supernatural
birth in the flesh. — Luke L, 35.
50. What is the distinction which some of the fathers made
between the Xoyog evdiadsrog (ratio insita, reason), and the Xoyog
npoipopiKog (ratio prolata, reason brought forth, or expressed) ?
The orthodox fathers used the phrase logos endiathetos to
designate the Word, whom they held to be a distinct person,
dwelling from eternity with the Father. The ground of their use
of this phrase was a fanciful analogy which they conceived existed
between the relation which the eternal logos (word, or reason),
(John i., 1,) sustains to the Father, and the relation which the
reason of a man sustains to, his own rational soul. -Thus the
logos endiathetos was God's own reflective idea hypostatized.
They were led to this vain attempt to philosophize upon an in
comprehensible subject by the influence exerted upon them by the
Platonic philosophers of that age, who taught a sort of metaphy
sical trinity, e. g., that in the one God there were three constitu
ent principles, ro dyadov, goodness, vovg, intelligence, ipvxn, vital
ity. Their immediate object was to illustrate the essential unity
of the Trinity, and to prove, against the Arians, the essential
divinity of the Son, from the apphcation to him by John of the
epithet Xoyog 6eov.
By the phrase logos prophoricos they intended to designate

146 THE HOLY TRINITY.
him as the reason of God revealed, when he proceeded from the
Father in the work of creation. — See Hill's Lectures.
The Arians, taking advantage of the essential inadequacy of
this language, confused the controversy by acknowledging that
the phrase logos prophoricos did truly apply to Christ, since /he
came forth from God as the first and highest creation and image
of his mind. But declaring, with some color of truth, that the
phrase logos endiathetos, when applied to Christ, taught pure
Sabellianism, since it marked no personal distinction, but signified
nothing else than the mind of the Father itself.
51. How is the doctrine of Christ's sonship stated in the Ni-
cehe and Athanasian creeds ?
See those creeds in Appendix A.
52. What is the common statement and explanation of this
doctrine given by orthodox writers ?
The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be
an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of
nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the
¦essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indi
visible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or
change, so that the Son is the express image of his Father's per
son, and. eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the
Father, and the Father in the Son.— See particularly Heb. L, 3 ;
John x., 38 ; xiv., Il ; xvii., 21. The principal Scriptural sup
port of the doctrine of derivation is John v., 26. — Turrettin Tom
I., L. 3, Q. 29.
Those theologians who insist upon this definition believe that
the idea of derivation is necessarily implied in generation ; that
it is indicated by both the reciprocal terms Father and Son, and
by the entire representation given in the Scriptures as to the rela
tion and order of the persons of the Godhead, the Father always
standing for the Godhead considered absolutely ; and they hold
that this theory is necessary to the vindication of the essential
unity of the three persons. The older theologians, therefore,
styled the Father nnyn Oeornrog, fountain of Godhead, and aim
itov, principle or cause of the. Son, while the Son and Holy
Ghost were both called dmaroi (those depending upon another
as their principle or cause).

ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 147
They at the same time guarded the essential equality of the
Son and the Holy Ghost with the Father, by saying, 1st, that
the whole divine essence, without division or change, and, there
fore, all the divine attributes, were communicated to them ; and,
2d, that this communication was made by an eternal and necessary
act of the Father, and not of his mere will.
53. What is essential to the scriptural doctrine of the eternal
generation of the Son ?i
In the above rendered account of the orthodox doctrine there
is notning inconsistent with revealed truth. - The idea of deri
vation, as involved in the generation of the Son by the Father,
appears rather to be a rational explanation of revealed facts than
a revealed fact itself. On such a subject, therefore, it should be
held in suspense. All that is explicitly revealed is, 1st, the term
Son is applied to Christ as the second person of the Godhead.
2d. This term, and the equivalent one, " only begotten," reveal
some relation, within Godhead, of the person of the Son to the
person of the Father. The designation Father being reciprocal
to that of Son. 3d. That this relation is such that Father and
Son are the same in substance, and are personally equal ; that the
Father is first and the Son second in the order of revelation and
operation, that the Son is the express image of the Father's per
son, not the Father of the Son's, and that the Son is not from
the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.
54. How may it be shown that the common doctrine is not
self-contradictory ?
There is evidently no inconsistency in the simple soriptural
statement given in the answer to the last question. Heterodox
controversialists, however, have claimed that there is a manifest
inconsistency in the orthodox theory that the Father communi
cates to the Son the -whole divine essence without alienating it
from himself, dividing or otherwise changing it. This subject
does not fall within the legitimate sphere of human logic, yet it
is evident that this theory involves no contradiction and no mys
tery greater than that involved in the whole essence of God being
at the same time present, without division or diffusion to every
point of space.

148 THE HOLY TRINITY.
55. If God is " ens a se ipso," self -existent, how can the Son
be really God, if he be " Oeog etc 6eov," God from the Father ?
The objection presented in this question does not press against
the scriptural statement of the eternal generation of the Son pre
sented above (question 53,) but solely against the theory of deri
vation as involved in the ordinary definition (see question 52.)
Those who insist upon tiie validity of that view rebut the objec
tion by saying that self-existence is an attribute of essence, not
of person. The Father, as a person, generates the person, not
the essence of the Son. whose person is constituted of the very
same self-existent essence with the Father's. Thus the Son is
dvrodeog, i. e., Deus a se- ipso as to his essence, but Oeog e« deov,
God from God, as to his person.
56. What argument for the eternal sonship of Christ may be
derived from the designation of the persons of the Trinity as
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ?
In the apostolical benediction and the formula of baptism the
one God is designated as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The
Ijerm Son cannot here be applied to Christ as an official title, or
as a miraculously generated man, because, 1st, he is so called as
one of the three divine persons constituting the Godhead. 2d.
The. term Son is reciprocal to the term Father, and therefore
designates the relation of the second person to the first. What
ever this relation may involve besides, it evidently must be eter
nal and necessary, and includes paternity on the part of the first
person, and filiation on the part of the second.
57. What argument in support of this doctrine may be de
rived from the use of the word non in Matt. xi. 27 and Luke
x. 22 ?
In both of these passages the term Son is used to designate
the divine nature of the second person of the Trinity in his rela
tion to the first. The Son, as Son, knows and is known by the
Father as Father. He is infinite in knowledge and therefore
knows the Father. He is infinite in being and therefore can be
known by none other than the Father.

ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 149
58. State the argument from John L, 1-14.
Here the eternal Word, who was God, discovered himself as
such to his disciples by the manifestation of his native divine
glory, " the glory as of the only begotten of the Father." He
was " only begotten Son," therefore as God, and not either as
Mediator or as man.
59. State the argument from the application in Scripture of
the terms fj,ovoyevrjg, (only begotten) and ISiog, (oivn) to the Son-
ship of Christ.
Although many of God's creatures are called his sons, the
phrase, Son of God in the singular, and when limited by the
terms " own" and " only begotten," is applied only to Christ.
Christ is called "only begotten Son of God." — John L, 14, 18;
iii., 16, 18 ; 1 John iv., 9.
In John v., 18, Christ calls God his own Father, (see Greek.)
He is called the own Son of the Father. — Rom. viii., 32.
The use of these qualifying terms proves that Christ is called
Son of God in a sense different from that in which any other is
so called. Therefore it designates him as God and not as man,
nor as the bearer of an office.
60. What is the argument derived from John v., 22, and con
text, and from John x., 33-37.
In the first passage the terms Father and son are used to
designate two divine and equal persons. As Son, Christ does
whatsoever the Father doeth, and is to receive equal honor.
In the second passage, Jesus assumes the title, "Son of God,"
as equivalent to assenting that he was God. The Jews charging
it upon liim as blasphemy.
61. What is the* evidence furnished by such passages as speak
of the manifestation, giving or sending of the Son ?
See 1 John iii., 8 ; Rom. viii., 3 ; John iii., 16, etc.
To say that the Son was sent or manifested implies that he
was Son before he was sent or manifested as such.
62. State the argument from Rom. L, 3, 4.
The argument from this passage is two-fold : 1st. The Son of

150 • THE HOLY TRINITY.
God is declared fo have been made flesh, and therefore must have
preexisted as Son. 2d. By the resurrection he was powtrfully
manifested to be the Son of God as to his divine nature. The
phrases, according to the flesh, and according to the spirit of holi
ness, are evidently antithetical, designating severally the Lord's
human and divine natures.
63. State the argument from Rom. viii., 3.
Here God's own Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Obviously he must have preexisted as such before he assumed the
likeness of sinful flesh, the assumption of which certainly could
not have constituted him the own Son of God.
64. State the argument from Col. i., 15-21.
In this passage the apostle sets forth at length the nature and
glory of him whom, in the thirteenth verse, he had called God's
dear Son. Thus he proves that Christ as Son is the image of the
invisible God, and that by him all things consist, etc.
65. State the argument from Heb. L, 5-8.
Paul is here setting, forth the superiority of Christ as a divine.
person. As divine he calls him " the Son," " the first begotten."
This Son is brought into the world, and therefore must have pre
existed as such. As Son he is declared to be God, and to reign
upon an everlasting throne.
66. What passages are relied upon by the opponents of the
orthodox doctrine for proof that the term Son, as applied to
Christ, is an official title, and how can they be explained ?
From such passages as Matt, xvi., 16, and John L, 49, it is
argued that the epithets, Christ or Messiah, and King of Israel,
are equivalent to Son of God, and that consequently he is called
Son only because he occupies these offices. From John x., 35, 36,
it is argued that Christ is called Son, because the Father hath
sanctified him and sent him into the world.
We answer that not one of these passages, nor any other, ex
pressly declares that Christ is called Son because he bears the
office of mediator; they merely declare that he is Son of God, and
holds that office. But even if it could be proved that he is called

ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 151
on occasion " Son of God," on the ground of any subordinate
relation, which, as man or as mediator, he sustains to God, that
fact could not in the least, invalidate the testimony of those pas
sages which we have above cited to prove that he is also called
Son of God in a higher sense, as the Word 'who from the begin
ning was in the bosom of the Father.
67. Prove that neither the 2d Psalm nor Rom. L, 4, teach that
Christ was made Son of God.
Dr. Alexander says (see Com. on Psalms) with relation fo
Psalms ii., 7, that it means simply, " Thou art my Son, this day
I am thy Father, now always eternally thy Father. Even if
' this day' be referred to the inception of the filial relation, it is
thrown indefinitely back by the form of reminiscence, or narra
tion in the first clause of the verse. ' Jehovah said to me,' but
when ? If understood to mean from everlasting the form of ex
pression would be perfectly in keeping with the other figurative
forms by which the Scriptures represent things really ineffable in
human language." With regard to Rom. L, 4, Dr. Hodge says
(see'Com. on Romans) that the Greek word dpiadivrog, translated
in the authorized version declared, is always elsewhere in the
New Testament used to signify constitute, appoint. But the
great majority of commentators, including some of the most
ancient Greek fathers, agree in interpreting it in this passage in
the sense of declare, manifest.
It is very evident that Christ called himself Son of God, and
was so recognized by his disciples before his resurrection, and,
therefore, he might have been revealed or manifested .to be the
Son of God, but could not have been constituted such by that
event. 68. Show that Acts xiii., 32, 33 does not prove that Jesus ivas
made Son of God.
It is argued from this passage that Jesus was constituted Son
of God by his resurrection, as the first stage of his official exal
tation. This can not be, 1st, because ne was sent into the world
as Son of God. 2d. Because the word dvaarrjaag, having raised
up, refers to the raising up Christ at his birth, and not to his
resurrection (there is nothing in the Greek corresponding to the

152 THE HOLY TRINITY.
word again in the English.) When this word is used to desig
nate the resurrection it is usually qualified by the phrase from
the dead, as in verse 34th. Verse 32 .declares the fulfillment of
the promise referred to in verse 23d. — See Alexander's Com. on
Acts. --•*-
69. How can those passages which speak of the Son as in
ferior and subject to the Father be reconciled with this doctrine ?
It is objected that such passages prove that Jesus, as Son, is
inferior and subject to the Father. •
We answer that in John iii., 13 the " Son of Man" is said to'
have come down from heaven, and to be in heaven. But surely
Jesus, as Son of Man, was not omnipresent. In Acts xx., 28
God is said to purchase his church with his ••own blood; but
surely Christ, as God, did not shed his blood. The explanation
of this is that it is the common usage of Scripture to designate
the single person of the God-man by a title belonging to him as
the possessor of one nature, while the condition, attribute, rela
tion, or action predicated of him is true only of the other nature.
Thus in the passages in question he is called " Son of God," be
cause he is the eternal Word, while at the same time he is said
to be inferior to the Father, because he is also man and mediator.
70. What is the true explanation of Luke L, 35 ?
That Jesus was revealed as the Son of God, and proved to be
such by his miraculous conception. It is not .probable that it is
meant he was called Son because of that event, since his human
nature was begotten by the Holy Ghost, and yet he is never called
the Son of the Holy Ghost.
But even if it were affirmed that he was called Son of God
for that reason, it would still remain true, as above shown, that
he is revealed as from eternity the Son of God for an infinitely
higher reason.
(ii.) the relation which the third person sustains to
the first and second, or the eternal procession of the
Holy Ghost. t
71. What is the etymology of the word Spirit, and the usage
of its Hebrew and Greek equivalents ?

ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 153
The English word spirit is from the Latin spiritus, breath,
wind, air, life, soul, which in turn is from the verb spiro, to
breathe. The equivalent Hebrew word, rm, has a perfectly anal
ogous usage. 1st. Its primary sense is wind', air in motion, Gen.
viii., 1 ; then, 2d, breath, the breath of life, Gen. vi., 17 ; Job xvii.,
1 ; 3d, animal soul, vital principle in men and animals, 1 Sam.
xxx., 12 ; 4th, rational soul of man, Gen. xii., 8, and hence, meta
phorically, disposition, temperament, Num. v., 14 ; 5th, Spirit of
Jehovah, Gen. L, 2 ; Ps. Ii., 11. — Gesenius' Lex.
The equivalent Greek word, irvevixa,- has also the same usage.
It is derived from, irvew, to breathe, to blow. It signifies, 1st,
breath, Rev. xi., 11 ; 2d, air in motion, John iii., 8 ; 3d, the vital
principle, Matt, xxvii., 50 ; 4th, the rational soul spoken (1.) of,
the disembodied spirits of men, Heb. xii., 23; (2.) of devils,.
Matt., x., 1 ; (3.) of angels, Heb. L, 14 ; (4.) the Spirit of God,
spoken of God, a, absolutely as an attribute of his essence, John
iv., 24 ; and b as the personal designation of the third person of
the trinity, who is called Spirit of God, or of the Lord, and the
Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Christ, or of Jesus, or of the Son
of God, Acts xvi., 6, 7 ; Rom. viii., 9 ; 2 Cor. iii., 17 ; Gal. iv.,
6 ; Phil. L, 19 ; 1 Pet. L, 11.
72. Why is the third person of the Trinity called the Spirit ?
As the one indivisible divine essence which is common to each
of the divine persons alike is spiritual, this term, as the personal
designation of the third person, can not be intended to signify the
fact that he is a Spirit as to his essence, but rather to mark
what is peculiar to his person, *'. e., his personal relation to the
Father and the Son, and the peculiar mode of his operation ad
extra. As the reciprocal epithets Father and Son are used to in
dicate, so far forth, the mutual relations of the first and second
persons, so the epithets, Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Son,
Spirit which proceedeth from the Father, are applied to the third
person to indicate, so far forth, the. relation of the third person
to the first and second.
73. Why is he called Holy Spirit ?
¦ As holiness is an attribute of the divine essence, and the glory
equally of Father, Son, and Holy -Ghost, it can not be applied in

154 THE HOLY TRINITY.
any preeminent sense as a personal characteristic to the third
person. It indicates, therefore, the peculiar nature of his opera
tion. He is called the Holy Spirit because he is the author of
holiness throughout the universe. As the Son is also styled
Logos, or God, the Revealer, so 'the Holy Spirit is God, the
Operator, the end and glory of whose work in the moral world is
holiness, as in the physical world beauty.
74. Why is he called the Spirit of God ?
This phrase expresses his divinity, his relation to the Godhead
as himself God, 1 Cor. ii., 11 ; his intimate personal relation to
the Father as his consubstantial spirit proceeding from him, John
xv., 26 ; and the fact that he is the divine Spirit, which pro
ceeding from God operates upon the creature, Ps. civ., 30 ; 1 Pet.
iv., 14.
75. Why is the third person called the Spirit of Christ ?
See Gal. iv., 6 ; Rom. viii., 9 ; Phil. L, 19 ; 1 Peter L, 11.
As the form of expression is identical in the several phrases, Spirit
of God, and Spirit of the Son, and as the Scriptures, with one
exception, John xv., 26, uniformly predicate every thing of the
relation of the Spirit to the Son, that they predicate of the rela
tion of the Spirit to the Father, it appears evident that he is
called Spirit of the Son for the same reason that he is called
Spirit of God.
This phrase also additionally sets forth the official relation
which the Spirit in his agency in the work of redemption sustains
to the Godman, in taking- of his, and showing them to us, John
xvi., 14.
76. What is meant by the theological phrase, Procession of
the Holy Ghost ?
Theologians intend by this phrase . to designate the relation
which the third person sustains to the first and second, wherein
by an eternal and necessary, i. e., not voluntary, act of the Father
and the Son, their whole identical divine essence, without alien
ation, division, or change, is communicated to the Holy Ghost.
77. What distinction do theologians make between "proc"-
sion" and "generation ?"

ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 155
As this entire subject infinitely transcends the measure of our
faculties, we can do nothing further than classify atad contrast
those predicates which inspiration has applied to the relation of
Father and Son with those which it has applied to the relation
of the Spirit to the Father and Son.
Thus Turrettin, Vol. I., L. 3., Q. 31. They differ, " 1st. As
to source, the Son emanates from the Father only, but the Spirit
from the Father and the Son at the same time. 2d. As to mode.
The Son emanates in the way of generation, which affects not
only personality, but similitude, on account of which the Son is
called the image of the Father, and in consequence of which he
receives the property of communicating the same essence to an
other person ; but the Spirit, by the way of spiration, which
effects only personality, and in consequence of which the person
who proceeds does not receive the property of communicating the
same essence to another person. 3d. As to order. The Son is
second person, and the Spirit third, and though both are eternal,
without beginning or succession, yet, in our mode of conception,
generation precedes procession."
" The schoolmen vainly attempted to found a distinction be
tween generation and spiration upon the different operations of
the divine intellect and the divine will. They say the Son was
generated per modwm intellectus, whence he is called the Word
of God. The Spirit proceeds per modum voluntatis, whence he
is called Love."
78. What is the Scripture ground for this doctrine ?
What we remarked above (question 53,) concerning the com
mon theological definition of the eternal generation of the Son,
holds true also with reference to the common definition of the eter
nal procession of the Holy Ghost, viz., that in order to make the
method of the divine unity in trinity more apparent, theologians
have pressed the idea of derivation and subordination in the order
of personal subsistence too far. This ground is at once sacred
and mysterious. The points given by Scripture are not to be
"pressed nor speculated upon, but received and confessed nakedly.
The data of inspiration are simply as follows : 1st. Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, three divine persons, possess from eternity
the one whole identical, indivisible, unchangeable essence. 2d.

156 the holy trinity.
The Father from his characteristic personal name, and the order
in which his name uniformly occurs in Scripture, and from the
fact that the Son is called his and his only begotten, and that the
¦ Spirit is called-his, the one proceeding from him, and from the order
of his manifestation and operation ad extra, is evidently in some
way first in order of personal subsistence relatively to the Son and
Spirit. 3d. For the same reason (see below, question 80) the Son,
in the order of personal subsistence, is before the Spirit. 4th.
What the real nature of these distinctions in the order of per
sonal substance may be is made known to us only so far, (1.) that
it involves no distinction as to time, since all are alike' eternal. (2.)
It does not depend upon any voluntary action, for that would
make the second person dependent upon the first, and the third upon
the first and second, while they are all "equal in power and glory."
(3.) It is such a relation that the second person is eternally only
begotten Son of the first, and the third is eternally the Spirit of
the first and second.
79. What was the difference between the Greek and Latin
churches on this doctrine ? . . •
The famous Council of Nice, A. D. 325, while so accurately
defining the doctrine of the Godhead, of the Son, left, the testi
mony concerning the Holy Ghost in the vague form in which it
stood in the ancient creed, " in the Holy Ghost." But the
heresy of Macedonius, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost,
having sprung up in the mean time, the Council of Constantinople,
A. D. 381, completed the testimony of the Nicene Creed thus, " I
believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Author of Life, who
proceedeth from the Father."
There subsequently arose a controversy upon the question,
whether the Scriptures do or do not represent the Holy Spirit as
sustaining precisely the same relation to the Son that he does to
the Father. This the Latins generally affirmed, and at the third
ecclesiastical assembly at Toledo, A. D. 589, they added the word
filioque (and the Son) to the Latin version of the Constantinopol-
itah Creed, making the clause read " Credimus in Spiritum Sanc
tum qui a Patre Filioque procedit." The Greek church violently
opposed this, and to this day reject it. For a short time they
were satisfied with the compromise, " The Spirit proceeding from

ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE SPIRIT. 157
the Father through the Son," which was finally rejected by both
parties. The Constantinopolitan Creed, us amended at the Ooun-
cil of Toledo, is the one now adopted by the Catholic Church, and
recognized by all Protestants, currently bearing the title of.
" Nicene Creed."
80. How may it be proved that, as far as revealed, the Spirit
sustains precisely the same relation to the Son which he does to
the Father ?
The epithet " Spirit" is the characteristic personal designation
of the third person. Whatever is revealed of his eternal and
necessary personal relation to either the Father or the Son is in
dicated by this word. Yet he. is called the Spirit of the Son, as
well as the Spirit of the Father. He possesses the same identical
essence of the Son as of the Father. The Son sends and operates
through the Spirit as the Father does. Wherever their Spirit is
there both Father and Son are revealed, and there they exercise
their power. — John xiv., 16, 26; xv., 26; xvi., 7. With the sin
gle exception of the phrase, " which proceedeth from the Father,"
(John xv., 26,) the Scriptures- apply precisely the same predicates
to the relation of the Spirit to the Son that they do to his rela
tion to the Father.
81. What office does the Spirit discharge in the economy, of
redemption ?
In the economy of redemption, as universally in all the actings
of the Godhead upon the creature, God the Son is the revealed
God, God as known, and God the Spirit is that divine person
who exerts his energy immediately upon and in the creature.
For a more detailed answer see Chapter XXL, on " The Media
torial Office of Christ," question 9.
(III.) The personal properties peculiar to each of the
THREE PERSONS OF THfc GODHEAD, AND THEIR ORDER OF OPER
ATION AD EXTRA.
82. What is the theological meaning of the woi d property as
applied to the doctrine of the Trinity ?
The attributes of God are the perfections of the divine essence,

158 THE HOLY TRINITY.
and therefore common to each of the three persons, who are " tha
,same in substance," and therefore "equal in power and glory."
These have been discussed under Chapter VII. The properties
*of each divine person, on the other hand, are those peculiar modes
of personal subsistence whereby each divine person is constituted
as such, and that peculiar order of operation whereby each per
son is distinguished from the others.
As far as these are revealed to us the personal properties of
the Father are as follows : He is begotten by none, and proceeds
from none ; he is the Father of the Son, having begotten him
from eternity ; the Spirit proceeds from him and is his Spirit.
Thus he is the first in order and in operation, sending and operat
ing through the Son and Spirit.
The personal properties of the Son are as follows : He is the
Son, from eternity the only begotten of the Father. The Spirit
' is the Spirit of the Spn even as he is the Spirit of the Father ;
he is sent by the Father, whom he reveals ; he, even as the Fa
ther, sends and operates through the Spirit.
The personal properties of the Spirit are as follows : He is the
Spirit of the Father and the Son, from eternity proceeding from
them ; he is sent by the Father and the Son, they operating
through him ; he operates immediately upon the creature.
83. What kind of subordination did the early writers at
tribute to the second and third person in relation to the first?
They held, as above shown, that the eternal generation of the
Son by the Father, and the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost
from the Father and the Son involved in both instances the deri
vation of essence. They illustrated their idea of this eternal and
necessary act of communication by the example of a luminous
body, which necessarily radiates light the whole period of its ex
istence. Thus the Son is defined in the words of the Nicene
Creed, " God of God, Light of Light." Thus as the radiance of
the sun is coeval with its existence, and of the same essence as its
"source, by this illustration they designed to signify their belief
in the identity and consequent equality of the divine persons as to
essence, and the relative subordination of the second to the first,
and of the third to the first and second as to personal subsistence
and consequent prd^r of operation.

ORDER OF PERSONS. , 159
84 What is expressed by the use of the terms first, second,
and third in reference to the persons of the Trinity.
These terms are severally applied to the persons of the Trinity
because, 1st. The Scriptures uniformly state their names in this
order. 2d. The personal designations, -Father and Son, and
Spirit of the Father and of the Son, indicate this order of per
sonal subsistence. 3d. Their respective modes of operation ad
extra is always in this order. The Father sends and operates
through the Son, and the Father and Son send and operate
through the Spirit. The Scriptures never either directly or indi
rectly indicate the reverse order.
As to the outward bearing of the Godhead upon the creature
it would appear, that the Father is revealed only as he is seen
in the Son, who is the eternal Logos, or divine Word, the ex
press image of the Father's person. " No man hath seen God
at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him." — John L, 18. And the Father
and Son act immediately upon the creature only through the Spirit.
" The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead invisible, with
out form, whom no man hath seen or can see."
" The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested."
" The Spirit is all the fulness of the Godhead acting imme
diately upon the creature, and thus making manifest the Father
in the image of the Son, and through the power of the Spirit." —
" Higher Christian Life," by Rev. W. E. Boardman, p. 105.
85. How can the assumption of personal distinctions in the
Godhead be reconciled with the divine unity ?
Although this tripersonal constitution of the Godhead is alto
gether beyond the capacity of reason, and is ascertained to us
only through a supernatural revelation, there is evidently no con
tradiction in the two-fold proposition, that God is one, and yet
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are that one God. They are one
in one sense, and three-fold in an entirely different 'sense. The
eternal, self-existent, divine essence, constituting all those divine
perfections called attributes of God is; in the same sense and de
gree, common to all the persons. In this sense they are one.
But this divine essence exists eternally as Father, and as Son,

160 THE HOLY TRINITY.
and as Holy Ghost, distinguished by personal properties. In this
sense they are three. We believe this, not because we under
stand it, but because thus God has revealed himself.
86. How can the separate incarnation of the Son be reconciled
with the divine unity ?
The Son is identical with the Father and Spirit as to essence,
but distinct from them as to personal subsistence. In the incar
nation, -the divine essence of the Son was not made man, but as a
divine person he entered into a personal relation with the
human nature of the man Christ Jesus. This did not constitute
a new person, but merely introduced a new element into his eter
nal person. It was the personal union of the Son with a human
soul and body, and not any change either in ' the divine essence,
or in the personal relation of the Son to the Father or the Spirit.
87. • What is Arianism ?
This system was first advocated by Arius, who lived during
the first half of the fourth century. He maintained that the God
head consists of one eternal person, who in the beginning, before
all worlds, created in his own image a super-angelic being, his
only begotten Son, the beginning of the creation of God, by
whom also he made the worlds. The first and greatest creature
thus created, thrQugh the Son of God, was the Holy Ghost. In
the fullness of time this Son became incarnate in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth.
88. What was the doctrine of the Semi-Arians ?
This party was so called as occupying middle ground between
the Arians and the Orthodox. They held that the absolute, self-
existent God was one person, but that the Son was a divine per
son of a glorious essence, like to (6[ioiovoiov) but not identical
with (6iJ,o6vaiov) that of the Father, and from eternity begot
ten by the Father by a free exercise of will and power," and
therefore subordinate to and dependant upon him. This party
was largely, represented at the Council of Nice.
It appears that some of the Semi-Arians agreed with the
Arians in regarding the Holy Spirit as the first and most glorious
creature of the Son, but that the majority regarded the words

HERETICAL OPINIONS. 161
" Holy Spirit," as significant of a divine energy, or as a synonyme
of the word God. — See Neander's Ch. Hist., Torrey's translation,
Vol. IL, pp. 419, 420.
89. What is Sabellianism ?
This term represents the opinion that God is one single per
son as well as one single essence. The term Father is the name
appropriated to this one person, when considered in his incom
prehensible greatness, and in his absolute sovereignty. The term
Son is the name appropriated to the same person when conceived
of as revealing himself, and as becoming incarnate and dwelling
among men. The term Holy Ghost is the name applied to him
when conceived of as operating immediately upon the creature in
his works of creation, providence or grace. The more significant
and generic title of the sects holding this opinion is Monarchians,
or those maintaining the absolute unity of the Godhead, personal
as well as essential. They were also called Patripassians, because
they believed that the one divine person, called Father, as well
as Son or Holy Ghost was united to the man Christ Jesus, who
suffered on the cross. This system was taught, with special modi
fications, by several heretical leaders of the early church, first by
Praxeas, a confessor at Rome, at the end of the second century.
It has, however, -currently born the name of Sabellius, an African
bishop who lived during the middle of the third century. The
Swedenborgians of the present day are Sabellians.
90. What is Tritheism ?
This opinion, the extreme opposite of Sabellianism, is said to
have been first advocated by John Ascusnage, a Syrian philoso
pher, who flourished during the sixth century. He taught that
the Godhead is constituted of three beings, distinct in essence as
well as in person. Hence there are three Gods, united not in
being, but only in the most intimate fellowship of counsel and
will. ¦
91. What is Socinianism ?
This system regards God the Father as the only God, one in
person as well as essence, and Jesus Christ as a mere man, though
an inspired prophet, and called Son of God only on account of
his miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin ; and the

162 THE HOLY TRINITY.
term Holy Spirit only as another name for the one God, the Fa
ther. The more common and significant title of this system is
Unitarianism. It takes its designation of Socinianism from its
most successful promulgators Loelius and Faustus Socinus, uncle
and nephew, who flourished during the latter half of the sixteenth
century. Italians by birth, the uncle died in the bosom of the
Reformed Church of Zurich, a. d., 1562, but the nephew, ulti
mately joining the Unitarians of Poland, gave the final form to
their religious system, and from his writings the Racovian Cate
chism was principally compiled, which remains to this' day the
most authoritative exposition of the Unitarian faith. — See Mos-
heim's Ch. Hist., Vol. III., p. 235.
92. By what considerations may it be shown that the doctrine
of the Trinity is a fundamental element of the Gospel ?
It is not claimed that the refinements of theological specula
tions upon this subject are essential points of faith, but simply
that it is essential to salvation to believe in the three persons in
one Godhead, as they are revealed to us in the Scriptures. 1st.
The only true God is that God who has revealed himself to us in
the Scriptures, and the very end of the gospel is to bring us to
the knowledge of that God preoisely in the aspect in which he has
revealed himself. Every other conception of God presents a false
god to the mind and conscience. There can be no mutual toler
ation without treason. Socinians, Arians, and Trinitarians wor
ship different Gods.
2d. The Scriptures explicitly assert that the knowledge of
this true God and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent is eternal
life, and that it is necessary to honor the Son even as we honor
the Father.— John v., 23 ; xiv., 1 ; xvii., 3 ; 1 John ii., 23 ; v., 20.
3d. In the initiatory rite of the Christian church we are baptized
into the name of every several person of the trinity,- Matt, xxviii., 19.
4th. The whole plan of redemption in all its parts is founded
upon it. Justification, sanctification, adoption, and all else that
makes the gospel the wisdom and power of God unto salvation,
can be understood only in the light of this fundamental truth.
5th. As an historical fact it is beyond dispute that in whatever
church the doctrine of the trinity has been abandoned or obscured,
every other characteristic doctrine of the gospel has gone with it

C HAP T E R IX.
THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL.
1. What are the decrees of God ?
See Con. of Faith, chap, iii., Larger Cat., Q. 12, and Shorter
Cat., Q. 7.
The decree of God is his eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise and
sovereign purpose, comprehending at once all things that ever
were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions and rela
tions, and determining their certain futurition. The several con
tents of this one eternal purpose are, because of the limitation of
our faculties, necessarily conceived of by us in partial aspects, and
in logical relations, and are therefore styled Decrees.
?
2. How are the acts of God classified, and to which class do
theologians refer the decrees ?
All conceivable divine actions may be classified as follows :
1st. Those actions which are immanent and intrinsic, belong
ing essentially to the perfection of the divine nature, and which
bear no reference whatever to any existence without the Godhead
These are the acts of eternal and necessary generation, whereby
the Son springs from the Father, and of eternal and necessary
procession whereby the- Spirit proceeds from the Father and the
Son, and all those actions whatsoever involved in the mutual
society of the divine persons.
2d. Those actions which are extrinsic and transient, i. e.,
those free actions proceeding from God and terminating upon the
creature, occurring successively in time, as God's acts in creation,
providence and grace.
3d. The third class are like the first inasmuch as they are in
trinsic and immanent, essential to the perfection of the divine

164 THE DECREES OF GOD. IN GENERAL.
nature and permanent states of the divine mind, but they differ,
on the other hand, from the first class, inasmuch as they have re
spect to the whole dependent creation exterior to the Godhead.
These are the eternal and immutable decrees of God respecting
all beings and events whatsoever exterior to himself.
3. How may it be proved that the decrees of God are
eternal ?
1st. As God is infinite, he is necessarily eternal and unchange
able, from eternity infinite in wisdom and knowledge, and abso
lutely independent in thought and purpose of every creature.
There can never be any addition to his wisdom, nor surprise to
his foreknowledge, nor resistance to his- power, and therefore there
never can be any occasion to reverse or modify that infinitely wise
and righteous purpose which, from the perfection of his nature,
he formed from eternity.
2d. Scripture directly affirms it. — Acts xv., 18, (dir' diibvog,
from eternity,) Matt, xxv., 34 ; Eph. i., 4 ; 2 Thes. ii., 13 ; 2
Tim. L, 9 ; 1 Cor. ii., 7. Time is limited duration measured by
succession, and therefore commenced at the creation; "before the
world," therefore, means "before time," or from eternity;
" iEternitas est una, individua, ^t tota simul."
4. How may it be proved from Scripture that the decrees of
God relate to all events ?
Eph. L, 10, 11 ; Acts xv., 18 ; xvii., 26 ; Job xiv., 5 ; Isa.
.xlvi., 10. Even the free acts of men, (Eph. ii., 10,) even their
wicked actions:— Acts ii., 23 ; iv., 27, 28 ;, Ps. lxxvi., 10 ; Prov.
xvi., 4. Also what men call accidental events. — Prov. xvi., 33,
compare with Acts xv., 18; All things in heaven and on earth.—
Dan. iv., 34, 35.
5. Prove the universality of God's decrees from providence.
It follows from the eternity, immutability, and infinite' wis
dom, foreknowledge, and power of God, that his temporal work
ing in providence must in all things proceed according to his
eternal purpose.— Eph. L, 11, and Acts xv., 18. But both Scrip
ture and reason alike teach us that the providential government
of God comprehends all things in heaven and on earth as a whole,

ETERNAL AND UNIVERSAL. • 165
and every event in detail. — Prov. xvi., 33 ; Dan. iv., 34, 35 ;
Matt, x., 29, 30.
6. Prove this doctrine from prophecy.
God has in the Scriptures foretold the certain Occurrence of
many events, including the free actions of men, which have after
wards surely come to pass. Now the ground of prophecy is fore
knowledge, and the foundation of the foreknowledge of an event
as certainly future, is God's decree that made it future. The
eternal immutability of the decree is the only foundation of the
infallibility either of the foreknowledge or of the prophecy. But
if God has decreed certain future events, he must also have in
cluded in that decree all of their causes, conditions, coordinates,
and consequences. No event is isolated ; to make one certainly
future implies the determination of the whole concatenation of
causes and effects which constitute the universe.
7. What reasons may be assigned for contemplating the de
crees of God as one, all-comprehensive purpose ?
1st. As above shown, the decrees of God,are eternal and im
mutable. 2d. No event is isolated. To decree one implies the
foreordination of the whole concatenation of events which consti
tute the universe. As all events constitute one system, they must
have been determined in one purpose. 3d. God decrees all things
as they actually occur, i. e., as produced by causes, and as de
pending upon conditions, etc. The same decree, therefore, which
determines the event, determines it as produced by its cause, and
as depending upon its conditions.
Most of the mistakes which heterodox speculators have made,
with reference to the nature of God's decrees, arise from the ten
dency of the human mind to confine attention to one fragment of
God's eternal purpose, and to regard it as isolated from the rest.
This decree never determined the certain occurrence of any single
event as separated from the second causes which produce it, but
it at once, and as a whole, determines the certain occurrence of all
things that ever come to pass, the causes as well as their effects,
the condition as well as that which is suspended upon it, and all
in the very relations in which they actually occur.

166 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL.
8. In what sense are the decrees of God free ?
The decrees of God are free in the sense that in decreeing he
was solely actuated by his own infinitely wise, righteous, and
benevolent good pleasure. He has always chosen as he pleased,
and he has always pleased consistently with the perfection of his
nature. 9. In what sense are the decrees of God sovereign ?
They are sovereign in the sense that while they determine
absolutely whatever occurs without God, their whole reason and
motive is within the divine nature, and they are neither sug
gested nor occasioned by, nor conditioned upon anything whatso
ever without him.
10. What is the distinction between absolute and conditional
decrees ?
An absolute decree is one which, while it may include con
ditions, is suspended upon no condition, i. e., it makes the event
decreed, of whatever kind, whether of mechanical necessity or of
voluntary agency, certainly future, together with all the causes
and conditions, of whatever nature, upon which the event depends.
A conditional decree is one which decrees that an event shall
happen upon the condition that some other event, possible but
uncertain (not decreed), shall actually occur.
The Socinians denied that the free actions of men, being in
trinsically uncertain, are the objects of knowledge, and therefore
affirmed that they are not foreknown by God. They held that
God decreed absolutely to create the human race, and after Adam
sinned he decreed absolutely to save all repenting and believing
sinners, yet that he decreed nothing concerning the sinning nor the
salvation of individual men.
The Arminians, admitting that God certainly foreknows the
acts of free agents as well as all other events, maintain that he
absolutely decreed to create man, and foreseeing that man would s
sin he absolutely decreed to provide a salvation for all, and actu
ally to save all that repent and believe, but that he conditionally
decreed to save individual men on the condition, foreseen but not
foreordained, of their faith and obedience.

NOT CONDITIONAL. 167
11. What are the objections to attributing conditional decrees
to God ?
Calvinists admit that the all comprehensive decree of God de
termines alLevents according to their inherent nature, the actions
of free agents as free, and the operation of necessary causes, neces
sarily. It also comprehends the whole system of causes and effects
of every kind ; of the motives and conditions of free actions, as
well as the necessary causes of necessary events. God decreed sal
vation upon the condition of faith, yet in the very.same act he de
creed the faith of those persons whose salvation he has determined.
" Whom he did predestinate, them he also called." Thus 'his
decree from the beginning embraced and provided for the free
agency of man, as well as the regular procedures of nature, ac
cording to established laws. Thus also his covenants, or con
ditional promises, which he makes in time, are in all their parts
the execution of his eternal purpose, which comprehended the
promise, and the condition in their several places as means to the
end. But that the decree of God can be regarded as suspended
upon conditions which are not themselves determined by the decree
is evidently impossible.
1st. This decree has been shown above (questions 3-7) to be
eternal and all comprehensive. A condition implies liability to
change. The whole universe forming one system, if one part is
contingent the whole must be contingent, for if one condition
failed the whole concatenation of causes and effects would be de
ranged. If the Arminian should rejoin that although God did
not foreordain the free acts of men, yet he infallibly foreknew
and provided for them, and therefore his plans can not fail ; then
the Calvinist replies that if God foresaw that a given man, in
given circumstances, would act at a given juncture in a certain way,
then God in decreeing to create that very man and place him in
those very circumstances, at that very juncture, did foreordain the
certain futurition of that very event, and of all its consequences.
That- God's decree is immutable and does not depend upon uncer
tain conditions, is proved (1.) from its eternity, (2.) from the
direct assertions of Scripture. — Is. xiv., 24, 27 ; xlvi., 10 ; Ps.
xxxiii., 11 ; Prov. xix., 21 ; Rom. ix., 11 ; Eph. iii., 11.
2d. The foreknowledge of God, as Arminians admit, is eternal
and certain, and embraces all events, free as well as necessary.

168 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL.
But, (1.) as shown in the preceding paragraph, this foreknowl
edge involves foreordination, and (2.) certainty in the foreknowl
edge implies certainty in the event ; certainty implies determina
tion ; determination leaves us to choose between the decree of
an infinitely wise, righteous, and benevolent -God, and a blind
fate. 3d. A conditional decree would subvert the sovereignty of
God and make him, as to the administration of his whole govern
ment and the execution of all his plans, dependent upon the un-
controlable actions of his own creatures. But the decrees of God
are sovereign. — Isa. xl., 13, 14 ; Dan. iv., 35 ; Rom. ix., 15-18.
4th. His decree is declared to depend upon his own "good
pleasure," and the "counsel of his own will." — Eph. L, 5, 11 ;
Rom. ix., 11 ; Matt, xi., 25, 26.
5th. The decree of God includes the means and conditions.— ;
2 Thes. ii., 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. L, 4.
6th. His decree absolutely determines the free actions of
men.— Acts iv., 27, 28 ; Eph. ii., 10.
7th. God himself works in his people that faith and obedience
which are called the conditions of their salvation. — Phil, ii., 13 ;
Eph. ii., 8 ; 2 Tim. ii., 25.
12. Hoio far are the decrees of God efficacious and how far
permissive ?
All the decrees of God are equally efficacious in the sense that
they all infallibly determine the certain futurition of the event
decreed. Theologians, however, classify the decrees of God thus :
1st. As efficacious in as far as they respect those events which he
has determined to effect through necessary causes, or in his own
immediate agency. 2d. As permissive, as far as they respect
those events which he has determined to allow dependent free
agents to effect.
13. How may it be proved that the decree of God renders the.
event certain ?
1st. From the nature of the decree itself as sovereign and un
changeable, (see above.)
2d. From the essential nature of God in his relation to hia
creation, as an infinitely wise and powerful sovereign.

NOT INCONSISTENT WITH MAN'S FREE AGENCY. 169
3d. The foreknowledge of God regards future events as cer
tain. The ground of this certainty must be either in God, or in
the events themselves, which last is fatalism.
4th. The Scriptures ascribe a certainty of futurition to the
events decreed. There is a needs be that the event should hap
pen " as it was determined." — Luke xviii., 31-33 ; xxiv., 46 ;
Acts ii., 23 ; xiii., 29 ; 1 Cot. xi., 19 ; Matt, xvi., 21.
14. How does this doctrine, that God's universal decree ren
ders the occurrence of all future events certain, differ from the
ancient doctrine of fate ?
1st. The doctrine of fate supposed the certainty of events to
be determined by a law of necessary causation, effecting its end
irresistibly and irrespectively of the free choice of the human
agents concerned. The Christian doctrine of God's decrees, on
the other hand, regards that decree as determining the certainty
of the event only in dependence upon, and in relation to all the
causes and conditions which precede and attend it. It determines
the free act through the free will of the free agent.
2d: Fate was regarded as the concurrent action of all material
causes operating blindly and necessarily.
The decrees of Jehovah, on the, other hand, are the infinitely
wise and immutable purposes of a righteous and merciful Father.
15. What objection to this doctrine of unconditional decrees
is derived from the admitted fact of man's free agency ?
Objection. — Foreknowledge implies the certainty of the event.
The decree of God implies that he has determined it to be cer
tain. . But that he has determined it to be certain implies, upon
the part of God, an efficient agency in bringing about that event
which is inconsistent with the free agency of man.
We answer : It is evidently only the execution of the decree,
and not the decree itself, which can interfere with the free agency
of man. On the general subject of the method in which God
executes his decrees, see below, the chapters on Providence,
Effectual Calling, and Regeneration,
x We have here room only for the following general statement :
1st. The Scriptures attribute all that is good in man to God ;

170 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL.
these " he works in us both to will and to do of his good pleas
ure." All the sins which men commit the Scriptures attribute
wholly to the man himself. Yet God's permissive decree does
truly determine the certain futurition of the act ; because God
knowing certainly that the man in question would in the given
circumstances so act, did place that very man in precisely those
circumstances that he should so act. But in neither case,
whether in working the good in us, or in placing us where we will
certainly do the wrong, does God in executing his purpose ever
violate or restrict the perfect freedom of the agent.
2d. We have the fact distinctly revealed that God has decreed
the free acts of men, and yet that the actors were none the less
responsible, and consequently none the less free in their acts, Acts
ii., 23 ; iii,, 18 ; iv., 27, 28 ; Gen. L, 20, etc. We never can un
derstand how the infinite God acts upon the finite spirit of man,
but it is none the less our duty to believe.
3d. According to that theory of the will which makes the free
dom of man to consist in the liberty of indifference, i. e., that the
will acts in every case of choice in a state of perfect equilibrium,
equally independent of all motives for or against, and just as free
to chdose in opposition to all desires as in harmony with them,
it is evident that the very essence of liberty consists in uncertainty.
If this be the true theory of the will, God could not execute his
decrees without violating the liberty of the agent, and certain
foreknowledge would be impossible.,
But as shown below, in chapter 18, the true theory of the will
is that the liberty of the agent consists in his acting in each case
as, upon the whole, he pleases, i. e., according to the dispositions
and desires of his heart, under the immediate view which his rea
son takes of the case. These dispositions and desires are deter
mined in their turn by the character of the agent in relation to
his circumstances, which character and circumstances are surely
not beyond the control of the infinite God.
16. What is meant by those who teach that God is the author
of sin ?
Many reasoners of a Pantheistic tendency, e. g., Dr. Emmons,
maintain that as God is infinite in sovereignty, and by his decree
determines so by his providence, he effects every thing which

GOD NOT THE AUTHOR OF SIN. 171
comes to pass, so that he is actually the, only real agent in the
universe. Still they religiously hold that God is an infinitely
holy agent in effecting that which, produced/row God, is righte
ous, but, produced in us, is sin.
17. How may it be shoivn that God is not the author of sin ?
The admission of sin into the creation of an infinitely wise,
powerful and holy God is a great mystery, of which no explana
tion can be given. But that God can not be the author of sin is
proved, 1st, from the nature of sin, which is, as to its essence,
dvouia, want of conformity to law, and disobedience to the Law
giver. 2d. From the nature of God, who is as to essence holy,
and in the administration of his kingdom always forbids and
punishes sin.
3d. From the nature of man, who is a responsible free agent
who originates his own acts. The Scriptures always attribute to
divine grace the good actions, and to the evil heart the sinful ac
tions of men.
18. How may it be shown that the doctrine of unconditional
decrees does not represent God as the author of sin ?
The whole difficulty lies in the awful fact that sin exists. If
God foresaw it and yet created the agent, and placed him in the
very circumstances under which he did foresee the sin would be
committed, then he did predetermine it. If he did not foresee
it, or, foreseeing it, could not prevent it, then he is not infinite in
knowledge and in power, but is surprised and prevented by his
creatures. The doctrine of unconditional decrees presents no
special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing that the sin
shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and not as by any
form of coaction causing, nor by any form of temptation inducing
him to sin.
19. What is the objection to this doctrine derived from the use
of means ?
This is the most common form of objection in the mouths of
ignorant and irreligious people. If an immutable decree makes
all future events certain, " if what is to be, will be," then it fol-

172 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL.
lows that no means upon our part can avoid the result, nor can
any means be necessary to secure it.
Hence as the use of means is commanded by God, and instinc
tively natural to man, since many events have been effected by
their use, and many more in the future evidently -depend upon
them, it follows that God has not rendered certain any of those
events which depend upon the use of means on the part of
men. 20. What is the ground upon which the' use of means is
founded ?
This use is founded upon the command of God, and upon that
fitness in the means to secure the end desired, which our instincts,
our intelligence, and our experience disclose to us. But neither
the fitness nor the efficiency of the means to secure the end, reside
inherently and independently in the means themselves, but were
originally established and are now sustained by God himself ; and
in the working of all means God always presides and directs pro
videntially. This is necessarily involved in any Christian theory
of Providence, although we can never explicate the relative action
(concursus) of God on man, the infinite upon the finite.
21. How may it be shown that the doctrine of decrees does
not afford a rational ground of discouragement in the use of
means ?
This difficulty (stated above, question 19; rests entirely in a
habit of isolating one part of God's eternal decree from thewhole,
(see question 7), and in confounding the Christian doctrine of
decrees with the heathen doctrine of fate, (see question 14.) But
when God decreed an event he made it certainly future, not as
insolated from other events, or as independent of all means and
agents, but as dependent upon means and upon agents freely
using those means. The same decree which makes the event cer
tain, also determines the mode by which it shall be effected, and
comprehends the means with the ends. This eternal, all com
prehensive act embraces all existence through all duration, and
all space as one system, and at once provides for the whole
in all its parts, and for all the parts in all their relations
to one another and to the whole. An event, therefore, may

PRACTICAL EFFECTS. 173
be certain in respect to God's decree and foreknowledge, and at
the same time truly contingent in the apprehension of man, and
in its relation to the means upon which it depends.
22. What are the proper practical effects of this doctrine ?
Humility in view of the infinite greatness and sovereignty of
God, and of the dependence of man. Confidence and implicit
reliance upon the wisdom, righteousness, goodness and immuta
bility of God's purposes, and cheerful obedience to his com
mandments ; always remembering that God's precepts, as dis
tinctly revealed, and not his decrees, are the rule of our duty.

CHAPTER X.
PREDESTINATION.
1. What are the different senses in which the word predesti
nation is used by theologians ?
1st. As equivalent to the generic word decreee, as including
all God's eternal purposes.
2d. As embracing only those purposes of God Which specially
respect his moral creatures.
3d. As designating only the counsel of God concerning fallen
men, including the sovereign election'of some and the most righte
ous reprobation of the rest.
4th. It is sometimes restricted in the range of its usage so far
as to be applied only to the eternal election of God's people to
everlasting life.
The sense marked as 3d, above, is the most proper usage. —
See Acts iv., 27, 28.
2. In what senses are the words irpoyiv6aica (to know before
hand), and irpoyvuaig (foreknowledge), used in the New Testa
ment? Upoyivuaich} is compounded of npo, before, and yivwoK-u, of
which the primary sense is to know, and the secondary sense to
. approve, e. g., 2 Tim. ii., 19 ; John x., 14, 15 ; Rom. vii., 15.
This word occurs five times in the New Testament. Twice, e. g.,
Acts xxvi., 5, and 2 Pet. iii. 17, it signifies previous knowledge,
apprehension, simply. In the remaining three instances, Rom.
viii., 29 ; xi.; 2 ; 1 Pet. L, 20, it is used in the secondary sense
of approve beforehand. This is made evident from the context,
for it is used to designate the ground of God's predestination of
individuals to salvation, which elsewhere is expressly said to be
" not according to our works, but according to his'own purpose

DEFINITIONS. 175
and grace," and "to the good pleasure of his will," 2 Tim. i., 9 ;
Rom. ix., 11 ; Eph. i., 5.
Upoy vuoig occurs but twice in the New Testament, e. g., Acts
ii., 23, and 1 Pet. i. 2, in both of which instances it evidently sig
nifies approbation, or choice from beforehand. It is explained by
the equivalent phrase " determinate counsel."
3. What is the New Testament usage of the words etcXeyu (to
elect) and iaXoyrj (election) ?
'EftAeyw occurs twenty-one times in the New Testament. It is
used to signify, 1st, Christ's choice of men to be apostles,, Luke
vi., 13 ; John vi., 70. 2d. God's choice of the Jewish nation as
a peculiar people, Acts xiii., 17.' 3d. the choice of men by God,
or by the church for some special service, Acts xv., 7, 22. 4th.
The choice made by Mary of the better part, Luke x., 42. 5th.
In the great majority of- instances God's eternal election of indi
vidual men to everlasting life, John xv., 16 ; 1 Cor. L, 27, 28 ;
Eph. i., 4 ; James ii., 5.
'EnXoyrj occurs seven times in the New Testament. Once it
signifies an election to the apostolic office. — Acts ix., 15. Once
it signifies those chosen to eternal life. — Rom. xi., 7. In every
other case it signifies the purpose or the act of God in choosing
his own people to salvation. — Rom. ix., 11; xi., 5, 28 ; 1 Thes.
i., 4 ; 2 Pet. i., 10.
4. To whom is election referred in the Scriptures ?
The eternal decree, as a whole, and in all its parts, is doubt
less the concurrent act of all the three persons of the Trinity, in
their perfect oneness of counsel and will.
But in tile economy of salvation, as revealed to us, the act of
sovereign election is specially attributed to the Father, as his
personal part, even as redemption is attributed to the Son, and
sanctification to the Spirit.— John xvii., 6, 9 ; vi., 64, 65 ; 1
Thes. v. 9.
5. Are individuals, classes, or communities, the object of
election ?
¦ The word " election" (as shown above, question 3) is applied to
the designation by God of certain nations and classes of men to
pri vileges and offices in the visible church. But that it is also

176 PREDESTINATION.
applied to the eternal election of individuals to salvation is
evident, 1st. The subjects of this election are everywhere spoken of
as individuals.— Acts xiii., 48 ; Eph. L, 4 ; 2 Thes. ii., 13.
2d. The elect are distinguished from the general community
of the visible church. All Israel, as a body, did not obtain that
which they sought for, the election obtained it, and the rest were
blinded.- — Rom. xi., 7.
3d. The names of these are said "to be written in heaven,"
and to be " in the book of life."— Heb. xii., 23 ; PhiL iv., 3.
4th. The blessings which this election secures are such as per
tains to individuals alone, and not to classes or communities as
such, e.g., "salvation," "adoption of sons," "to be conformed
to the image of God's Son." — 2 Thes. ii., 13 ; Eph. L. 5 ; Rom.
viii., 29.
6. What is the Supra-lapsarian theory of predestination ?
.The term supra-lapsarian (supra lapsum) designates that view
of the various provisions of the divine decree in their logical rela
tions which supposes that the ultimate end which God proposed
to himself, was his own glory in the salvation of some men and in
the damnation of others, and that, as a means to that end, he de
creed to create man, and to permit him to fall. According to
this view,. man simply as creatible, and fallible, and not as actu
ally created or fallen, is the object of election and reprobation.
The order of the decrees would then be, 1st. Of all possible men,
God first decreed the salvation of some and the damnation of
others, for the end of his own glory. 2d. He decreed, as a means
to that end, to create those already elected or reprobated. 3d.
He decreed to permit them to fall. 4th. He decreed to provide a
salvation for the elect.
7. What are the objections to this theory ?
1st. It involves logical confusion. Man creatible is a nonen
tity. He could not have been loved or chosen unless considered
as created. 2d. The whole language of Scripture upon this subject im
plies that the " elect" are chosen as the objects of eternal love, not

SUPRA-LAPSARIAN THEORY. 177
from the number of creatible, but from the mass of actually sin
ful men. — John xv., 19; Rom. xi., 5, 7.
3d. The Scriptures declare that the elect are chosen to sancti
fication, and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They must
therefore have been regarded when chosen as guilty and defiled
by sin.— 1 Pet. i., 2 ; Eph, i., 4-6.
4th. Predestination includes reprobation. This view repre
sents God as reprobating the non-elect by a sovereign act, without
any respect to their sins, simply for his own glory. This appears
to be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as well as with
the teaching of Scripture. The non-elect are " ordained to dis
honor and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his glorious jus
tice.— Conf. Faith, ch. 3, Sec. 3-7, L. Cat., question 13 ; S. Cat.,
question 20.
8. What is the true interpretation of Eph. iii., 9, 10.
This passage is claimed as a direct affirmation of the supra
lapsarian theory. If the Iva, introducing the tenth verse, refers to
the immediately preceding clause, which closes the ninth verse,
then the passage teaches that God Created all things, in order that
his manifold wisdom might be displayed by the church to the
angels. It is evident, however, that *iva refers to the preceding
phrase, in which Paul declares he was ordained to preach the
gospel to the Gentiles, and to enlighten all men as to the mys
tery of redemption. All this he was commissioned to do, in
order that God's glory might be displayed, etc. — See Hodge
on Ephesians. 9. What is the sub-lapsarian view of predestination ?
The sub-lapsarian (sub lapsum) theory of predestination, or
the decree of predestination, viewed as subsequent in purpose to
the decree permitting man to fall, represents man as created and
fallen as the object of election. " The order of the decrees then
stand thus : 1st. The decree to create man. 2d. To permit man
to fall. 3d. The decree to elect certain men, out of the mass of
the fallen and justly condemned race, to eternal life, and to pass
others by,- leaving them to the just consequences of their sins.
4th. The decree to provide salvation for the elect.
12

178 PREDESTINATION.
10. What is the Arminian theory as to the order of the de
crees relating to the human race ?
1st. The decree to create man. 2d. Man, as a moral agent,
being fallible, and his will being essentially contingent, and his
sin therefore being impreventible, God, foreseeing that man would
certainly fall into the condemnation and pollution of sin, decreed
to provide, a free salvation through Christ for all men, aiid to
provide sufficient means for the effectual application of that salva
tion to the case of all. 3d. He decreed absolutely that all be
lievers in Christ should be saved, and all unbelievers reprobated
for their sins. 4th. Forseeing that certain individuals would re
pent and believe, and that certain other individuals would con
tinue impenitent to the last, God from eternity elected to eternal
life those whose faith he foresaw, on the condition of their faith,
and reprobated those whom he foresaw would continue impeni
tent on the condition of that impenitence.
With the Arminian the decree of redemption precedes the
decree of election, which is conditioned upon the foreseen faith
of the individual.
With the Calvinist, on the other hand, the decree of election
precedes the decree of redemption, and the decree of election is
conditioned upon the simple good pleasure of God alone.- — See
Appendix B.
11. What is the view of this subject entertained by the French
Protestant theologians, Camero, Amyraut, and others ?
These theological professors at Saumur, during the second
quarter of the seventeenth century, taught that God, 1st. Decreed
to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. To provide, in
the mediation of Christ, salvation for all men. 4th. But, fore
seeing that if men were left to themselves none would repent and
believe, therefore he sovereignly elected some to whom he de-
oreed to give the necessary graces of repentance and faith.
The new school theology of America, as far as it relates to the
decrees of God, is only, a revival of this system.
It differs from the Calvinistic view in making the decree of
redemption precede the decree of election.
It differs from the Arminian .view in regarding the sov-

LUTHEREAN VIEW. 179
ereign good pleasure of God, and not foreseen faith, the ground of
election. The objectionto this view is, that it is an essential ele
ment in that radically false view of the atonement called the
governmental theory. — See Chapter XXII., questions 6, 7.
12. In what sense do the Lutherans teach that Christ is the
ground of election ?
They held that God elected his own people to eternal life for
Christ's sake. They appeal to Eph. L, 4, " According as he hath
chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world."
This view may evidently be construed either with the Arminian
or the French theory of the decrees above stated, i. e., we were
chosen in Christ for his sake, either as we were foreseen to be in
him through faith, or because God, having provided through
Christ salvation for all men, would, by the election of certain
individuals, secure at least in their case the successful effect of
Christ's death.
This view, of course, is rebutted by the same arguments which
we urge against the theories above mentioned. We are said to
be chosen " in him," not for Christ's sake, but because the eter
nal covenant of grace includes all the elect under the headship of
Christ. The love of God is everywhere represented as the ground
of the gift of Christ, not the work of Christ the ground of the
love of God. — John iii., 16 ; 1 John iv:, 10. ¦
13. What is the Arminian doctrine as to the ground of elec
tion ?
The faith and repentance of the elect themselves, as foreseen
by God. 14. What, according to the Calvinistic view, is the ground
of predestination ?
The eternal, sovereign, and infinitely wise, righteous, and lov
ing will of God.
15. . What arguments overthrow the Arminian and establish
the Calvinistic view ?
1st It is derogatory to the sovereignty and infinite perfections
of God to regard any decree of his as conditional upon any thing
without himself. — See above, Chap. IX., question 11.

180 PREDESTINATION.
2d. On the contrary, the Scriptures always assign the good
pleasure of God as the ground of election. — Eph. L, 5, 11 ; 2
Tim. i., 9 ; Rom. viii., 28. Its ground is declared to be in God
and not in us; John xv., 16-19 ; Matt, xi., 26 ; James ii., 5 ; and
to be of grace and not of works, Rom. xi., 4-7. This is affirmed,
argued and illustrated, Rom. ix., 10-13.
3d. Faith and repentence are themselves declared to be " the
gift of God," Eph. ii., 8 ; Acts v., 31, and therefore were included
in the decree, and could not have been the indeterminate condition
of it. — See Chapter IX., question 7.
4th. It is expressly affirmed that the elect were chosen " to be
holy," and " to be conformed to the image of his Son," and not be
cause these were foreseen ; faith and repentance, therefore, are the
consequents, not the grounds of election, Rom. viii., 29 ; Eph. i.,
4 ; ii., 10 ; 2 Thess. ii., 13 ; 1 Pet. L, 2.
5th. Man, antecedently to election, could not have been fore
seen as repentant and believing, because human nature can bring
forth no such fruits. But God elects his people to grace, aqd
through grace to faith and to all the fruits thereof. Therefore,
" whom he did predestinate them he also called." — Rom. viii., 30 ;
2 Thess. ii., 13, 14.
6th. The elect and the effectually called are the same, and the
calling is based upon the election, 2 Tim. L, 9, 10 ; Rev. xvii.,
14.— See Chapter XXV.
7th. All the elect shall believe, John x., 16 and 27-29 ; vi.,
37-39 ; xvii., 2, 9, 24, and only the elect believe, and because
they are such^ John x., 26 ; Acts xiii., 48 ; ii., 47.
16. What argument may be drawn from the nature of the ob
jections to Paul's doctrine, with which the Apostle deals in the
9th chapter of Romans ?
Paul's doctrine is indentical with the Calvinistic view. 1st.
Because he expressly teaches it. 2d. Because the objections he
notices as brought against his doctrine are the same as those
brought against ours. The desfgn of the whole passage is to
prove God's sovereign right to cast off the Jews as a peculiar
people, and to call all men indiscriminately by the gospel;
This, he argues, 1st, that God's ancient promises embraced not
the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but the spiritual

CONSISTENT WITH JUSTICE. 181
seed. 2d. That " God is perfectly sovereign in the distribution
of his favors."
But against this doctrine of divine sovereignty two objections
are introduced and answered by Paul.
1st. It is unjust, for God thus of his mere good pleasure to
show mercy to one and to reject another, v. 14. This precise ob
jection is made against our doctrine at the present time also.
" It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as
more false, more cruel, and more unjust." — Methodist Doctrinal
Tracts, pp. 170, 171. This Paul answers by two arguments.
(1.) God claims the right " I will have mercy on whom I will
have mercy," vs. 15, 16. (2.) God in his providence exercises the
right, as in the case of Pharoah, vs. 17, 18.
2d. The second objection is that this doctrine is inconsistent
with the liberty and accountability of men. The same objection
is made against our doctrine now also.
Paul answers this objection by condescending to no appeal to
human reason, but simply (1.) by asserting God's sovereignty as
creator, and man's dependence as creature, and (2.) by asserting
the just exposure of all men alike to wrath as sinners. — See Ana
lysis of chap, ix., 6-24, in Hodge's Com. on Romans.
17. Hmo can the doctrine of gratuitous election be reconciled
with the justice of God ?
Gratuitous election as the ultimate ground of salvation is not
only clearly consistent with justice, but it is the only conceivable
principle which is so. Justice necessarily holds all sinners alike
as destitute of all claims upon God's favor, and will admit of sal
vation being offered at all only on the ground of sovereign favor.
The essence of salvation by the gospel is that it is of grace, not
of debt. — Lam. iii., 22 ; Rom. iv., 4, 5 ; xi., 6 ; Eph. L, 6, 7 ;
ii., 8-10. If this be so it is evident that while no one can be
saved upon any other ground than that of a gratuitous election,
it rests only with God himself^ to save all, many, few, or none.
Justice can not demand that because some are saved all must be.
Those not elected are simply left to be dealt with according to
justice for their own sins. There is a lurking feehng among
many that somehow God owes to all men at least a full opportu
nity of being saved through Christ, If so there was no grace id

182 PREDESTINATION.
Christ's dying. "I reject," says Wesley, Meth. Doc' Tracts, pp.
25, 26, " the assertion that God might justly have passed by me
- and all men, as a bold, precarious assertion, utterly unsupported
by holy Scripture." Then, we say, of course the gospel was of
debt, not of grace.
18. How does this doctrine consist with the general benevo
lence of God?
The only difficulty at this point is to reconcile the general be
nevolence of God with the fact that he, being infinitely wise and
powerful, should have admitted a system involving the sin, final
impenitence, and consequent damnation of any. But this diffi
culty presses equally upon both systems.
The facts prove that God's general benevolence is not incon
sistent with his allowing some to be damned for their sins. This
is all that reprobation means. Gratuitous election, or the posi
tive choice of some does not rest upon God's general benevolence,
but upon his special love to his own, John xvii., 6, 23 ; Rom. ix.,
11-13 ; 1 Thess. v., 9. *
19. How does this doctrine consist with the general gospel
offer ?
In the general offers of the gospel God exhibits a salvation
sufficient for and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered to
every one without exception, and he unfolds all the motives of
duty, hope, fear, etc., -which ought to induce every one to accept
it, solemnly promising that whosoever comes in no wise shall be
cast out. Nothing but a sinful unwillingness can prevent any
one who hears the gospel from receiving and enjoying it.
The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition to
that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect will
come. There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling
God's certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the great
majority of those to whom he offers and upon whom he presses,
by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer ; especially
when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will certainly in
crease their guilt and misery.

ASSURANCE POSSIBLE. 183
20. How' far is assurance of our election possible, and on
what grounds does such assurance rest ?
An. unwavering and certain assurance of the fact of our elec
tion is possible.in this life, for whom God predestinates them he
also calls, and whom he calls he justifies, and we know that whom
he justifies, he also sanctifies. Thus the fruits of the Spirit prove
sanctification, and sanctification proves effectual calling, and
effectual calling election. — See 2 Pet. i., 5-10 ; 1 John ii., 3.
Besides this evidence of our own gracious states and acts, we
have the "Spirit of adoption, wh'o witnesseth with our spirits and
seals us. — Roni. viii., 16, 17 ; Eph. iv., 30.
In confirmation of this we have the example of the apostles
(2 Tim. L, 12) and of many Christians.
21. What is reprobation ? .
Reprobation is the aspect which God's eternal decree presents
in its relation to that portion of the human race which shall be
finally condemned for their sins.
It is, 1st, negative, in as much as it consists in passing over
these, and refusing to elect them to life ; and, 2d, positive, in as
much as they are condemned to eternal misery.
In respect to its negative element, reprobation is simply sov
ereign, since those passed over*were no worse than those elected,
and the simple reason both for the choosing and for the passing
over was the sovereign good pleasure of God.
In respect to its positive element, reprobation is not sovereign,
but simply judicial, because God inflicts misery in any case only
as the righteous punishment of sin. " The rest of mankind God
was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own
will, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for
their sins." — Con. Faith, Chap. III., Sec. 7.
22. How may this doctrine of reprobation be proved to be
true ?
1st. It is involved in the doctrine of unconditional election,
and is therefore established by all the evidence upon which that
doctrine rests, (see above, question 15.)"
2d. It is directly taught in such passages as the following :

184 PREDESTINATION.
Rom, ix., 10-24 ; 1 Pet. ii., 8 ; 2d Pet. ii., 12 ; Jude 4; Rev.
xiii., 8.
23. What is the objection.to this doctrine stated, (Rom. ix.,
19,) and how does Paul answer it ?
" Why doth he yet find fault ?" If he has not given gracious
ability to obey, how can he command. — See also Methodist Doc
trinal Tracts, p. 171.
The apostle answers by showing, 1st, (verses 20, 21,) that God
is under no obligation to extend his grace to all or_to any;
and, 2d, that the " vessels of wrath" were condemned for their
own sins, to manifest God's just wrath, while the " vessels of
mercy" were chosen not for any good in them, but to manifest his
glorious grace (verses 22, 23).
24. In what sense is God said to harden men (see Rom. i.,
24-28, and ix., 18) ?
This is doubtless a judicial act wherein God withdraws from
sinful men, whom he has not elected to life, for the just punish
ment of their sins, all gracious influences, and leaves them to the
unrestrained tendencies of their own hearts, and to the uncoun-
teracted influences of the world and the devil.
25. How can the doctrine of reprobation 6e reconciled with
the holiness of God ?
Reprobation leaves men in sin, and thus leads to the increase
of sin throughout eternity. How then can God, in consistency
with his holiness, form a purpose the designed effect of which
is to leave men in sin, and thus lead inevitably to the increase
of sin. But it is acknowledged by Arminians as well as Calvinists,
that God did create the human race in spite of his certain fore
knowledge that sin would be largely occasioned thereby, and he
did create individual men in spite of his certain foreknowledge
that these very men would continue eternally to sin. The sim
ple difficulty is, the fact that God does not convert all men.
26. What is the practical bearing of this doctrine on Chris
tian experience and conduct 2

PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS DOCTRINE. 185
It must be remembered, 1st. That this truth is not inconsis
tent with, but is part of the same gracious system with the
equally certain principles of the moral liberty and responsibility
of man, and the free offers of the gospel to all. 2d. That the
sole rule of our duty is the commands, threatenings, and prom
ises of God clearly expressed in the gospel, and not this decree of
election, which he never reveals except in its consequents of effec
tual calling, faith, and holy living.
When thus held the doctrine of predestination —
1st. Exalts the majesty and absolute sovereignty of God,
while it illustrates the riches of his free grace and his just dis
pleasure with sin.
2d. It enforces upon us the essential truth that salvation is
entirely of grace. That no one can either complain, if passed
over, or boasts himself, if saved.
3d. It brings the inquirer to absolute self-despair, and the
cordial embrace of the free offer of Christ.
4th. In the case of the believer, who has the witness in him
self, this doctrine at once deepens his humility, and elevates his
confidence to the full assurance of hope.

CHAPTER XI.
THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
1. What is the primary signification, and what the biblical
usage of the word n^b ¦?
"1st. Strictly, To hew, cut out. 2d. To form, make, produce,
(whether out off nothing or not) Gen. i„ 1, 21, 27 ; ii., 3, 4 ; Isa.
xliii., 1, 7 ; xiv., 7 ; lxv., 18 ; Ps. Ii., 12 ; Jer. xxxi., 22; Amos
iv., 13. Niphal, 1st. To be created, Gen. ii., 4; v., 2. 2d. To be
born, Ps. cii., 19 ; Ezek. xxi., 35. Piel. 1st. To hew, cut down,
e. g., a wood, Josh, xvii., 15, 18. 2d. To cut dqwn (with the
sword,) to kill, Ezek. xxiii., 47. 3d. To form, .engrave,mark out,
Ezek. xxi.,' 24." — Gesenius' Lex.
2. What different theories have been advocated in opposition
to the doctrine of creation ?
Among the ancient philosophers of every school it was uni
versally accepted as an indubitable axiom that the origination of
any new existence out of nothing is impossible, *'. e., ex nihilo nihil
fit. All, therefore, theists and atheists alike, repudiated the idea of
creation. Plato held that there are two eternal, self-existent prin
ciples, God and matter, which exist coordinately in an indivisible
unsuccessive eternity ; that time and the actual phenomenal world
which exists in time, are the work of God, who freely molds
matter into forms which image his own infinitely perfect and
eternal ideas. Aristotle also held that God and matter are co-
ordinately self-existent and eternal ; but he differed from Plato
in regarding God as eternally self-active in organizing the world
out of matter, and consequently in regarding the universe thus
organized as eternal as well as the mere matter of which it is
formed— Ancient PhiL, W. Archer Butler, Series 3, Lectures

OPPOSING THEORIES. 187
1 and 2. These, however, recognized God as the real author of
the universe as a harmonious system. The Atomists, of whom
Leucippus and Democritus were the first teachers, were, on the
other hand, Atheists and Materialists. They held that the only
self-existent principle of all things was an infinite number of
atoms which from eternity move together in obedience to certain
necessary forces, and in their fortuitous concourse combined and
constituted the various forms and systems of bodies which com
pose the universe, as well as the intelligent and sensitive souls of
men, which are as really material as their bodies, or any of the
grosser forms of matter. This system was adopted in its essential
features^ by the Epicureans. — Ritters' Hist, of Ancient PhiL,
Book VI., chap. ii.
Since the Christian era, all who have acknowledged the Holy
Scriptures to be the word of God have agreed in maintaining the
doctrine of God's absolute creation of the universe, alike matter
and form, out of nothing by his mere power ; although some of
the schoolmen, following Aristotle, have held that God created'
the world from eternity. The Manichaaans of the third and fourth
centuries, an entirely antichristian sect, rejecting the Old Testa
ment and corrupting the New, maintained the coordinate, eter
nal self-existence of two worlds, of spirit and light and of matter
and darkness, presided over by two great antagonistic beings.
Our present system is the result of the invasion of the world of
light by the prince of darkness, and the consequent entanglement
of a portion of that spiritual world with gross matter. The
spirits of men belong naturally to the one world, their bodies and
material nature generally to the other. All sin and suffering re
sult from the evil inherent in matter. The object of Christ's
mission was to deliver our spirits from our bodies, which it is the
great end of all practical religion to mortify and subdue. In
modern times the deniers of the doctrine of absolute creation ex
nihilo, have been either Pantheists or Atheists. For a statement
of the essential elements of Pantheism, see below, Chapter I.,
question 35. The Atheists have differed among themselves;
some maintaining that the present system of the universe has
continued just as it now is in unbroken succession from eternity ;
Borne resorting to the atomic theory of the ancients, and others
holding to an endless development of all things from their pri-

188 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
mordial elementary principles. This doctrine of development has
received its most perfect scientific exposition in La Place's
Nebular Hypothesis, wherein he traces the evolution of the whole
solar system by the rigid application of known mechanioal prin
ciples, from a condition of intensely heated vapor, rotating on its
axis from west to east, precisely similar to that of many nebulous
bodies now existing in the universe. As an account of the suc
cessive stages through which God has carried his work of creating
the world, in which sense this theory is very generally accepted
by Christian philosophers, the nebular hypothesis is a peerless
monument of its author's philosophical genius. But as an ac
count of the manner in which the world might have come into
existence without the intervention of either a divine wisdom or
power, in which sense the author intended it, it is an equally
eminent monument of his wickedness and folly.
3. How may creation ex nihilo be proved from Scripture ?
1st. The Hebrew word translated create in Gen. i., 1, has a
sense precisely equivalent to our word make, and it is the least
indefinite term in the whole language that Moses could have
selected if his purpose was to affirm the absolute creation of the
world by God out of nothing. And a more limited sense can not
rationally, and has never, by competent interpreters, been, put
upon these words, occurring as they do at the very opening of
the inspired account of the " generations of the heavens and of
the earth," without connection with any other proposition, and
absolutely without limitations of any kind.
2d. This doctrine is implied in several other passages of Scrip
ture, Rom. iv., 17 ; 2 Cor. iv., 6 ; Heb. xi., 3.
2d. This doctrine is also implied in all those innumerable
passages of Scripture which declare that God's power and sover
eignty are both infinite.
4. What other arguments may be adduced in proof of crea
tion, properly so called ?
1st. The doctrine that matter is self-existent and eternal, and
that God has simply formed the world out of preexisting material
is plainly inconsistent with his absolute independence and all-

ABSOLUTE CREATION PROVED. 189
sufficiency. It evidently limits the Creator, and makes him in
working depe ndent upon the nature of the material with which
he works. 2d.. It is inconsistent with the feeling of absolute dependence
of the creature upon the Creator, which is inherent in every heart,
and which is inculcated in all the teachings of the Scriptures. It
could not be said that " he upholds all things by the word of his
power," nor that " we live, and move, and have our being in
him," unless he be absolutely the Creator as well as the Former
of all things.
3d. It is manifest from the testimony of consciousness. (1.)
That our souls are distinct individual entities, and not parts or
particles of God ; (2.)' that they are not eternal. It follows con
sequently that they were created. And if the creation of the
spirits of men ex nihilo be once admitted, there remains no special
difficulty with respect to the absolute creation of matter.
4th. Although the absolute origination of any new existence
out of nothing is to us confessedly inconceivable, it is not one
whit more so than the relation of the infinite foreknowledge, or
foreordination, or providential control of God to the free agency
of men, nor than many other truths which we are all forced to
believe. 5th. After having admitted the necessary self-existence of an
infinitely wise and powerful personal Spirit, whose existence,
upon the hypothesis of his possessing the power of absolute crea
tion, is sufficient to account for all the phenomena of the universe,
it is unphilosophical gratuitously to multiply causes by suppos
ing the independent, eternal self-existence of matter also.
6th. When the physical philosopher has analyzed matter to
its ultimate atoms, and determined their essential primary prop
erties, he finds in them as strong evidence of a powerful antece
dent cause, and of a wisely designing mind, as he does in the
most complex organizations of nature ; for what are the ultimate
properties of matter but the elementary constituents of the uni
versal laws of nature, and the ultimate conditions of all phe
nomena. If design discovered in the constitution of the universe
as finished proves,a divine Former, by equal right must the same
design discovered in the elementary constitution of matter prove a
divine Creator.

190 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
7th. Those among theistic thinkers who have been tempted
to regard matter as eternal and self-existent, have been influenced
by the vain hope of explaining thereby the existence of moral
evil in consistency with the holiness of God. They would refer all
the phenomena of sin to an essentially evil principle inherent in
matter, and would justify God by maintaining that he has done,
all that in him lay to limit that evil. Now, besides the inconsis
tency of this theory's attempt to vindicate the holiness of God at
the expense of his independence, it proceeds upon absurd princi
ples, as appears from the following considerations : (1.) Moral
evil is in its essence an attribute of spirit. To refer it to a ma
terial origin must logically lead to the grossest materialism. (2.)
The entire Christian system of religion, and the example of Christ
is in opposition to that asceticism and " neglecting of the body,"
(Col. ii., 23) which necessarily springs from the view that matter
is the ground of sin. (3.) When God created the material uni
verse he pronounced his works "very good." (4.) The second
Person of the holy trinity assumed a real material body into per-:
sonal union with himself. (5.) The material ^creation, now
" made subject to vanity" through man's sin, is to be renovated
and made the temple in which the Godman shall dwell forever. —
See below, Chap. XXXVL, question 17. (6.) The work of Christ in
delivering his people from their sin does not contemplate the re
nunciation of the material part of our natures, but our bodies,
which are now " the members of Christ," and the " templesof the
Holy Ghost," are at the resurrection to be transformed into the
likeness of his glorified body. Yet nothing could be more absurd
than to argue that the a&\ia nvevfiaTiaov is not as litterally ma
terial as the present awfj,a itpvxiabv. (7.) If the cause of evil is
essentially inherent in matter, and if its past developments have
occurred in spite of God's efforts to limit it, what certain ground.
of confidence can any of us have for the future.
5. Prove that the work of creation is in Scripture attributed
to God absolutely, i. e., to each of the three persons of the Trinity
coor dinately, and not to either as his special personal function ?
1st. To the Godhead absolutely, Gen. i, 1, 26. 2d. To the
Father, 1 Cor.' viii., 6. 3d. To the Son, John L, 3 ; Col. L, 16, 17.
4th. To the Holy Spirit, Gen. i., 2 ; Job xxvi., 13 ; Ps. civ., 30.

GEOLOGY. 191
6. How can it be proved that no creature can create ?
1st. From the nature of the work It appears to us that the
work of absolute creation ex nihilo is an infinite exercise of power.
It is to us inconceivable because infinite, and it can belong, there
fore, only to that Being who, for the same reason, is incomprehen
sible. 2d. The Scriptures distinguish Jehovah from all creatures,
and from false gods, and establish his sovereignty and rights as
the true God by the fact that he is the Creator, Is. xxxvii., 16 ;
xl., 12, 13 ; liv., 5 ; Ps. xcvi., 5 ; Jer. x., 11, 12. 3d. If it
were admitted that a creature could create, then the works of
creation would never avail to lead the creature to an infallible
knowledge that his creator was the eternal and self-existent God.
7. What opinion do modern geologists entertain as to the an
tiquity of our globe, and upon what does that opinion rest f
The universal opinion of all geologists, Christians and infidels,
theists and atheists, is that the material composing our globe has
been in existence for incalculable ages ; that it has passed through
many successive stages in its transition probably from a gaseous,
'certainly from a molten condition, to its present constitution ;
and that it has successively been inhabited by many different or
ders of organized beings, each in turn adapted to the physical
conditions of the globe in its successive stages, and generally
marked in each" stage by an advancing scale of organization, from
the more elementary to the more complex and mftre perfect forms,
until the advent of man, the last and most perfect of all, about
6ix thousand years ago. The facts upon which this opinion is
founded are barely indicated in the following summary condensed
from the 2d chapter of Pres. Hitchcock's able work on " Re
ligion of Geology."
1st. The rocks are in their present form evidently the result
of the operation of second causes. " Some of them have been
melted and reconsolidated, and crowded in between others, or
spread over them. Others have been worn down into mud, sand,
and gravel, by water and other agents, and again cemented to
gether, after having enveloped multitudes of animals and plants,
which are now embedded as organic remains." They bear upon
them as indubitable marks of change and wear as any of the an
cient works of man. To infer that they were created in their

192 THE' CREATION OF THE WORLD.
present form would violate every principle of analogical reasoning
upon which all science proceeds.
2d. " Processes are now going on by which rocks are formed,
on a small scale, of the same character as those which constitute
the great mass of the earth. Hence it is fair to infer (1.) that
all the rocks were formed in a similar manner. (2.) That by as
certaining the rate at which rocks are now forming we may form
some estimate as to the time requisite to produce those constitut
ing the crust of the earth."
3d. All the stratified rocks, especially that large proportion of
them which co,ntain the remains of animals and plants, appear to
have been formed from fragments of other rocks, worn down by
the action of water and atmospheric agencies. Yet this process
is very slow.
4tn. " Yet there must have been time enough, since the crea
tion, to deposit at least ten miles of rocks in perpendicular thick
ness," by this process of attrition, washing, precipitation, drying,
and hardening by means of heat, pressure, and the admixture of
iron or lime.
5th. It is certain that since man existed, or in the last six
thousand years, materials for the production of rock have not ac
cumulated to the average thickness of more than one or two hun
dred feet, or about one five hundreth part of the entire thickness
of the stratified rocks that have been formed since the creation.
6th. During the deposition of the stratified rocks many changes
must have occurred in the temperature and the materials held in
solution by the waters which deposited them, and in the positions
of the rocks themselves, as they have been bent and dislocated
while in a soft state.
7th. " Numerous races of animals and plants must have occu
pied the globe previous to those which now inhabit it, and have
successively passed away as catastrophes occurred, or as the climate
became unfit for their residence. Thirty thousand species have
already been dug from the rocks, and with few exceptions none
of them corresponding to those now living upon the earth." " Not
less than four or five, and probably more, entire races have passed
away, and been succeeded by recent ones, so that the globe has
actually changed all its inhabitants half a dozen times."
8th. Even since all the various strata of rocks have been in

GEOLOGY. 193
their present state and position changes have been accomplished,
e. g., in the formation of deltas, and in the gradual wearing away of
solid rock in channels by rivers (often hundreds of feet deep, and
for miles in length), which must have required many thousands
of years. 9th. The primary rocks, which everywhere form the founda
tion upon which the stratified rocks rest, and out of the fragments
of which, by washing and wearing, the stratified rocks have been
formed, were themselves evidently formed when the whole globe
was gradually cooling from a condition of ^universal fusion from
heat. 8. What are the different methods which have been suggested
of reconciling the facts developed by geology with the truth of the
Mosaic record of creation ?
1st. The method adopted by Dr. Chalmers, President Hitch-
cockj and the great majority of Christian geologists, is as follows :
The first verse of Genesis, disconnected from the subsequent con
text, affirms the truth that in the beginning, at some remote and
unrepealed period in the past, God created the whole universe out
of nothing ; and then after an interval, the measure of which is
not given, the subsequent verses relate the general order in which
God, in the space of six natural days, established the present
order of this world, adapting it to the residence of its present
inhabitants, and in which he created the present races of plants
and animals. This interpretation of the Mosaic account of the
creation was advanced as probable by many eminent biblical
scholars before the rise of geological science, and it is now almost
universally adopted by theologians as well as by geologists.
There appears to be no objection to it upon any ground, and, as
a general adjustment, it appears to be the best possible in the
present state of our knowledge. It is only a general adjustment,
however, leaving many questions of detail unsolved, both as to
the interpretation of the record of the six days' work, and as to
the reconciliation of the facts' of geology, and the present scien
tific interpretation thereof, with the inspired record.
2d. In order to avoid several difficulties experienced in at
tempting to reconcile the Mosaic account of the six days' work
with the science, Dr. John Pye Smith proposed to supplement

194 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
the above method of reconciliation with the hypothesis that the
term earth in Genesis did not signify the whole globe, but " the
part of our globe which God was adapting for the dwelling-place
of man and animals connected with him," that is, " a large part
of Asia, lying between the Caucasian Ridge, the Caspian Sea, and
Tartary on the north, the Persian and Indian Seas on the south,
and the high mountain ridges which run at a considerable dis
tance on their eastern and western flanks."
3d. Many have argued that the days spoken of in this pas
sage in Genesis were not natural days of twenty-four hours,
" but periods of great, though indefinite length, during which all
the changes exhibited by the strata of rocks took place," and in
which the several orders of organized vegetable and animal beings
were successively created, man being brought into existence at
the end of the closing day of creation, and the Sabbath day of
God's rest from his creation work continuing ever since-. This
view has been eloquently argued and illustrated in a comparison
of the Mosaic text with the facts developed by geology, by the
late Hugh Miller, in his last work, " The testimony of the Rocks."
After all, however, theologians and geologists agree in regarding
this method of reconciliation as doing equal violence to the lan
guage of the record and to the facts of the science. — President
Hitchcock's " Religion of Geology."
9. What principles ought to be borne in mind by Christians
in view of apparent discrepancies between the- interpretation of
nature by science, and the '¦ interpretation of the Scriptures by
theologians ?
1st. All truth must be consistent. God's works and God's
word are alike absolute truth ; whatever discrepancies appear, the
difficulty must wholly exist in man's imperfect interpretation,
either of the works upon the one hand} or of the word upon the
other. 2d. Revelation was not designed to anticipate the natural
progress of science, consequently the Scriptures teach us nothing
concerning the interpretation of the phenomenal world of nature,
but uniformly speak of phenomena as they appear, and in the
common language of the age and people among whom they were
written, and never of physical causes or laws as they are in fact.

REVELATION AND SCIENCE. 195
Thus they speak of the sun "rising," "setting," "going back,"
" standing still," etc., etc.
3d. From the commencement of modern science apparent in
consistencies between nature and revelation have been constantly
emerging, which, for the time, have occasioned great offense to
zealous believers, but in every instance, without exception, the
error has been found to exist either in the' too hasty generalizations
of science from imperfect knowledge of the facts, or from a pre
judiced interpretation of the Scriptures, and invariably matured
science has been found not only to harmonize perfectly with the
letter of the word naturally interpreted, but, moreover, gloriously
to illustrate the grand moral principles and doctrines therein
revealed. 4th. There is no difficulty experienced in the attempt to re
concile Moses' account of the " genesis of the heavens and earth"
with the science of geology, which is different either in kind or
degree from those experienced in every attempt to reconcile pro
phecy with the facts of history. History and geological science
are both in transitu ; when they are finished' the perfect har
mony of both with revelation will be apparent to all.
5th. Christians should always rejoice in every advance of
science, being assured that thereby the truth of their religion and
the glory of their God must be confirmed and manifested. They
should equally avoid all premature adjustments of the interpreta
tion of Scripture to imperfect science in process of development,
and all injurious and impotent jealousies of scientific discoveries
or speculations, when apparently hostile to their traditional in
terpretation of Scripture. Perfect faith casteth out all
FEAR.

CHAPTER XII.
ANGELS.
1. What are the different senses in which the word dyyeXog,
angel, or messenger, is used in Scripture ?
"Ordinary messengers, Job i., 14 ; Luke vii., 24 ; ix., 52 ;
prophets, Isa. xiii., 19; Mai. iii., 1; priests, Mai. ii., 7; ministers
of the New Testament, Rev. i., 20 ; also impersonal agents, as
pillar of cloud, Ex. xiv., 19 ; pestilence, 2 Sam. xxiv:, 16, 17 ;
winds, Ps. civ., 4 ; plagues, called ' evil angels,' Ixxviii., 49 ;
Paul's thorn in the flesh, 'angel of Satan,' 2 Cor. xii., 7."
Also the second person of the Trinity, "Angelof his presence ;"
" Angel of the Covenant," Isa. Ixiii., 9 ; Mai. iii., 1. But the
term is chiefly applied to the heavenly intelligences, Matt, xxv.,
31— See Kitto's Bib. Ency.
2. What are the scriptural designations of angels, and how
far are those designations expressive of their nature and offices ?
Good angels (for evil spirits, see question 13) are designated
in Scripture as to their nature, dignity and power, as " spirits,"
Heb. i., 14; "thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, mights,"
Eph. i., 21, and Cpl. i., 16 ; " sons of God," Luke xx., 36 ; Job
i., 6 ; " mighty angels," and " powerful in strength," 2 Thes. i.,
7 ; Ps. ciii., 20 ; " holy angels," " elect angels," Luke ix., 26 ; 1
Tim. v., 21 ; and as to the offices they sustain in relation to God
and man, they are designated as " angels or messengers," and as
" ministering spirits," Heb. L, 13, 14.
3. What were the cherubim ?
" They were ideal oreatures, compounded of four parts, those
namely, of a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle." " The predomi-

CHERUBIM. 197
nant appearance was that of a man, but the number of faces, feet,
and hands differed according to circumstances." — Ezek. i., 6, com
pare with Ezek. xii., 18, 19, and Ex. xxv., 20.
To the same ideal beings is applied the designation " living
creatures," (Ezek. i., 5-22 ; x., 15, 17 ; Rev. iv., 6-9 ; v., 6-14 ;
vi., 1-7 ; vii., 11 ; xiv., 3 ; xv. 7 ; xix., 4,) rendered in our ver
sion " beasts."
" They were symbolical of the highest properties of creature
life, and of these as the outgoings and manifestation of the divine
life ; but they were typical of redeemed and glorified manhood,
or prophetical representations of it, as that in which these pro
perties were to be combined and exhibited.
" They were appointed immediately after the fall to man's
original place in the garden, and to his office in connection with
the tree of life." — Gen. iii., 24.
" The other and more common connection in which the cherub
appears is with the throne or peculiar dwelling-place of God. In
the holy of holies of the tabernacle, Ex. xxv., 22. he was called
the God who dwelleth between and sitteth upon the cherubim,
1 Sam. iv., 4; Ps. lxxx., 1 ; Ezek. i., 26, 28 ; whose glory is
above the cherubim. In Rev. iv., 6, we read of the living crea
tures who were in the midst of the throne and around about it."
" What does this bespeak but the wonderful fact brought out
in the history of redemption, that man's nature is to be exalted
to the dwelling-place of the Godhead ? In Christ it is taken,
so to speak, into the very bosom of the Deity ; and because it is
so highly honored in him, it shall attain to more than angelic
glory in his members." — Fairbairn's Typology, Pt. IL, Chapter
I., Section 3.
4. What is the etymology of the word seraphim, and what is
taught in Scripture concerning them ?
The word signifies burning, bright, dazzling. It occurs in
the Bible only once. — Isa. vi., 2, 6. It probably presents, under
a different aspect, the ideal beings commonly designated cheru
bim 'and living creatures.
5. Is there any evidence that angels are of various orders and

198 ANGELS.
That such distinctions certainly exist appears evident, 1st.
From the language of Scripture, Gabriel is distiguished as one that
stands in the presence of God, (Luke L, 19,) evidently in some
preeminent sense ; and Michael as one of the chief princes, Dan.
x., 13. Observe also the epithets archangel, thrones, dominions,
principalities, powers, Jude 9; Eph. i., 21. 2d. From the analogy
of the fallen angels, see Eph. ii., 2; Matt, ix., 34. ^ 3d. From the
analogy of human society and of the universal creation. Through
out all God's works gradation of rank prevails.
6. Do the Scriptures speak of more than one archangel, and
is he to be considered a creature ?
This term occurs but twice in the New Testament, and in
both instances it is used in the singular number, and preceded by
the definite article o, 1 Thes. iv., 16 ; Jude 9. Thus the term is
evidently restricted to one person, called, Jude 9, Michael, who,
in Dan. x., 13, and xii., 1, is called "one of the chief princes,"
and "the great prince," and in Rev. xii., 7, is said to have fought
. with his angels against the dragon and his angels.
Many suppose that the archangel is the Son of God. Others
suppose that he is one of the highest class of creatures, since he
is called " one of the chief princes," Dan. x., 13 ; and since divine
attributes are never ascribed tcvhim.
7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the number and
power of angels '?
1st. Concerning their number, revelation determines only that
it is very great. " Thousand thousands, and ten thousand times
ten thousand," Dan. vii., 10. "More than twelve legions of
angels," Matt, -xxvi., 53. " Multitude of the heavenly host,"
Luke ii., 13. "Myriads of angels," Heb. xii., 22.
2d. Concerning their power, the Scriptures teach that it is very
great when exercised both in the material and in the spiritual
worlds. They are called " mighty angels," and are said to " ex
cel in strength," 2 Thess. *i., 7 ; Ps. ciii., 20 ; 2 Kings xix., 35.
Their power, however, is not creative, but, like that of man, it
can be exercised only coordinately with the general laws of na
ture, in the absolute sense of that word.

SATAN. 199
8. What are their employments ? ,.
1st. They behold the face of God in heaven, adore the divine
perfections, study every revelation he makes of himself in provi
dence and redemption, and are perfectly blessed in his presence
and service. — Matt, xviii., 10 ; Rev. v., 11 ; 1 Pet. i., 12.
2d. God employs them as his instruments in administering
the affairs of his providence, Gen. xxviii., 12 ; Dan. x., 13. (1.)
The law " was ordained by angels," Gal. iii., 19 ; Acts vii., 53 ;
Heb. ii.; 2. (2.) They are instruments of good to God's people,
Heb. L, 14 ; Acts xii., 7 ; Ps. xci., 10-12. (3.) They execute
judgment upon God's enemies, Acts xii., 23 ; 2 Kings xix., 35 ;
1 Chron. xxi., 16. (4.) They will officiate in the final judgment,
in separating the good from the bad, in gathering the elect, and in
bearing them up to meet the Lord in the air, Matt, xiii., 30-39 ;
xxiv., 31 ; 1 Thess. iv., 17.
9. How are apparitions of angels to be accounted for ?
See Num. xxii., 31, etc. What was apparent to the senses
were doubtless miraculously constituted bodies assumed for the
occasion for the purpose of holding intercourse with man through '
his bodily senses, and then laid aside.
10. What are the names by which Satan is distinguished, and
what is their import ?
Satan, which signifies adversary, Luke x., 18. The Devil
(SidfioXog always occurs in the singular) signifying slanderer, Rev.
xx., 2 ; Apollyon, which means destroyer, and Abbadon, Rev. ,
ix., 11 ; Beelzebub, the prince of devils, from the god of the
Ekronites, chief among the heathen divinities, all of which the
Jews regarded as devils, 2 Kings, L, 2 ; Matt, xii., 24 ; Angel of
the Bottomless Pit, Rev., ix., 11 ; Prince of the World, John
xii., 31 ; Prince of Darkness, Eph. vi., 12 ; A Roaring Lion, 1
Pet. v., 8 ; a Sinner from the Beginning, 1 John iii., 8 ; Accuser,
Rev. xii., 10 ; Belial, 2 Cor., vi., 15 ; Deceiver, Rev. xx., 10 ;
Dragon, Rev. xii., 7 ; Liar and Murderer, John viii., 44 ; Levia
than, Is., xxvii., 1 ; Lucifer, Is. xiv., 12 ; Serpent, Is. xxvii., 1 ;
Tormentor, Matt, xviii., 34 ; God of this World, 2 Cor. iv., 4 ;
he that hath the Power of Death, Heb. ii., 14. — See Cruden'a
Concordance.

200 ANGELS.
11. How may it be proved that Satan is a personal being, and
not a mere personification of evil ?
Throughout all the various "books of Scripture Satan is always
consistently spoken of as a person, and personal attributes are
predicated of him. Such passages as Matt, iv., 1-11, and John
viii., 44, are decisive.
12. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the relation of
Satan to other evil spirits and to our world ?
Other evil spirits are called "his angels," Matt.- xxv., 41 ; and
he is called " Prince of Devils," Matt, ix., 34 ; and " Prince of the
powers of the Air," and " Prince of Darkness," Eph. vi., 12. This
indicates that he is the master spirit of evil.
His relation to this world is indicated by the history of the
Fall, 2 Cor. xi., 3 ; Rev. xii., 9, and by such expressions as "God
of this World," 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; and " Spirit that worketh in the
children of disobedience," Eph. ii., 2 ; wicked men are said to be
his children, 1 John iii., 10 ; he blinds the minds of those that
.believe not and leads them captive at his will, 2 Tim. ii.y 26 ; he
also pains, harasses and tempts God's true people as far as is per
mitted for their ultimate good, Luke xxii., 31 ; 2 Cor. xii., 7 ; 1
Thess. ii., 18.
13. What are the terms by which fallen spirits are desig
nated ?
The Greek word b SidQoXog, the devil, is in the original applied
only to Beelzebub. Other evil spirits are called daiixoveg, daemons,
Mark v., 12 (translated devils) ; unclean spirits, Mark v., 13 ;
angels of the devil, Matt, xxv., 41 ; principalities, powers, rulers
of the darkness of this world, Eph. vi., 12 ; angels that sinned, 2
Pet. ii., 4 ; angels that kept not their first estate, but left their
own habitation, Jude vi ; lying spirits, 2 Chron. xviii. 22.
14. What power or agency over the bodies and souls of men
is ascribed to them ?
Satan, like all other finite beings, can only be in one place at a
time ; yet all that is done by his agents being attributed to him,
he appears to be practically ubiquitous.

FALLEN ANGELS. 201
It is certain that at times at least they nave exercised an in
explicable influence over the bodies of men, yet that influence is
entirely subject to God's control, Job. ii., 7 ; Luke xiii., 16 ;
Acts x., 38. They have caused and aggravated diseases, and ex
cited' appetites and passions, 1 Cor. v., 5. Satan, in some sense,
has the power of death, Heb. ii., 14.
With respect to the souls of men, Satan and his angels are
utterly destitute of any power either to change the hea^t or to
coerce the will, their influence being simply moral, and exercised
in the way of deception, suggestion, and persuasion. The de
scriptive phrases applied by the Scriptures to their working are
such as — " the deceivableness of unrighteousness," " power, signs,
lying wonders," 2 Thess. ii., 9, 10 ; he " transforms himself into an
angel of light," 2 Cor. xi., 14. If he can deceive or persuade he
uses "wiles," Eph. vi., 11 ; "snares," 1 Tim. iii., 7 ; " depths,"
Rev. ii., 24 ; he "blinds the mind," 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; " leads captive
the will," 2 Tim. ii., 26 ; and so "deceives the whole world,"
Rev. xii., 9. If he can not persuade he uses " fiery darts," Eph.
vi., 16 ; and " bufferings," 2 Cor. xii., 7.
As examples of his influence in tempting men to sin the
Scriptures' cite the case of Adam, Gen. iii.; of David, 1 Chron.
xxi., 1 ; of Judas, Luke xxii., 3 ; Ananias and Saphira, Acts v.,
3 ; and the temptation of our blessed Lord, Matt. iv.
15. Where do they reside, and what is the true interpretation
of Eph. ii., 2, and vi., 12 ?
These passages simply declare that evil spirits belong to the
unseen spiritual world, and not to our mundane system. Nothing
is taught us in Scripture as to the place of their residence, further
than that they originally dwelt in and fell from heaven, that they
now have access to men on earth, and that they will be finally
sealed up in the lake of fire prepared for them, Rev. xx., 10 ;
Matt. xxv. 41.
16. By what terms were those possessed by evil spirits desig
nated ?
They are called " demoniacs," translated possessed with devils,
Matt, iv., 24 ; "having the spirit of an unclean devil," Matt, xv.,

202 ANGELS.
t
22; "oppressed of the devij," Acts x., 38; "lunatics," Matt.
xvii., 15. \
17. What arguments are urged by those who regard the de
moniacs mentioned in the New Testament as simply -diseased or
deranged ?
That we can not discriminate between the effects of de
moniacal possession and disease. That precisely the same
symptoms have, in other cases, been treated as disease and
cured. That, like witchcraft, the experience of such possessions has
been confined to the most ignorant ages of the world. <•
They argue further that this doctrine is inconsistent with
clearly revealed principles. 1st. That the souls of dead men go
immediately either to heaven or hell. 2d. That fallen angels are
already shut up in chains and darkness in expectation of the final
judgment, 2 Pet. ii., 4 ; Jude vi.
They attempt to explain away the language of Christ and
his apostles upon this subject by affirming, that as it was no part
of their design to instruct men in the true science of nature or
disease, they conformed their language on such subjects to the
prevalent opinions of the people they addressed, calling diseases
by the popular name, without intending thereby to countenance
the theory of the nature of the disease, out of which the name
originated. Just as we now call crazed people " lunatics," with
out believing in the influence of the moon upon them. — Kitto's
Bib. Ency.
18. How may it be proved that the demoniacs of the New
Testament were really possessed of evil spirits ?
The simple narratives of all the evangelists put it beyond per-
adventure that Christ and his apostles did believe, and wished
others to believe, that the demoniacs were really possessed with
devils. They distinguish between possession and disease, Mark i., 32;
Luke vi., 17, 18.
The " daemons," as distinct from the " possessed," spoke
(Mark v., 12), were addressed, commanded and rebuked by
Christ, Mark i., 25, 34; ix., 25; Matt, viii., 32; xvii., 18.

DEMONAICS. 203
Their desires, requests and passions are distinguished from
those of the possessed, Matt, viii., 31 ; Mark ix.,'26, etc. The
number of daemons in one person is mentioned, Mark xvi., 9.
They went out of the "possessed" into the swine, Luke viii.,
32. We never speak of the moon entering into, and sore
vexing a man, or being cast out of a lunatic, or of the moon
crying aloud, etc. The argument of those who would explain
away the force of Christ's language on this subject, therefore,
fails.

CHAPTER XIII.
PROVIDENCE.
1. Define the term providence.
See Confession of Faith, Chapter V., and L. Cat., question
18, and S. Cat., question 11. Providence, from pro and video,
literally signifies foresight. Turrettin defines this term as includ
ing, in its widest sense, 1st, foreknowledge ; 2d, foreordination ;
3d, the efficacious administration of the thing decreed. But in
its common and - technically proper sense, providence designates
simply God's temporal preservation and governing of all things
according to his eternal purpose. ¦e
2. What are the three principal theories respecting the rela
tion which God sustains to the universe ?
All the various views respecting God's relation to the uni
verse entertained among men may be classed under one or other
of the following heads, and in general terms stated as follows :
1st. The deistical, including those views which admitting
more or less fully that, when God created the universe, he com
municated their inherent properties to all material elements and
to spirits, and made them in their interaction subject to certain
general laws, so constituted, as to bring forth in the ceaseless
evolutions of events all his preordained ends, yet deny that God
continues in immediate contact with each individual creature, or
that he is now concerned in constant supervision and control of
their actions and their destinies. His relation to the N universe
thus is like that of the maker, not of the keeper of a watch. The
actions of men, therefore, must either be mechanically deter
mined like those of material bodies, or entirely fortuitous and be
yond the influence of God.
2d. The pantheistic, including all those various views which

DIFFERENT THEORIES. 205
regard God as the only being in the universe, and the creature as
in reality without separate existence, property, or agenoy, as only
phenomenally distinct, and essentially more or less transient
modes of the one universal divine being.---See above, Chapter I.,
question 35.
3d. The true doctrine, established by Scripture and sober
philosophical induction, occupies intermediate ground between
the above extremes. The Christian theory of providence agrees
with the deistical in maintaining that, at the creation, God en
dowed every element, material or spiritual, with inherent proper
ties after its kind, and made them all subject to general laws,
thus constituting them in a real sense efficient second causes. On
the other hand, it maintains, in opposition to the deistical theory,
that God continues to support and control second causes in their '
action, and so to adjust the general laws which prevail in the
several departments of nature as to direct all events, whether the
actions of free agents or of unconscious matter, to the accomplish
ment of his own will.
As God is infinite in his relation to time and to space, it is
evident that the difference between the Deistical and Christian
views of providence does not turn upon the question as to the
time when God makes provision for the determination of each in
dividual event, but upon the question as to the nature of his rela-
ion to the creation. We maintain that the creature "lives^moves,
and has its being in God," and that God, in the full exercise of
his infinite wisdom, goodness, righteousness, and power, so directs
and controls the actions of free agents freely, and of necessary
agents necessarily, as at once not to coerce the nature of the
agent, and yet infallibly to determine all things according to his
eternal purpose.
3. Wherein does preservation consist ?
Preservation is that continued exercise of the divine energy
whereby the Creator upholds all his creatures in being, and in the
possession of all their inherent properties and qualities with which
he has endowed them at their creation, or which they have sub
sequently acquired by habit or development.
4. On what ground is it assumed that the universe would not
continue to exist unless constantly upheld by God ?

206 PROVIDENCE. "
The old theologians held that, as the creature as such is not
self-existent, it could no more continue to be than it could com
mence tp be of itself, since the cause of its being is out of itself.
This rationalistic argument, although logically plausible, is not
certain. As by the. law of inertia a body once moved ab extra
will continue to move until stopped ab extra, so it might be that
a being once created might continue to exist until annihilated ab
extra. This doctrine, however, is eminently congruous to that sense
of dependence which is an essential element of our religious na
ture, and it is clearly affirmed by Scripture. — Heb. L, 3 ; Neh.
ix., 6 ; Job x., 12 ; Ps. civ., 27-30 ; Acts xvii., 28.
5. State the argument for God's providential government of
the world derived from his own perfections.
1st. The stupendous fact that. God is infinite in his being, in
his relation to time and space, and in his wisdom and power,
makes it evident that a universal providence is possible to him,
and that all the difficulties and apparent contradictions involved
therein to the eye of man are to be referred to our very limited
capacity of understanding.
2d. God's infinite wisdom makes it certain that he had a defi
nite object in view in the creation of the universe, and that he
will not fail in the use of the best means to secure that object in
all its parts.
3d. His infinite goodness makes it certain that he would not
leave his sensitive and intelligent creatures to the toils of a me
chanical, soulless fate ; nor his religious creatures to be divorced
from himself, in whose communion their highest life consists.
4th. His infinite righteousness makes it certain that he will
continue to govern and reward and punish those creatures which
he has made subject to moral obligations.
6. State the argument from conscience. -
Conscience essentially involves a sense of our direct moral
responsibility to God as a moral governor, and this, together with
a profound sense of dependence, constitutes that religious senti
ment which is common to all men. But if God be a moral gov-

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE EVINCED IN NATURE. 207
ernor, he can execute that function in relation to a being consti
tuted of body and soul, and conditioned as man is in this world,
in -no other conceivable way than through a comprehensive provi
dence, at once spiritual and physical, general and particular.
7. State the argument from the intelligence evinced in the
operations of nature.
The great inductive argument for the being of God is based
upon the evident traces of design in the universe. Now; just as
the traces of design in the constitution of nature proves the exist
ence' of a designing mind in the relation of creator, so the traces
of design in the operations of nature prove the existence of a de
signing mind in the relation of providential ruler.
The material elements, with their active properties, are all in
capable of design, yet we find all these elements so adjusted in all
their proportions and relations as to work harmoniously in the
order of certain general laws, and we find these general laws so
adjusted in all their intricate coincidences and interferences, as,
by movements simple and complex, fortuitous and regular, to
work out harmoniously everywhere the most wisely and benefi
cently contrived results. The mechanical and chemical properties
of material atoms ; the laws of vegetable and animal (life ; the
movements of sun, moon and stars in the heavens ; the luminous,
calorific, and chemical radiance of the sun ; and the instinctive
and voluntary movement of every living thing upon the face of
the, earth, are all mutually acting and reacting without concert
or possible design of their own ; yet everywhere bringing forth
the most wise and beneficent results. As the designing mind can
not be found in any of the elements, nor in the resultant of all com
bined, it must be found in the presiding control of the Creator.
8. How may this doctrine be established by the evidence af
forded by the general history of the world ?
If the constitution of human nature (soul and body), in its
elemental relations to human society, proves a designing mind in
the relation of creator, exactly so must the wisely contrived
results of human association, in general and in individual in
stances, prove the exercise of a designing mind in the relation of
providential ruler.

208 PROVIDENCE.
Individual men and communities, it is true, differ in their ac
tion, from the elements of the external world, inasmuch as they
act, 1st, freely, self-moved ; and, 2d, from design. Yet so nar
row is the sphere both of the foresight and the design of every
individual agent, so great is the multiplicity of agents, and the
complications of interacting influences upon each community
from within, from every other community, and from the powers
of external nature, that the designs of either individuals or com
munities are never carried beyond a short distance, when they are
lost in the general current, the result of which lies equally beyond
the foreknowledge and the control of all. But the student of his
tory, with the key of revelation, clearly discem's the traces of a
general design running through all the grand procedures of human
history, and at points even visibly linking itself with the actions
of individual agents. God's providence, as a whole, therefore,
comprehends and controls the little providences of men.
9. State the Scriptural argument from the prophecies, prom
ises, and threatenings of God.
In innumerable instances has God in the Scriptures prophesied
with great particularity the certain occurrence of an event abso
lutely, and he has promised or threatened the occurrence of other
events contingently upon certain conditions. This would be a
mockery, if God did not use the means to fulfill his word.
It is not reasonable to object that God simply foresaw the
event, and so prophesied, promised, or threatened it, because the
event is frequently promised or threatened contingently, upon a
condition which does not stand in the relation of a cause to that
event. God could not foresee one event as contingent upon an
other which sustains no causal relation to it. The truth of the
promise or threatening in such a case can not depend upon the
natural Connection between the two events, but upon God's de
termination to cause one to follow the other.
10. Prove from Scripture that the providence of God extends
over the natural world.
Ps. civ., 14 ; cxxxv., 5-7 ; cxlvii., 8-18 ; cxlviii., 7, 8 ; Job
ix., 5, 6 ; xxi., 9-11 ; xxxvii., 6-13 ; Acts xiv., 17.

PARTICULAR PROVIDENCE. 209
11. Prove from Scripture that it includes the brute creation.
¦ Ps. civ., 21-29 ; cxlvii., 9 ; Matt, vi., 26 ; x., 29.
12. Prove from Scripture that it extends to the general affairs
of men. 1 Chron. xvi., 31 ; Ps. xlvii, 7 ; lxvi., 7 ; Prov. xxi., 1 ; Job
tii., 23 ; Isa. x., 12-15 ; Dan. ii., 21; iv., 25.
13. Show from Scripture that the circumstances of indi
viduals are controlled by God.
1 Sam. ii., 6 ; Ps. xviii., 30 ; Prov. xvi., 9 ; Isa. xiv., 5; Luke
i., 53 ; James iv., 13-15.
14. Prove that events considered by us fortuitous are subject
to the control of God.
1st. A fortuitous event is one whose proximate causes, because
either of their complexity or their subtlety, escape our observa
tion. Every such event, however, as the falling of a leaf, is
finked with the genesal system of things, both by its antecedents
and its consequences.
2d. Scripture affirms the fact. — Ex. xxi., 13 ; Ps. lxxv., 6, 7 ;
Job v., 6 ; Prov. xvi., 33.
15. Prove that a general necessarily involves a particular
providence. Every department of existence in the universe is so intimately
related to all the rest, that every change taking" effect in one
necessarily affects the others. m All events, moreover, occur in
successions of causes and effects, each link in turn being the effect
of what preceeds and the cause of what follows. In the present
order of things it would be impossible to secure certain general
ends, without necessarily determining all those particular events
upon which those general ends depend ; and thus, as no event is
isolated, since even the least event springs from and contributes to
the general system, every event must' be presided over to that end.
The notion of a general providence, a particular one excluded,
is as absurd as that of a chain without links.
16. Prove that the providential government of God extends to
the free acts of men. U

210 PROVIDENCE.
1st. The free actions of men are potent causes influencing the
general system of things precisely as all other classes of causes in
the world, and consequently, on the principle indicated in the
answer to the preceding question, they also must be subject to
God, or every form of providence whatever would be impossible
for him.2d. It is affirmed in Scripture.— Ex. xii., 36 ; 1 Sam. xxiv.,
9-15; Ps. xxxiii., 14, 15 ; Prov. xvi., 1; xix., 21; xx., 24; xxi.,
1 ; Jer. x., 23 ; Phil, ii., 13.
17. Show from Scripture that God's providence is exercised
over the sinful acts of men.
2 Sam. xvi., 10 ; xxiv. 1 ; Ps. lxxvi., 10 ; Rom. xi., 32; Acts
iv., 27, 28.
18. What general principles, as to the nature of God's provi
dential government, is it important to bear in mind ?
1st. The fact that God does control all the actions, internal
and external, necessary and free, good and bad, of all his creatures.
2d. That whatever may be the mode in which God exercises
this providential control, or the nature of the influence he exerts
upon any of his creatures, it can not be inconsistent either (1.)
with his own infinite perfections, or (2.) with that constitution
and those attributes with which he has himself endowed the crea
ture upon whom he acts. His influence, therefore, must always
be worthy of .himself, and in each case congruous to the nature
of the creature.
3d. It follows from the ascertained limits of human thought
that we can never clearly understand the mode in which, in the
"ultimate act, the infinite spirit of God acts upon the finite spirit
of man. The interaction of God's agency in providence and
grace with man's dependent agency constitutes that limit of
thought which is emerging at every step, which we may define,
but neither avoid nor transcend.
19. Wliat is the nature of God's agency in the material
world ?
All that we know upon this subject may be defined as follows :
1st. The properties of material elements are inherent in

DEFINITIONS. 211
iheir subjects, and consequently they act efficiently as second
causes. 2d. God has so adjusted these elements in their proportions
and relations that they act and interact according to certain gen
eral laws, which he has established as an order of nature.
3d. In his ordinary providence God does not change or coerce,
but rather preserves these properties in their integrity, and this
order of nature.
4th. God, however, both in the original constitution of the ma
terial elements, in the adjustment of them in their mutual rela
tions, and in his concurrent providential control of them in action,
certainly determines all results, individual and general, regular
and exceptional.
20. What is meant by a " material cause," and what by a
" law of nature" ?
The material world consists simply of a greater or less number
of elements, each endowed with its own specific property or capacity
of acting, and of being acted upon by all other elements respectively
in a certain way. One of these bodies alone produces no effect, and
therefore is no cause ; but two or more of them brought together
act upon each other mutually, according to their properties and
to their relative circumstances. A material cause, therefore, is
to be found in the relative properties of two or more bodies, so
adjusted as to act upon each other, and the effect is the mutual
change in each which results from this interaction, e. g., we have
for cause the mutual chemical attraction of the oxygen of the air,
and the hydrogen and carbon of the wood at a high temperature,
and for effect we have the smoke and the ashes, or the elements
of air and wood in new combinations after combustion.
But in order that such causes should act uniformly, these ma
terial elements must be adjusted uniformly in their mutual rela
tions. This God has done with infinite wisdom with respect to
the relation of these elements, "1st, as to their properties ; 2d,
as to their quantity ; 3d, as to space ; 4th, as to time."
A " law of nature" is nothing more than a general or uniform
fact • it is only a general expression for the way in which ma
terial elements act in their mutual relations as providentially ad
justed. Instead of producing the harmonious results in nature,

212 PROVIDENCE:
which are often superficially attributed to them, " they are them
selves the result of nicely balanced and skilfull adjustments." —
M'Oosh, Divine Gov., Book IL, chap. i.
21. What do the Scriptures teach as to God's providential
agency in the good acts of men ? y
The Scriptures attribute all that is good in man to the free
grace of God, operating both providentially and spiritually, and
influencing alike the body and the soul, and the outward relations
of the individual.— Phil, ii., 13 ; iv., 13 ; 2 Cor. xii., 9, 10; Eph.
ii., 10 ; Gal. v., 22-25.
It is to be remembered, however, that while a material cause
may be analysed into the mutual interaction of two or more
bodies, a human soul acts spontaneously, i. e., originates action.
The soul also, in all its voluntary acts, is determined by its own
prevailing dispositions and desires.
When all the good actions of men, therefore, are attributed
to God, it is not meant, 1st, that he causes them, or, 2d, that he
determines man to cause them, irrespectively of man's free will ;
but it is meant that God so acts upon man from within spiritr
ually, and from without by moral influences, as to induce the free
disposition. He works in us first to will, and then to do his good
pleasure. 22. What is taught in the Scriptures concerning his agency ,
with respect to the sins of men ?
There is involved in this question the insoluble mystery, 1st,
of God's permission of moral evil, and, 2d, of the nature of God's
action upon the dependent spirits of men.
Turrettin sets forth the testimony of Scripture upon this sub
ject thus : —
1st. As to the beginning of the sin, (1.) God freely permits it.
But this permission is neither moral, i. e., while permitting it
physically, he never approves it ; nor merely negative, i. e., he
does not simply concur in the result, but he positively determines
that bad men shall be permitted for wise and holy ends to act
according to their bad natures. — Acts xiv., 16 ; Ps. Ixxxi., 12.
(2.) He deserts those who sin, either by withdrawing grace abused,
or by withholding additional grace. This desertion may be either

DOCTRINE OF CONCURSUS. 213
a partial, to prove man's heart (2 Chron. xxxii., 31), or b for cor
rection, or c penal (Jer. vii., 29 ; Rom. i., 24-26). (3.) God so
orders providential circumstances that the inherent wickedness of
men takes the particular course of action he has determined to
permit (Acts ii., 23 ; iii., 18). (4.) God delivers men to Satan,
a as a tempter (2 Thess. ii., 9-11), b as a torturer (1 Cor. v., 5).
2d. As to the progress of the sin, God restrains it as to its
intensity and its duration, and as to its influence upon others.
This he effects both by internal influences upon the heart, and by
the control of external circumstances. — Ps. lxxvi., 10.
3d. As to the end or result of the sin, God uniformly over
rules it and directs it for good. — Gen. L, 20 ; Job i., 12 ; iii,
6-10 ; Acts iii., 13 ; iv., 27, 28.
23. What is the old doctrine of concursus, and the distinction
between "previous" and " simultaneous" concursus ?
This was an attempt to construct a philosophical explanation
of the truth upon this subject taught in Scripture, rather than a
simple statement of that truth, or a legitimate deduction from it.
It was a product of the schoolmen, held by the disciples of
Thomas Aquinas, and the orthodox party among the Romanists
generally, and by almost all the early Protestant divines.
Previous concursus is that act of God wherein, by flowing
into causes and their principles, he excites his creatures, to act,
and determines them to perform one action rather than another.
Simultaneous concursus is the influence of God upon the
creature, continued and considered as carried ovei into their act.
As he determined them to perform the act, so he concurs with
them in the production of the act.
These theologians distinguished between the action viewed
physically as an entity, and its moral quality. The action was
from God ; the moral quality, if evil, was from man. As when
a man strikes an untuned harp, the sound is from him, the dis
cord is from the disorder of the instrument. Concerning this
theory we have to say, that while we fully believe that man lives
and moves and has his being in God, and that God works in man
to will and to do of his good pleasure ; that he has eternally fore
ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and now providentially con-

214 PROVIDENCE.
trols all the actions- of all his creatures so that his eternal pur
poses are fulfilled ; — yet this theory of concursus, 1st, in the first
place attempts to explicate the nature of this divine influence,
which is not .supernaturally revealed, and which transcends our
natural faculties. 2d. In vindicating the dependence of the crea
ture, it denies the efficiency of second causes, makes God the only
real agent in the universe, and logically leads to Pantheism. 3d.
It fails to make the distinction which the Scriptures do between
the relation which God sustains to the good actions of men, and
that which he sustains to their evil actions.
It is enough for us to know that there is a constant, most
holy, wise, and powerful influence exerted by the infinite spirit of
God upon the dependent souls of men; we can never logically
analyze it.
24. How far do the Scriptures teach anything as to the na
ture of God's providential government ?
The mode in which the divine agency is exerted is left entirely
unexplained, but the fact that God does govern all his creatures
and all their actions is expressly stated and everywhere assumed,
and many of the characteristics of that government are set forth.
It is declared—
1st. To be universal. — Ps. ciii., 17-19 ; Dan. iv., 34, 35 ; Ps.
xxii., 28-29.-
2d. Particular.— Matt, x., 29-31.
3d. It embraces the thoughts and volitions of men and events
apparently contingent.— Prov. xxi., 1 ; xvi., 9, 33 ; xix., 21 ; 2
Chron. xvi., 9.
4th. It is efficacious.— Lam. ii., 17 ; Ps. xxxiii., 11 ; Job
xxiii., 13. /
5th. It is the execution of his eternal purpose, embracing all
his works from the beginning in one entire system.— Acts xv., 18;
Eph. L, 11 ; Ps. civ., 24 ; Isa. xxviii., 29.
6th. Its chief end is his own glory, and subordinately thereto,
the highest good of his redeemed church. — Rom. ix., 17 ; xi., 36;
viii., 28.
25. How can the existence of moral and physical evil be re
conciled with the doctrine of God's providential government ?

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 215
The mystery of the origin and permission of moral evil we
can not solve.
As to physical evil we answer —
1st. That it is never provided for as an end in itself, but al
ways a means to an overbalancing good.
2d. That in its existing relations to moral evil as corrective
and punitive, it is justified alike by reason and conscience as per
fectly worthy of a wise, righteous, and merciful God.
26. Show that the apparently anomalous distribution of hap
piness and misery in this world is not inconsistent with the doc
trine of providence.
1st. Every moral agent in this world has more of good and
less of evil than he deserves.
2d. Happiness and misery are much more equally distributed
in this world than appears upon the surface.
3d, As a general rule, virtue is rewarded and vice punished
even here.
4th. The present dispensation is a season .of education, pre
paration, and trial, and not one of rewaids and punishments.-—
See Ps. lxxiii.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN.
We must preface this inquiry with an attempt to answer cer
tain psycological questions concerning the constitution of human
nature, ^hich are necessary to prepare the way for the clear un
derstanding of the Scriptural doctrines as to the relation of man
to God's moral government, his fall, his estate in sin, and his re
generation and sanctification by the Holy Spirit.
1. What is the general principle which it is always necessary
to bear in mind while treating of the various faculties of the
human soul ?
The soul of man is one single indivisible agent, not an organ
ized whole consisting of several parts ; and, therefore, what' we
call its several faculties are rather the capacity of the one agent,
for discharging successively or concurrently the several functions
involved, and are never to be conceived of as separately existing
parts or organs. These several functions exercised by the one
soul are so various and complex, that a minute analysis is abso
lutely necessary, in order to lay open to us a definite view of their
nature. Yet we must carefully remember that a large part of
the errors into which philosophers have fallen in their interpreta
tion of man's moral constitution, has resulted from the abuse of
this very process of analysis. This is especially true with respect
to the interpretation of the voluntary acts of the human soul.
In prosecution of his analysis the philosopher comes to recognize
separately the differences and the likenesses of these various func
tions of the soul, and too frequently forgets that these functions
themselves are, in fact, never exercised in that isolated manner, but
concurrently by the one soul, as an indivisible agent, and that thus
they always qualify one another. Thus, it is not true, in fact,

FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. 217
that the understanding reasons, and the heart feels, and the con
science approves or condemns, and the will decides, as different
members of the body work together, or as the different persons
constituting a council deliberate and decide in mutual parts ; but
it is true that the one indivisible, rational, feeling, moral, self-
determining soul reasons, feels, approves, Pr condemns and decides.
The self-determining power of the will as an abstract faculty
is absurd as a doctrine, and would be disastrous as an experience,
but the self-determining power of the human soul as a concrete, .
rational, feeling agent, is a fact of universal consciousness, and
a fundamental doctrine of moral philosophy and of Christian
theology. i
2. How may the leading faculties of the human soul be clas
sified ?
1st. The intellectual. This class includes all those faculties
in different ways concerned in the general,function of knowing ;
as the reason, the imagination, the bodily senses, and the moral
sense (when considered as a mere source of knowledge to the un
derstanding.) 2d. The emotional. This class includes all those feelings
which attend, in any manner, the exercise of the other faculties.
3d. The will.
It will be observed that the functions of the conscience in
volve faculties belonging to both the first aQd second classes, (see
below, question 5.)
It is often asked which of our faculties is the . seat of our
moral nature ? Now while there is a sense in which all moral
' questions concern the relation of the states or acts of the will to
the law of God revealed in the conscience, and therefore in which
the will and the conscience are preeminently the foundation of
man's moral nature, it is true, nevertheless, that every one of
the faculties of the human soul, as. above classified, is exer
cised in relation to all moral distinctions, e. g., the intellec
tual in the perception and judgment ; the emotional in pleas
ant feeling or the reverse ; the will, in choosing or refusing,
and in acting. Every state or act of any one of the facul
ties of the human soul, therefore, which inyolves the judging,
choosing, refusing, desiring, upon a purely moral question, or the

218 .THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN. '
feeling corresponding thereto, is a moral state or act, and all the
faculties", viewed in their relations to the distinction between good
and evil, are moral faculties.
' 3. What is the Will ?
The term will is often used to express the mere faculty of
volition, whereby the soul chooses, or refuses, or determines to
act, and the exercise of that faculty. It is also used in a wider
sense, and in this sense I use it here, to include the faculty of vo
lition, together with all of the spontaneous states of the soul
(designated by Sir William Hamilton, " Lectures on Meta
physics," Lect. XL, the faculties of conation, the excitive, striv
ing faculties, possessing* as thsir common characteristic, " a ten
dency toward the realization of their end") the dispositions, affec
tions, desires, which determine a man in the exercise of his free
power of volition. " It must be remembered, however, that these-
two senses of the word will are essentially distinct. The will, as
including all the faculties of conation (the dispositions and desires),
is to be essentially distinguished from the single faculty of soul
exercised in the resulting volition, i: e.,, the choosing or the acting ¦
according to its prevailing desire.
There is includedrin the doctrine of the will, 1st, that in the
exercise of the faculty of volition, or self-decision, the soul truly
originates action, i. e., acts as an original cause of its own acts,
therein differing, totally from all material causes, which act only
as they are acted upon. This is the transcendental element of
the human will, generally marked by the term spontaneity, which
has rendered the whole subject so obscure. The truth must be
recognized that we have here reached one of the impassable limits
of human thought. Our minds are so constituted, that we can
understand only a chain of operations, each link of which is al
ternately effect and cause. The action of an absolute cause, that
is, of one really originating action, is a mystery to our understand
ings, though it be daily part of our personal experience. Any
attempt to analyse this ultimate fact only destroys it, and con
fuses the testimony of consciousness. This conclusion, stated in
different language, is arrived at by different paths by Sir William
Hamilton. — See Discussions, pp. 575-590 ; M'Cosh, see "Divine

THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. 219
Government," pp. 273-294 ; and Isaac Taylor, see " World of
Mind," pp. 83-93, and others.
2d. That this executive act of volition is always according to
the present prevailing desires or affections of the soul, in respect
to the object of action, in the view which the understanding takes
of the whole case, at the time. A man always chooses as, upon
the whole, he desires to choose. The soul often decides in oppo
sition to many of its most intense desires. ( Yet it always decides
in conformity with that desire which is, upon the whole, the
strongest. If the question be — Whence orginates the soul's ac
tion ? the answer must refer to the soul's inherent power of act
ing as an original cause. If the question be — Why does the soul
act thus rather than otherwise ? the answer must refer to the in
herent state of the soul itself in relation to the object of choice.
3d. That these prevalent dispositions and desires, although
they are temporarily excited to action by the view which the
understanding transmits of external objects, nevertheless have
their only efficient cause and reason in tne principles, or perma
nent nature of the will itself. These affections and desires are
spontaneous, and are determined in their character by the will
which exercises them. The understanding can give no further
account of them. .
4; What is' the distinction between a temporarily preva
lent affection or desiee, and a permanent principle of the
Will? The " affection" or " desire" is a temporary spontaneous state
of the will With respect to a certain choice or volition, for the
time being, and in the view which the mind takes of all the cir
cumstances and reasons of the case. The "principle" or the
" disposition," on the other hand, is' a permanent habit, inherent
in the will, of exercising " affections" or " desires" of some par
ticular kind.
A man chooses or refuses in every particular case, according to
his prevalent desire in that- case. But a man prevailingly desires,
and so chooses and refuses - in all similar cases, according to his
permanent habitual principles and disposition. These permanent
habitual principles or dispositions constitute the man's permanent
character -; as a moral agent, he is always as they are : by know-

220 THE original state of man.
ing them we know him, and can to a good degree predict his free
action under given circumstances. These permanent principles
are of two classes with respect .to origin: 1st, innate;; 2d, ac
quired by repeated actions of the same kind. This distinction,
however, makes no difference with respect to character or moral
responsibility. A man whose spontaneous dispositions are malig
nant, is a bad man, whether those dispositions be innate or ac
quired, and in either case he is equally responsible.
5. What is the conscience ?
Conscience, as a faculty, includes a moral sense, or the power
of discerning the distinction between right and wrong, which;
combining with the understanding, or faculty of comparing and
judging, judges of the right or wrong of our own moral disposi
tions and voluntary actions, and of the dispositions and volun
tary actions of other free agents. This faculty judges according
to a divine law of right and wrong, included within itself (it is a
law to itself, the original law written upon the heart, Rom. ii.,
14), and it is accompanied with vivid emotions, pleasurable in
view of that which is right, and painful in view of that which is
wrong, especially when our conscience is engaged in reviewing the
states, or the actions of our own wills. This faculty in its own
province is sovereign, and can have no other superior than the
revealed word of God. — See M'Cosh, "Divine Government," Book
III., chap. L, sec. 4.
6. What do we mean when we say that man is a free agent ?
1st. That, being a spirit, he originates action. Matter acts
only as it is acted upon. A man acts from the spring of his own
active power.
2d. That, although a yman may be forced by fear to will and
to do many things which he would neither will nor do if it were
not for the fear, yet he never can be made to will what he does
not himself desire to will, in full view of all the circumstances of
the case.
3d. That he is furnished with a reason to distinguish between
the true and the false, and with a conscience, the organ of an
innate moral law, to distinguish between right and wrong, in order

FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. 221
that his desires may be both rational and righteous. And yet his
desires are not necessarily either rational or righteous, but are
formed under the light of reason and conscience, either conform
able or contrary to them, according to the permanent habitual
dispositions ®f the man, i. e., according to his own character.
7. What are the essential conditions of moral responsibility ?
To be morally responsible a man must be a free, rational,
moral agent, (see answer to preceding question.) 1st. He must
' be in present possession of his reason to distinguish truth from
falsehood. 2d. He must also have in exercise a moral sense to
distinguish right from wrong. 3d. His will, in its volitions or
executive acts, must be self-decided, i. e., determined by its own
spontaneous affections and desires. If any of these are wanting,
the man is insane, and neither free nor responsible.
8. Is the conscience indestructible and infallible ?
The conscience, the organ of God's law in the soul, may vir
tually, i. e., as to its effects and phenomena, be both rendered
latent and perverted for a time, and in this phenomenal sense,
therefore, it is neither indestructible nor infallible. But if the
moral sense be regarded simply in itself it is infallible, and if the
total history of even the worst man is taken into the account,
conscience is truly indestructible.
1st. As to its indestructibility. Conscience, like every other
faculty of the soul, is undeveloped in the infant, and very imper
fectly developed in the savage ; and, moreover, after a long habit
of inattention to its voice and violation of its law, the individual
sinner is often judicially given up to carnal indifference; his con
science for a time lying latent. Yet it is certain that it is never
destroyed. (1.) From the fact that it is often aroused to the most
fearful energy in the hearts of long-hardened reprobates in the
agonies of remorse. (2.) From the fact that this remorse or ac
cusing conscience constitutes the essential torment of lost souls
and devils. This is the worm that never dieth. Otherwise their
punishment would lose its moral character.
2d. As to its infallibility. Conscience, in the act of judging
of moral states or actions, involves the concurrent action of the
understanding and the moral sense. This understanding is al-

222 THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN.
ways fallible, especially when it is prejudiced in its action by de
praved affections and desires. Thus, in fact, conscience constantly
delivers false decisions from a misjudgement of the facts and rela
tions of the case ; it may be through a selfish, or sensual, or a
malignant bias. Hence we have virtually a deceiving as well as
a latent conscience. Notwithstanding this, however, the normal
sense of the distinction between right and wrong, as an- eternal
law to itself,, lies indestructible even in the most depraved breasts,
as it can not be destroyed, so it can not be changed; when aroused
to action, and when not deceived as to the true state of the case,
its language is eternally the same. — See McCosh, " Divine Gov
ernment," Book III., Chapter IL, Section 6, and Dr. A. Alex
ander, " Moral Science," Chapters IV. and V.
9. What is the essential nature of virtue ?
" Virtue is a peculiar quality of" certain states of the will, i. e.,
either permanent dispositions or temporary affections of the will,
and "of certain voluntary actions of a moral agent, which quality
is perceived by the moral faculty with which every, man is endowed,
and the perception of which is accompanied by an emotion which
is distinct from all other emotions, and is called moral." — Dr.
Alexander, Moral Science., Chap. XXVI.
, The essence of virtue is, that it obliges the will. If a thing
is morally right it ought to be done. The essence of moral evil
is, that it intrinsically deserves disapprobation, and the agent
punishment. This point is of great importance, because the truth here is
often perverted by a false philosophy, and because this view of
moral good is the only one consistent with the Scriptural doc
trine of sins, rewards and punishments, and, above all, of Christ's
atonement. The idea of virtue is a simple and ultimate intuition ; at
tempted analysis destroys it. Right is right because.it is. It is
its own highest reason. It has its norm in the immutable nature
of God. 10. What constitutes a virtuous and what a vicious char
acter ?
Virtue, as definad in the answer to the last question, attaches

FACULTIES OF THE SOUL. 223
only to the will of man (including all the conative faculties), 1st, to
its permanent disposition; 2d, to its temporary affections; and, 3d,
to its volitions. Some of these states and actions of the will are
not moral, i. e., they are neither approved nor condemned by the
conscience as virtuous or vicious. But virtue or vice belong only
to states of the will, and to voluntary acts. A virtuous char
acter, therefore, is one in which the permanent dispositions, the
temporary affections and desires, and the volitions of the will, are
conformable to the divine law.
A vicious character, on the other hand, is one in which these
states and acts of the will are not conformable to the divine law.
The acts of volition are virtuous or vicious as the affections or
desires by which they are determined are the one or the other.
The affections and desires are as the permanent dispositions or
the character. This last is the nature of the will itself, and its
character is an ultimate unresolvable fact. Whether that cha
racter be innate, or acquired by habit, the fact of its moral
quality as virtuous or vicious remains the* same, and the consequent
moral accountability of the agent for his character is unchanged.
It must be remembered that the mere possession of a con
science which approves the right and condemns the wrong, and
which is accompanied with more or less lively emotion, painful
or pleasureable as it condemns or approves, does not make a
character virtuous, or else the devils and lost souls would be emi
nently virtuous. But the virtuous man is he whose heart and
actions, in biblical language^ or whose dispositions, affections,
and volitions, in philosophical language, are conformed to' the
law of God. "
With this preface we come now to consider directly the
ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN.
11. How do our standards answer the question, How did
God create man ?
Con. Faith, Chap. IV., sec. 2. Larger Cat., Q. 17. Shorter
Cat., Q. 10.
12. Do the Scriptures certainly sanction the distinction we
make between the material and spiritual elements of man's
nature ?

224 THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN.
Certainly. 1st. In their account of man's creation. God
formed man out of the dust of the ground, and then breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and thus he became' a living
soul, Gen. ii., 7. This indicated his special relation to our souls
as the Father of our spirits, Heb., xii., 9. 2d. In their account
of the immediate result of the dissolution of the personal union
of body and soul in death, Eccle. xii., 7. 3d. Both the words
¦nvevfia and i>v%r\, spirit and soul, are constantly used in the New
Testament to signify the rational and immortal part of man,
Luke L, 47, and viii., 55 ; Matt, x., 28 ; Heb. vi., 19. In two
passages, they are used together by Paul to embrace exhaustively,
in the popular philosophical language of the day, the whole man.
" Ypur whole body, soul and spirit," 1 Thess. v., 23 ; Heb. iv.,
12. 4th. In their assertion that while the body waits in the
grave, the spirit, at death, goes immediately to God, 2 Cor. v.,
1-8, and Phil, i., 23, 24.
13. In what sense was man created in the image of God ?
1st. In respect to the spirituality of his nature, man, like
God, is a rational, moral and free agent.
2d. In respect to the moral integrity and holiness of his nature,
Eph. iv., 24 ; Col. iii., 10.
3d. In respect to the dignity and authority delegated to his
person, as the head of this department of creation, Gen. i., 28,
and ii., 19, 20, and the 8th Ps.
14. Wherein did man's original righteousness consist ?
In the perfect conformity of all the moral dispositions and
affections of man's will to the law of God, of which law his con
science was the organ.
As a consequence of this there was no schism in man's nature.
The will, moving freely in conformity to the lights of reason and
conscience, held in harmonious subjection all the lower principles
both of body and soul. In perfect equilibrium a perfect soul
dwelt in a perfect body.
15. In what sense is original righteousness said to be natural 1
It was. the moral perfection of man's nature as it came origi
nally from the hands of the Creator. It is natural in the sense
that it belonged to man's nature at the first, and that it is essen-

CREATED HOLY. 225
tial to his nature to render it perfect as to quality, h^xt it is not
natural in the sense of being necessary to constitute him a real
man, or responsible as a moral agent. Man is as much responsible
since his fall as ever before.
16. Prove that man was created holy.
It belongs to the essence of man's nature that he is a moral
responsible agent.
But, 1st. As, a moral creature man was created in the image
of God, Gen. L, 27.
2d. God pronounced all his works, man included, to be " very
good," Gen. L, 31. The goodness of a mechanical provision is
essentially its fitness to attain its end. The " goodness" of a
moral agent can be nothing other than his conformity of will to
the moral law. Moral indifferency in a moral agent is itself of
the nature of sin.
3d. "This truth is asserted, Ec61e. vii., 29.
4th. In regeneration, man is renewed in the image of God ;
in creation, man was made in the image of God ; the image, in
both cases, must be the same, and includes holiness. — Eph, iv, 24.
17. What is the Pelagian doctrine with regard to the original
state of man ?
The Pelagians hold, 1st, that a man can rightly be held re
sponsible only for his unbiassed, volitions ; and, 2d, consequently
moral character as antecedent to moral action is an absurdity,
since only that disposition is moral which has been formed as a habit
by means of preceding unbiassed action of the free will, i. e., man
must choose his own character, or he can not be responsible for it.
They hold, therefore, that man's will at his creation was not
only free, but, moreover, in a state of moral equilibrium, equally
disposed to virtue or vice.
18. What is the Romish doctrine as to the original state of man ?
They agree that man was created holy ; yet maintain that
original righteousnesss did not pertain to man's nature as such,
but was a supernatural grace added to it. They hold that the
various wayward affections and desires which war against the law
of conscience are natural to man, and in themselves not of the
nature of sin, but tending necessarily to becoming inordinate, and
15

226 THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN.
therefore sinful, whenever the supernatural endowment of original
righteousness is withdrawn, for it is the office of that righteous
ness to preside over and hold them in order.— -See Catechismus
Romanus, Part I., Chap. IL, question 18, and Part IL, Chap.
IL, question 32, and Part IV., Chap. XII., question 3.
19. How may ii be shown that a, holy character may be
formed in a creature at his creation, before he can have per
formed any holy action ?
Pelagians hold, 1st. That it is an essential condition of moral
responsibility, that the will must be left to act unbiassed by
any preceding dispositions and desires. 2d. That the only dis
positions or character which are consistent with free agency are
those gradually formed as habits in consequence of repeated
moral action. Therefore, a created moral character, holy or sin
ful, they hold to be an absurdity, for if it be created or innate it
can not be moral.
To this we answer- — • v
1st. It is contradicted by what the Scriptures plainly teach
us concerning Adam as created, (see question 16), concerning in
fants as born children of wrath, etc., (see chapter on Original Sin),
and concerning regeneration by the Holy Ghost, (see chapter on
Regeneration.) 2d. It is absurd, because the very essence of virtue is, that it
obliges the will. Moral indifferency of disposition in presence
of any moral obligation is an impossibility, because it is itself sin.
3d. It is true that all character, in order to be moral, must be
voluntary, i. e., it must be the character of the will itself, as a
good or a bad will, (or, in Scripture language, a good or a bad
heart,) and therefore it is free and spontaneous ; but it is not true
that such a character must be formed by a previous unbiassed
choice of the will itself. Every man feels that he is morally re
sponsible for the moral state of his own heart, no matter how
that state originated, simply because it is the state of his own
heart If a man hates virtue and loves vice he is a bad man, no
matter how he came to possess such affections. " The essence of
the virtue and vice of dispositions.of the heart and acts of the
will lies not in their cause, but their nature." — Pres. Edwards on
Will, Part IV., Section 1. ,

CREATED HOLY. 227
4th It is also set forth by the same great writer as the uni
versal judgment of men, that the goodness or badness of an act
depends upon the goodness or badness of the disposition or affec
tion which prompted it. It is the moral state of the will (or heart,
see Matt, vii., 17-20 and xii., 33,) which makes the act of the
will right or wrong, and not the act which makes the state wrong.
A man's motives may be right, and yet his choice may be wrong
through his mistake of its nature, because of ignorance or in
sanity ; yet if all the prevalent dispositions and desires of the
heart in any given case be right, the volition must be morally
right, if wrong, the volition must be morally wrong ; if indiffer
ent, or neither right or wrong, the volition must be morally in
different also. Hence appears the absurdity of their position.
If Adam had been created, as they feign, with a will equally dis
posed either to good or evil, his first act could have had no moral
character whatever. And yet Pelagians assume that Adam's
first act, which had no moral character itself, determined the
moral character of the man himself, and of all his acts and des
tinies for all future time. This, if true, would have been unjust
on God's part, since it involves the infliction of the most awful
punishment upon an (act in itself neither good nor bad. As a
theory it is absurd, since it evolves all morality out of that which
is morally indifferent.
5th. This whole theory is built upon certain d priori notions,
and is contrary to universal experience. If Adam was created with
out positive moral character, and if infants are so born, then the
conditions of free agency in these supposed cases must be different
from the conditions of free agency in the case of every adult man or
woman, from whose consciousness alone we can, gather the facts
from which to deduce any certain knowledge on the subject. Every
man who ever thought or wrote upon this subject, was conscious
of freedom only under the conditions of an already formed moral
character. Even if the Pelagian view were true, we never could
be assured of it, since we never have consciously experienced such
a condition of indifferency. It is nothing more than an hypothe
sis, contrived to solve a difficulty ; a difficulty resulting from the
limits of our finite powers of thought. — See Sir William Hamil
ton's " Discussions," p. 587, etc.

CHAPTER XV.
COVENANT OF WORKS
1. In what different senses is the term covenant used in
Scripture ?
1st. For a natural ordinance, Jer. xxxiii., 20.
2d. For an unconditional promise, Gen. ix., 11, 12.
3d. For a conditional promise, Is. i., 19, 20.
4th. A dispensation or mode of administration, Heb. viii., 6-9,
For the usage with respect to the Greek term SiaOrjKT], usually
translated in our version testament and covenant. — See Chapter
XIX., on " Covenant of Grace," question 1.
In the theological phrases " covenant of works," and " cove
nant of grace," this term is used in the third sense of a promise
suspended on conditions..
2, What are the several elements essential to a covenant ?
1st. Contracting parties. 2d. Conditions. These conditions
in a covenant between equals are mutually imposed and mutu
ally binding, but in a sovereign constitution, imposed by the
Creator upon the creature, these " conditions" are better expressed
as (1.) promises on the part of the Creator suspended upon (2.)
conditions to be fulfilled by the creature. And (3.) an alterna
tive penalty to be inflicted in case the condition fails.
3. Show that the constitution under which Adam was placed
by God at his creation may be rightly called a covenant.
The inspired record of God's transactions with Adam presents
definitely all the essential elements of a covenant as coexisting in
that constitution.
1st. The " contracting parties," (1.) God, the moral Governor,

ITS PARTIES. 229
by necessity of nature and relation demanding perfect conformity
to moral law. (2.) Adam, the free moral agent, by necessity of
nature and relation under the inalienable obligation of moral law.
2d. The " promises," life and favor, Matt, xix., 16, 17 ; Gal.
iii., 12.
3d. The "conditions" upon which the promises were sus
pended,, perfect obedience, in this instance subjected to a special
test, that of abstaining from the fruit of the " tree of knowledge."
4th. The cc alternative penalty." " In the day thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die," Gen. ii., 16, 17.
This constitution is called a covenant, Hosea, vi., 7.
4. How is it defined in our standards ?
Con. Faith, Chap. IV., Sec. 2 ; Chap. VII., Sec. 1 and 2 ;
Chap. XIX, Sec. 1 ; L. Cat, Q. 20 ; S. Cat., Q. 12.
5. Why is it called the Covenant of Works ?
From the nature of its " condition," perfect obedience, and to
distinguish it from the covenant of grace, which secures the sal
vation of God's people independently of their works. It is also,
though less frequently, called the covenant of life, because of its
design, and of the promise which was attached to it.
6. Who were the parties to this covenant, and how may it
be proved that Adam therein represented all his natural de
scendants ?
The " parties" were God and Adam, and in him represen-
tively all his natural posterity. That he did thus represent his
descendants is evident. 1st. From the parallel which is drawn in
Scripture between. Adam in his relation to his descendants, and
Christ in his relation to his elect, Rom. v., 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv.,
22, 47.
2d. From the matter of fact that the very penalty denounced
upon Adam, in case of his disobedience, has taken effect in each
individual descendant. — Gen. ii., 17 ; iii., 17, 18.
3d. From the biblical declaration that sin, death, and all
penal evil came into the world through Adam.— Rom. v., 12 ; 1
Cor. xv., 22. See below, Chapter XVI., questions 14-23, on Im
putation of Adam's Sin. \

230 COVENANT OF WORKS.
7. What is the meaning of the term probation ?
A probation is a trial. The word is sometimes used to
express the time, and sometimes the state, and at others the
act of trial. The probation of the human race took place once
for all in the trial of Adam in the garden of Eden. That trial
resulted in loss, and since then the conditions of the covenant
being impossible, and its penalty having been incurred, any pro
bation is of course impossible. " Men are by nature children of
wrath." Considering the advantages of Adam's character and circum
stances in Paradise, our probation in him appears immeasurably
more favorable than it would have been if each individual of us
could have a separate probation in the dawn of moral agency in
infancy. 8. How far docs the covenant appear to rest upon natural
and universal principles of justice, and how far upon the special
and sovereign ordination of God ?
It appears to be founded on a basis of natural and universal
justice in respect to the following elements : 1st. The promise of
divine favor, conditioned upon perfect obedience. 2d. The threat
ened penalty of death, conditioned upon disobedience. 3d. The
appointment of a probationary period, during which man's loyalty
was tested, upon which test his future character and destiny was
made to depend.
It appears, on the other hand, to rest upon the special and
sovereign, though most wise, righteous, and merciful ordination
of God, in respect, 1st, to the representative element involved,
whereby Adam stood for all his descendants ; 2d, to the ap
pointing of abstinence from the fruit of the tree of knowledge as
the special test of obedience.
9. What was the condition of that covenant ?
Perfect conformity of heart, and perfect obedience in act to
the whole will of God as far as revealed. The command to ab
stain from eating the forbidden fruit was only made a special and
decisive test of that general obedience. As the matter forbidden -
was morally indifferent in itself, the command was admirably

ITS CONDITION. 231
adapted to be a clear and naked test of submission to God's ab
solute will as such.
10. Was there any virtue in the obedience required which
could, of itself, have merited the promised reward ?
It is infinitely absurd to conceive of the creature as ever merit
ing any thing from the Creator. Creation itself, and every op
portunity for either obedience or enjoyment, is a free gift, and a
ground of thanksgiving. — 1 Cor. iv., 7.
The covenant of works, therefore, was a further gracious con
stitution, wherein additional benefits were promised to the crea
ture on the condition of the . performance of duties already due.
The only right the creature would have acquired in case of obe
dience would have sprung from the free promise of God in the
covenant itself.
11. What was the promise of the covenant ?
The promise was not expressly stated, yet that it was life,
or confirmation in a holy character, ^and in the blessedness of
God's favor, is evidently implied in the very language of the
threatened penalty, as appears clearly from Matt, xix., 16, 17 ;
Gal. iii., 12.
_ 12. What was the nature of the death threatened in case of
disobedience ?
This word in this connection evidently includes all the penal
consequences of sin. These are, 1st, death, natural, Eccle. xii., 7;
2d, death, moral and spiritual,. Matt, viii., 22 ; Eph. ii., 1; 1 Tim.
v., 6 ; Rev. iii., 1 ; 3d, death, eternal, Rev. xx., 6-14.
, The instant the law was violated its penalty began to operate,
although, on account of the intervention of the dispensation of
grace the full effect of the sentence is suspended during the pre
sent life. The Spirit of God was withdrawn the instant man fell,
and he at once became spiritually dead, physically mortal, and
under sentence of death eternal.
13. What is meant by the seal of a covenant, and what was
the seal of the covenant of works ?
A seal of a covenant is an outward visible sign, appointed by

232 COVENANT OF WORKS.
God as a pledge of his faithfulness, and as an earnest of the bless
ings promised in the covenant.
Thus the rainbow is the seal of the covenant made with Noah,
Gen. ix., 12, 13. Circumcision was the original seal of the cove
nant made with Abraham, (Gen. xvii,, 9-11 ; Rom. iv., 11,) ,in
the place of which baptism is now instituted, Col. ii., 11, 12;
Gal. iii., 26, 27. The tree of life was the seal of the covenant of
works, because it was the outward sign and seal of that life which
was promised in the covenant, and from which man was. ex
cluded oh account of sin, and to which he is restored through the
second Adam in the Paradise regained. Compare Gen. ii., 9; iii.,
22, 24, with Rev. ii., 7 ; xxii, 2-14

C HAP I E R XVI.
THE NATURE OF SIN. — THE SIN OF ADAM, AND THE CONSE
QUENCES THEREOF TO HIS POSTERITY.
' 1. How is sin defined in our standards ?
Confession of Faith, Chapter VI., Section 6, L. Cat., ques
tion 24, S. Cat., question 14.
Sin is any want of conformity either of the moral state of the
soul, or of the actions of a man to the law of God. Vitringa's
definition is, "Forma peccati est disconvenientia, actus, habitus,
aut status hominis cum divina lege," 1 John iii. 4.
2. What is the primary signification of the Hebrew and
Greek words used to express the idea of sin in the original
Scriptures ?
The radical meaning of both the Hebrew and Greek words for
sin is to. miss, to fail, not to hit the mark, then to err from a rule
or law (sun, ' Apapiavw, hence dpapTia and dvo(iia, want of confor
mity to the standard of the law).
Thus sin is not represented as a new, positive quality diffused
in the soul, but as originating in a disordered, action of the natu
ral principles of the soul, leading thus to positive desires and
affections contrary to the law of conscience, since that defect
which consists in the absence of right desires leads immediately
to the presence of sinful ones.
3. What are the three senses in which the term sin is used in
Scripture ?
1st. As the moral state of the sinner's heart, a power which
controls, and a corruption which denies him.* — Ps. Ii., 2-5; Rom.
vii., 8.
2d. As an act transgressing or failing to fulfill the law of
God. — James i., 15.

234 sin.
3d. As guilt or just liability to punishment. — Ps. xxxii., 1;
2 Cor. v., 21 ; Heb. x., 2.
4. What is meant when it is said that all sin is voluntary ?
It is meant that all sin has its root in the perverted disposi
tions, desires, and affections which constitute the depraved state
of the will ; this darkens the mind and controls the actions. If
the will, as to moral states, is conformed to the law of God, then
the man will be without sin. Disease, physical derangement in
the essence of soul or body, can not be of the nature of sin.
Pelagians hold that sin consists solely in actions, and is vol
untary in the sense that only volitions transgressing known law
are sin.
5. How can it be proved that the depraved moral condition
of the heart (or will) is as truly sin as the actions which flow
from it ?
1st. It is the universal judgment of men, (1), that the dispo
sition which determines an act is that which gives the act its
moral character ; (2), that the heart of a man who habitually per
forms sinful actions is itself corrupt. This is what is understood by
character, and it is this character, and not the mere act, which
men regard as the principal object of m6ral approbation or dis
approbation. m
2d. This principle is distinctly asserted by our Saviour. —
Luke'yi., 43-45. ''
3d. That state of the heart which gives rise to sinful actions is
expressly called sin. — Rom. vii., 7-17 ; John viii., 34.
6. What are the conditions necessary to constitute any act a
sin ?
Only a moral agent, or one endowed with intelligence, con
science, and free will can sin. Any act of such an agent, which
is not conformed to the law of God, as far as that law has been
revealed to that agent, is a sin.
Deliberate intention to sin is an aggravating element, the com
mon quality of what the Scriptures call " presumptuous* sins,"
(Ps. xix., 12, 13,) but it is not essential to constitute any act a sin.
For it is evident that those spontaneous, undeliberate movements

NATURE OF SIN. 235
of lust called " secret sins," which spring from the corruptions of
the heart, are sinful also.
Clear knowledge of the sinfulness of an act is also an aggra
vating element in any sin, but not essential to constitute an act
a sin, except in case of involuntary ignorance of some positive
command of God. Because moral blindnesss, leading to ignor
ance of the essential principles of natural conscience, is itself a
condition of aggravated depravity.
It is not necessary that the conscious motive to the act should
be positively sinful, it may be only morally indifferent, because
the absence of right affections and omissions of duty are sins.
Ability to fulfill the requirements of the law is not necessary to
constitute the non-fulfilment sin. — See Chap. XVIII., question 25.
7. What appears from the history of the Fall to have been
the precise nature of the first sin of Adam ?
It appears from the record (Gen. iii., 1-6) that the initial
motives influencing our first parents, in their first transgression,
were in themselves considered morally indifferent. These were,
1st, natural appetite for the attractive fruit. 2d. Natural de
sire for knowledge. 3d. The persuasive power of Satan upon
Eve, including the known influence of a superior mind and will.
4th. The persuasive power of both Satan and Eve upon Adam.
Their dreadful sin appears to have been essentially, 1st, unbelief,
they virtually made God a liar. 2d. Deliberate disobedience,.
they set up their will as a law in place of his.
8. How far was God concerned in the occurrence of that sin ?
The inexplicable mystery of the origin of moral evil is two
fold. 1st. How could sin, the essence of which is want of conformity
to God's will, find place in the creation and under the providen
tial' administration of an infinitely wise, holy, and powerful
God ! This we can not answer.
2d. How could the first sin originate in the will of a creature
. created with a holy disposition. — See next question.
This mystery, however, in both its parts concerns first and
chiefly the apostacy of the Devil and his angels, which was the
true origin of sin in the universe, and concerning the facts con-

236 sin.
ditioning which we are not informed. The apostacy of Adam
evidently is dependent upon the other.
Concerning the relation sustained by God to the sin of Adam
all we know is, 1st, ,God created Adam holy, with all natural
powers necessary for accountable agency. 2d. He rightfully with
held from him, during his probation, any higher supernatural in
fluence necessary to render him infallible. 3d. He neither caused
nor approved Adam's sin. 4th. He sovereignly decreed to per
mit him to sin, thus determining that he should sin as he did.
9. How is it conceivable that sin should originate in the will
of a creature created with a positively holy disposition ?
The difficulty is to reconcile understandingly the fact that sin
did so originate,
1st. With the known constitution of the human will. If the
volitions are as the prevalent affections and desires, and if the
affections and desires excited by outward occasions are good or
evil, according to the permanent moral state of the will, how
could a sinful volition originate in a holy will ?
2d. With .universal experience. As it is impossible that a
sinful desire or volition should originate in the holy will of God,
or in the holy will of saints and angels, or that a truly holy affec
tion or volition should originate in the depraved wills of fallen
men without supernatural regeneration (Luke vi., 43-45), how
could a sinful volition originate in the holy will of Adam ?
That Adam was created with a holy yet fallible will, and that
he did fall are facts established by divine testimony. We must
believe them, although we can not rationally explain them.
This is for us impossible, 1st, because there remains an inscrut
able element in the human will, adopt whichever theory of it we
may. 2d. Because all our reasoning must be based upon conscious
ness, and no other man ever had in his consciousness the experi
ence of Adam. The origin of our sinful volitions is plain enough.
But we lack some of the data necessary to explain his case.
In the way of approximation, however, we may observe, 1st,
it is unsound to reason from the independent will of the infinite
God to the dependent will of the creature.
2d. The infallibility of saints and angels is not inherent, but

ADAM'S SIN. 237
is a superinduced confirming grace of God. They are not in a
state of probation. Adam was — his will was free, but not con
firmed. 3d. The depraved will of man can not - originate holy affec
tions and volitions, because the presence of a positively holy prin
ciple is necessary fo constitute them holy. But, on the other
hand, there were already in the holy will of Adam many princi
ples morally indifferent, in themselves neither good nor bad, and
becoming sinful only when, in default of the control of reason and
conscience, they prompt to their indulgence in ways forbidden by
God ; e. g., admiration and appetite for the fruit, and desire for
knowledge. The sin commenced the moment that, under the
powerful persuasion of Satan, these two motives were dwelt upon
in spite of the prohibition", and thus allowed to become so preva
lent in the soul as temporarily to neutralize reverence for God's
authority, and fear of his threatening.
4th. Adam, although endowed with a holy disposition, was
inexperienced in the assaults of temptation.
5th. He was assailed through the morally indifferent princi
ples of his nature by a vastly superior intelligence and character,
to whom, in the highest sense, the origin of all sin must be
referred. 10. What was tfye effect of Adam's sin upon himself?
1st. In the natural relation which Adam sustained to God as
the subject of his moral government, his sin must have instantly
had the effect of (1.) displeasing and alienating God, and (2.) de
praving his own soul.
2d. In the covenant relation which Adam sustained to God
the penalty of the covenant of works was incurred, i. e., death
including, (1.) mortality of body, (2.) corruption of soul, (3.) sen
tence of eternal death.
11. In what sense did he become totally depraved, and how
could total depravity result from one sin ?
By the affirmation that total depravity was the immediate
result of Adam's first sin, it is not meant that he became as bad
as he could be, or even as corrupt as the best of his unregenerate
descendants ; but it is meant — 1st. His apostasy from God was

238 sin.
complete. God demands perfect obedience. Adam was now a
rebel in arms.
2d. That the favor and ccmmunion of God, the sole condition
of his spiritual life, was withdrawn.
3d. A schism was introduced into the soul itself. The pain
ful reproaches of conscience were excited, and could never be
allayed without an atonement. This led to fear of God, distrust,
prevarication, and, by necessary consequence, to innumerable
other sins.
4th. Thus the whole nature became depraved. The will being
at war with the conscience, the understanding became darkened ;
the conscience, in consequence of constant outrage and neglect,
became seared; the appetites of the body inordinate, and its
members instruments of unrighteousness.
5th. There remained in man's nature no recuperative princi
ple ; he must go on from worse to worse, unless God interpose.
Thus ¦ the soul of man being essentially active, although one
sin did not establish a confirmed habit, it did alienate God and
work confusion in the soul, and thus lead to an endless, course
of sin. 12. What is the Pelagian doctrine as to the effect of Adam's
sin upon his posterity ?
Pelagians hold, 1st, with regard to sin, that it is an act of
voluntary transgression of known law, and nothing else. 2d.
With regard to free will, " that is of its essence that a man
should have it in his power as much to cease from sinning as to
deviate from the path of rectitude ; therefore, a man's natural
state is not changed (rendered corrupt) by sinning, but he only
becomes guilty, i. e., liable to punishment."
They consequently deny, 1st, that Adam's sin could corrupt
by natural generation the natures of his descendants. 2d* That
the guilt (legal responsibility) of his sin is imputed to them.
3d. That death and the physical evils of this life, common to in
fants and adults, good and bad men alike, are penal. They hold
these evils to be incident naturally to man's present life, and that
infants being born as innocent and perfect, though as fallible, as
Adam, fall into sin through the force of example. — Princeton
Th&x Essays, pp. 102 and 103.

imputation of adam's sin. 239
13. What is the Arminian view on this point ?
The Arminian system denies, 1st, that the guilt of Adam's sin
is judicially imputed to his descendants. 2d. That the corruption
of nature, which they inherit from him by ordinary generation,
and as natural heirs, is properly of the nature of sin, and deserv
ing of the wrath of God, since it is involuntary. It maintains,
however, that all men inherit from Adam a natural infirmity,
characterized as a destitution of original righteousness, making it
certain that every individual uniformly sins as soon as he com
mences voluntary agency. — Apol. Conf. Remonstr., p. 84 ; Lim-
borch Theol. Christ, iii., 4, 4.
Death and the physical evils of this life are not properly the
-penal, but merely the natural consequences of Adam's sin.
14. What is the orthodox 'doctrine on this subject ?
As Adam was the federal representative, as well as the natu
ral head and root, of all his descendants, the guilt, i. e., legal re
sponsibility of his public sin, which closed his probation and
theirs, is righteously imputed to them, and its penal consequences,
' the wrath of God, divorcement from his Spirit, spiritual, natural,
and eternal death, is inflicted upon them, in the line, and in part
through the agency of natural generation. — Conf. Faith, chap. 6,
sec. 3 ; L. Cat, Q. 25 ; S. Cat., Q. 18.
15. What is the usage of the Hebrew and Greek words trans
lated uto impute" seri, Xoyi^o/mi ?
The radical sense of these words in both languages is to think,
to reason ; then to judge or conclude ; then to esteem or regard ;
then to impute or attribute, in which latter sense they occur in
Ps. xxxii., 2 ; 2 Sam. xix., 19 ; Rom. iv, 6-24 ; 2 Cor. v., 19 ;
Gal. 'iii., 6 ; James ii., 23.
The English word "impute" means, 1st, to ascribe to persons
or things qualities which inhere in them ; 2d, to ascribe to per
sons responsibilities or rights which attach to them according to
some recognized rule of right.
16. In what sense was Adam's sin imputed to all his pos
terity ?

240 sin.
Sin is used in the sense of, 1st, the wrong moral condition 01
character of the will or heart ; 2d, an act transgressing moral-
law ; 3d, guilt, or legal responsibility for that which has trans
gressed law. In the first and second senses, sin can be imputed
only to the sinful agent himself. In the third sense, of legal re
sponsibility, the guilt of the sinful act of one man may be im
puted to another, when that other is justly responsible for his
conduct in the case. God never regards Adam's sinful disposi
tion or character as ours, nor his act of eating the forbidden fruit
as our act, as a matter of fact. But the legal responsibility of
his act God does righteously impute to us, since Adam being our
legal representative, we are legally responsible for his action in
that character; «
There is included, therefore, in the Scriptural doctrihe of the
imputation of Adam's sin — 1st. The recognition of our legal one
ness with Adam, on the ground of that sovereign though right
eous element of the covenant of works which makes us legally
responsible for his public action.
2d. The charging or imputation of the guilt of his public sin
upon us.
3d. The most righteous treatment of us according to the de
merits of that sin.
17. What is the nature of the union of Adam and his pos
terity, which is the ground of the imputation of his sin to them ?
This union with them is two-fold : 1st. Natural, as the root
of the whole human family. 2d. Federal, as, by that divine con
stitution called the covenant of works, he represented and acted
in behalf of all his descendants. It is the second, or federal union
, which is the legal ground of the imputation of his sin to them.
On the other hand, the ground in reason and right for the
constitution of that federal union appears, 1st. In the sovereign
right of God to order the probation of his creatures as he pleases,
which right he evidently in this instance exercised most merci
fully, in appointing the probation of the human family under the
most favorable circumstances. 2d. Adam's natural relation to
his children made him the proper person to represent theni. 3d.
The headship of the first Adam is part of that unsearchable plan
which culminates in the headship of the second Adam.

imputation of adam's sin. 241
18. What evidence on this subject may be derived from the
history of the fall ?
In the third chapter of Genesis Adam is presented as a public
person, the human race, as a whole, being involved in the trans
action. This appears — 1st. Because Adam's name is generic as
well as personal. It signifies (1.) red earth, (2.) man.
2d. All his posterity are equally involved in the judicial sen
tence which was immediately pronounced, e. g., the pain of child-
bearing, the curse of the ground, the sentence to live by painful
labor, and physical death.
3d. All his posterity have equal interest with him in the
promise of the woman's seed, which was then graciously made.
19. How may the truth of this doctrine be established, from
Rom. v., 12-21, and 1 Cor. xv., 21, 22 ? ,
In Rom. v., 12-21, the apostle is engaged in illustrating the
method of justification through Christ by the parallel fact of the
condemnation of mer on account of the sin of Adam. The latter
fact he proves thus : " The infliction of a penalty proves the
transgression of a law, since sin is not imputed where there is no
law (v. 13.) All mankind are subject to death or penal evils,
therefore all men are regarded as transgressors of a law, v. 13.
This is not the law of Moses, because multitudes died before that
law was given, v. 14. Nor is it the law of nature written upon
the heart, since multitudes (infants) die who never violated even
that law, v. 14. Therefore, as neither of these laws embrace all
the subjects of the penalty, we must conclude that men were sub
ject to death on account of Adam ; i. e., it was for the offense of
one that many die (vs. 12, 15), and Adam is a type of Christ."—
Hodge's Com. on Rom.
1 Cor. xv., 21, 22, asserts the same truth. All die in Adam,
not only efficiently but meritoriously, because our relation to
Adam, as legally one with him, is analogous to the relation of
the elect to Christ. /'
20. What other scriptural proof of this doctrine may be ad
duced ?
This doctrine is expressly asserted only ,in the passages above
16

242 sin.
cited. The principle involved, however, is affirmed in many
places ; e. g., second commandment, Ex. xx., 5. Case of Achan,
Josh, vii.; of Saul's sons, 2 Sam., xxi.; and of Jeroboam, 1 Kings
xiv., 9-16, etc., etc. '
21. How may the imputation of Adam's sin he argued from
the fact that we are born in sin ? .
The being born alienated from God, from which the corrup
tion of our nature results, is itself not a sin, but a dreadful pun
ishment. But punishment argues guilt, universal punishment
universal guilt, and the punishment of all men can be referred to
no other cause than to the universal. guilt of all in Adam.
22. How is this doctrine of imputation involved in the doc
trine of justification ?
The doctrine of the substitution of Christ in the place of his
elect, of the imputation of their sins to him, and of his righteous
ness to them, is the central doctrine of the gospel, involving all
that is taught us concerning satisfaction to divine justice, justifi
cation, justifying faith, etc.— See Chap. XXII. and XXVII.,
where many clear and copious arguments from the Scriptures are
presented to establish this principle of imputation, especially under
the head of atonement, its nature.
But in Rom v., 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv., 21, 22, the relation of
men to the guilt of Adam's sin is declared to be identical as to
principle with that relation which the justified sustain to the
righteousness of Christ. The two stand or fall together.
23. What difficulties flow from denying the imputation of
Adam's sin to his' posterity ?
1st. The perversion of the clear testimony of God's word, as
above shown.
2d. The perversion of the great doctrine of the -atonement.
3d. If we had no probation in Adam, it would follow that
every individual member of the human family has been intro
duced into an estate of sin and misery without any probation
at alL 4th. All Christians hold that our present condition is in con
sequence of Adam's sin. But if the legal responsibility of Adam's

IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN. 243
sin is not imputed, it would follow that all these consequences
have been arbitrarily inflicted without any legal ground whatso
ever. Yet Paul calls these consequences a "condemnation." —
Rom. v., 16, 18.
24. How can this doctrine be reconciled with the justice of
God? The unquestionable fact is that Adam's sin involved the race
in ruin. Whatever difficulty exists in the matter lies there. The
doctrine of imputation vindicates the justice of God by maintain
ing that all men had a probation under favorable conditions, and
that their present suffering has been inflicted according to law.
25. Are men bound to repent of Adam's sin ?
The imputation of Adam's sin to us did not make his sin our
act, nor did it convey his moral character, nor the shame or pol
lution of his sin to us, but simply the legal responsibility of it.
We can no more repent of Adam's sin, in any other sense than
of being sorry for it, than we can feel self-complacent on account
of the righteousness of Christ graciously imputed to us.
26. How can this doctrine be reconciled with such passages
as Ezek. xviii., 20 ?
The prophet can not mean that no man ever shall bear the
iniquity of another, because other texts teach the contrary, (see
above, question 20.) His design is to direct the consciences of
the people to their own sins, and he asserts merely the general
purpose of God with regard to his treatment of the personal sina
of individuals in the ordinary relations of life. i
27. What is the doctrine of mediate imputation ?
The doctrine we have above presented has been taught in the
confessions of all the Reformed and Lutheran churches, by all the
reformers and by all theologians of the Augustinian school in the
Church of Rome. But Joshua Placaeus, a professor of theology
in the school at Saumur, in France, in order to defend himself
from the adverse judgment of the Synod of France, A. D. 1645,
invented the distinction between mediate, or consequent and im
mediate or antecedent imputation. Immediate or antecedent

244 * sin.
imputation is the orthodox doctrine above .'aught, viz., vhafc the
legal responsibility of Adam's sin is imputed to his descendants
immediately, and that their inheritance from him of their corrupt
natures is in consequence of that imputation. Mediate or conse
quent imputation designates the theory of Placasus, who held that
God charges the guilt of Adam's sin upon his posterity only in
consequence of that inherent depravity which they inherit by na
tural generation, i. e., we are associated with Adam in his pun
ishment, because we are like him, sinners.
This theory is evidently a virtual, though indirect denial of
any imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity whatsoever. If the
same penalty which was adjudged to him Js adjudged to us only
because we are personally depraved, it is plain that the legal re
sponsibility of his sin is not imputed to us, but only our own
•inherent depravity. Besides this theory, moreover, makes the im
putation of Adam's sin an effect of its own consequence. The
truth is, we are abandoned by God, and so become^ inherently
depraved as a part of the penalty of Adam's transgression, other
wise where were the justice of involving us in such a fate ? And,
worse than all, this theory of imputation leads by logical neces
sity to the perversion of the doctrine of justification. The analogy
is affirmed by God. If Adam's sin is imputed, in consequence of
our inherent depravity, we must attain an interest in Christ's
righteousness in consequence of our sanctification.
28. What is the theory which assumes that the sin of Adam
was literally and strictly the sin of the whole race, and what are
the principal objections to it ?
This is identical with the realistic theory, so prominent in
scholastic theology and mediaeval philosophy, which assumes that
universals as genera, species, etc., are objective realities. Accord
ing to this view human nature is a substance, or essence, created
and concentrated in the first instance in the person of Adam, and
from him transmitted to all his descendants The same numeri
cal substance which now subsists in individual men, it is asserted,
sinned in Adam. His sin, therefore, was as much and as truly
ours as it was his. It is imputed to us because it is ours, as it
was imputed to him because it was his.
The principal objections to this theory are, 1st, it is an un-

IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S SIN. 245
supported hypothesis. There can be no evidence of any such
generic human nature, if all known phenomena can be otherwise
accounted for. But all the facts as to the permanence of species
and the propagation of peculiarities of nature can be explained as
well without as with this hypothesis. And if not capable of
proof by observation it can not be proved from Scripture, because
it is not the design of the Bible to teach metaphysics. 2d. It is
rationalistic to make a philosophical assumption of this kind the
controling principle in interpreting the whole doctrine of the fall
and redemption of man. 3d. The theory that community in a
propagated nature constitutes the identity of all those to whom
that nature is communicated, and involves them all in the rela
tions, moral and legal, of their common progenitor, leads to
manifold absurdities and contradictions. There is no reason why
the application of this principle should be restricted to the single
case of Adam. The Hebrews were in Abraham, so far as com
munity of nature was concerned, as much as mankind were in
Adam. The common consciousness of mankind testifies that we
are not involved in the moral character and conduct of each one
of our progenitors in consequence of our derivation of existence
from them. The distinction between acts of nature and personal
acts, by which this conclusion is sought to be avoided, means
nothing. It besides contradicts the consciousness of men to say
that we should suffer remorse and self-condemnation for Adam's
sin. Unless the understanding is confused the conscience can de
liver no such verdict. 4th. The principle that God can not, on
the ground of representation, or legal and federal union, regard
and treat those not personally guilty as guilty, and those not per
sonally righteous as righteous, which lies at the foundation of
tins' whole theory, is contrary to the repeated and express decla-
tions of Scripture, and to the facts of providence. The Bible
distinctly asserts that the sin of Adam, as something out of our
selves, is the ground of our condemnation, and that the righteous
ness of Christ, as something not subjectively ours, is the ground
of our justification. But if the principle above stated be true,
it would necessarily follow, (1.) if God can not regard and treat
men otherwise than according to their personal character, or sub
jective state, then Christ did not bear our sins, nor are we treated
as righteous on the ground of his righteousness, i. e., there can

246 sin.
be no true atonement ; or (2.) Christ, it. virtue of his community
of nature with us, was personally criminal, in the moral sense of
the word, and for all the sins committed in that nature ,* and we,
in virtue of our union with him, are personally and subjectively
righteous. Our participation of Christ's righteousness is declared
by Scripture to be analogous to our participation of Adam's sin.
If, therefore, we sinned Adam's sin, we wrought Christ's righte
ousness. If we are condemned for Adam's sin, because that sin
determined and constituted our moral character, then we are jus
tified for Christ's righteousness, because it constituted our moral
character. The believer, hence, has no ground of confidence beyond
his own personal holiness. — Dr. Hodge, Bib. Rep., April, 1860.

CHAPTER XVII,

ORIGINAL SIN.

x. Mow is original sin to be defined ?
See Confession of Faith, Chapter VI., L. Cat., questions 25,
26, S. Cat., question 18.
The phrase, original sin, is used sometimes to include the
judicial imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin, as well as the
hereditary moral corruption, common to all his descendants,
which is one of the consequences of that imputation. More
strictly, however, the phrase original sin designates only the
hereditary moral corruption common to all men from birth.
In the definition of this doctrine we deny —
1st. That this corruption is in any sense physical, that it in
heres in the essence of the soul, or in any of its natural faculties
as such. 2d. That it consists primarily in the mere supremacy of the
sensual part of our nature. It is a depraved habit or bias of
will.' 3d. That it consists solely in the absence of holy dispositions,
because, from the inherent activity of the soul, sin exhibits itself
from the beginning in the way of a positive proneness to evil.
On the other hand, we affirm —
1st. That original sin is purely moral, being the innate
proneness of the will to evil.
2d. That having its seat in the will averse to the holy law
of God, it biasses the understanding, and thus deceives the con
science, leads to erroneous moral judgments, to blindness of mind,
to deficient and perverted sensibility in relation to moral objects,
to the inordinate action of the sensuous nature, and thus to cor
ruption of the entire soul.
3d. Thus it presents two aspects : (1.) The loss of the original

248 ORIGINAL SIN.
righteous habit cf will. (2 ) The presence of a positively un
righteous habit.
4th. Yet from the fact that -this innate depravity does em
brace a positive disposition to evil, it does not follow that a posi
tive evil quality has been infused into the soul. Because, from
the essentially active nature of the soul, and from the esential
nature of virtue, as that which obliges the will, it evidently fol
lows that moral indifference is impossible; and so that depravity,
which President Edwards says " comes from a defective or privi-
tive cause," instantly assumes a positive form. Not to love God
is to rebell against him, not to obey virtue is to trample it under
foot. Self-love soon brings us to fear, then to hate the vindicator
of righteousness. — Edwards on " Original Sin," Part IV., sec. 2.
2. Why is this sin called original ? m
Not because it belongs to the' original constitution of our
nature as it came forth from the hand of God, but because, 1st,
it is derived by ordinary generation from Adam, the original root
of the human race ; and, 2d, it is the inward root or origin of all
the actual sins that defile our lives.
3. How may it be proved that the d&ctrine of original sin
does not involve the corruption of the substance of the soul ?
It is the universal judgment of men that there are in the soul,
besides its essence and its natural faculties, certain habits, innate
or acquired, which qualify the action of those faculties, and con
stitute the character of the man. Those habits, or inherent dispo
sitions which determine the affections and desires of the will, gov
ern a man's actions, and, when good, are the subjects of moral
appr/ bation, and, when evil, the subjects of moral disapprobation
on the part of all men. An innate moral habit of soul, e. g.,
original sin, is no more a physical corruption than any acquired
habit, intellectual or moral, is a physical change.
Besides this, the Scriptures distinguish between the sin and
the agent in a way which proves that the sinful habit is not some
thing consubstantial with the sinner, Rom. vii., 17 ; " sin that
dwelleth in me," Heb. xii., 1, etc.
4. How can it be shown that original sin does not consist in

NOT DISEASE. . 249
disease, or merely in the supremacy of the sensuous part of our
nature ?
While it is true that many sins have their occasions in the
inordinate appetites of the body, yet it is evident the original or
root of sin can not be in them —
1st. From the very nature of sin it must have its seat in the
moral state of the voluntary principle. Disease, or any form of
physical disorder, is not voluntary, and therefore not an element
of moral responsibility. It is, moreover, the obligation of the
will to regulate the lower sensuous nature, and sin must originate
in the failure of those moral affections which would have been
supreme if they still continued to reign in the will.
2d. From the fact that the most heinous sins are destitute
of any sensuous element, e. g., pride, anger, malice, and aver
sion from God.
5. How can it be proved that this innate disposition or habit
of soul, which leads to sinful action, is itself sin ?
1st. This innate habit of soul is a state of the will, and it is
an ultimate principle that all the states as well as acts of the Will
related to the law of conscience are moral, i. e., either virtuous or
vicious. — See above, Chapter XIV., questions 9 and 10.
2d. . These permanent habits or states of the will constitute
the moral character of the agent, which all men regard as the
proper subject of praise or blame.
3d. This inherent disposition to sinful action is called " sin"
in Scripture, Rom. vi., 12, 14, 17 ; vii., 5-17. It is called "flesh"
as opposed to " spiritual," Gal. v., 17, 24 ; also '•' lust," James i.r
14, 15 ; and " old Adam" and " body of sin," Rom vi., 6 ; also
"ignorance," "blindness of heart," "alienation from the life of
God," and a condition of " being past feeling," Eph. iv., 18, 19.
6. How can it be shown that original sin does not consist sim
ply in the want of original righteousness ?
1st. It follows from the inherent activity of the human soul,
and from the inherently obliging power of moral right that the
absence of right dispositions immediately leads to the formation
of positively sinful dispositions. Not to love God is to hate him,

250 ORIGINAL SIN.
not to obey him is to disobey. Disobedience leads to fear, to
falsehood, and to every form of sin. — See above, question 1.
2d. As a matter of fact, innate depravity exhibits its positive
character by giving birth to sins, involving positive viciousnes sin
the earliest stages of accountable agency as pride, malice, etc.
3d. The Scriptures assign it a positive character, when they
apply to it such terms as " flesh," " concupiscence," " old man,"
" law in the members," "body of sin," "body of death," "sin
taking occasion," " deceived me," and " wrought all manner of '
concupiscence." — Rom. vii.
7. How may it be shown that it affects the entire man ?
Original sin has its seat in the will, and primarily consists in
that proneness to unlawful dispositions and affections which is
the innate habit of the human soul. But the several faculties
of the human soul are hot separate agents. The one soul acts in
each function as an indivisible agent, its several faculties or powers
after their kind mutually qualifying one another. When the
soul is engaged in understanding an object, or an aspect of any
object, e. g., mathematics, with which its affections are not con
cerned, then its action has no moral element. But when it is en
gaged in understanding an object with respect to which its de
praved affections are perversely interested, its action must be
biased. The consequence, therefore, of the sinful bias of the will
in its controling influence over the exercises of the soul, in all its
functions, will be —
1st. The understanding, biased by the perverted affections, -
acting concurrently with the moral sense in forming moral judg
ments, will lead to erroneous judgments, to a deceiving conscience,
and to general " blindness of mind" as to moral subjects.
2d. The emotions and sensibilities which accompany the judg
ments of conscience in approving the good and in condemning the
wrong, by repeated outrage and neglect, will be rendered less
lively, and thus lead to a seared conscience, and general moral
insensibility. 3d. In a continued course of sinful action the memory will
become defiled with its stores of corrupt experiences, from which
the imagination also must draw its materials.
4th. The body in its turn will be corrupted. (1.) Its natural

TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 251
appetites will become inordinate in the absence of proper control,
(2.) Its active powers will be used as " instruments of unrighte
ousness unto sin."
5th. The Scriptures teach (1.) that the understanding of the
" natural man" is depraved as well as his affections, 1 Cor. ii.,
14 ; 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; Eph. iv., 18 ; Col. L, 21. (2.) That regener
ation involves illumination as well as renewal of the heart, Acts
xxvi., 18 ; Eph. i., 18 ; v., 8 ; 1 Pet. ii., 9. (3.) That truth ad
dressed to the understanding is the great instrument of the Spirit
in regeneration and sanctification, John xvii., 17; James L, 18.
8. What is meant by the affirmation that man by nature is
totally depraved ?
By this orthodox phrase it is not to be understood, 1st,
that the depraved man has not a conscience. The virtuousness
of an agent does not consist in his having a conscience, but in the
conformity of the dispositions and affections of his will to the law
of which conscience is the organ. Even the devils and lost souls
retain their sense of right and wrong, and those vindicatory emo
tions with which conscience is armed.
Or, 2d, that unregenerate men, possessing a natural con
science, do not often admire virtuous character and actions in
others. Or, 3d, that they are incapable of disinterested affections and
actions in their various relations with their fellow-men.
Or, 4th, that any man is as thoroughly depraved as it is pos
sible for him to become, or that each man has a disposition in
clined to every form of sin.
But it is meant, 1st. That virtue consisting in the con
formity of the dispositions of the will with the law of God, and the
very soul of virtue consisting in the allegiance of the soul to God,
every man by nature is totally alienated in his governing dispo
sition from God, and consequently his every act, whether morally
indifferent, or conformed to subordinate principles of right, is
vitiated by the condition of the agent as a rebel.
2d. That this state of will leads to a schism in the soul, and
to the moral perversion of all the faculties of soul and body (see
preceding question.)
3d. The tendency of this condition is to further corruption in

252 original sin. '
endless progression in every department of our nature, and this
deterioration would, in eVery case, be incalculably more rapid than
it is, if it were not for the supernatural restraints of the Holy
Ghost. 4th. There remains no recuperative element in the soul. Man
can only and for ever become worse without a miraculous recre
ation. 9. What proof of the doctrine of original sin may be derived
from the history of the Fall ?
God created man in his own image, and pronounced him as a
moral agent to be very good. He threatened him with death in
the very day that he should eat the forbidden fruit, and only in
the sense of spiritual death was that threat literally fulfilled.
The spiritual life of man depends upon communion with God ;
but God drove him at once forth in anger from his presence.
Consequently the present spiritual state of man is declared to be
death," the very penalty threatened. — Eph. ii., 1 ; 1 John iii., 14.

a

10. What is the account which the Scriptures give of human
nature, and how can the existence of an innate hereditary deprav
ity be thence inferred ?
The Scriptures represent all men as totally alienated from
God, and morally depraved in their understandings, hearts, wills,
consciences, bodies and actions.-^-Rom. iii., 10-23 ; viii., 7 ; Job
xiv., 4 ; xv., 14 ; Gen. vi., 5 ; viii., 21 ; Matt, xv., 19 ; Jer. xvii.,
9 ; Is. i., 5, 6. This depravity of man is declared to be, 1st, of
the act, 2d, of the heart, 3d, from birth and by nature, 4th, of
all men without exception. — Ps. IL, 5 ; John iii., 6 ; Eph. ii., 3 ;
Ps. lviii., 3.
11. State the evidence for the truth of this doctrine afforded
by Rom. v., 12-21.
Paul here proves that the guilt, legal obligation to suffer the
penalty, of Adam's sin is imputed to' us,- by the unquestionable
fact that the penalty of the law which Adam broke has been in
flicted upon all. But that penalty was all penal evil, death phy».
sical, spiritual, eternal. Original sin, therefore; together with

ESTABLISHED BY FACT. 253
natural death, is in this passage assumed as an undeniable fact,
upon which the apostle oonstructs his argument for the imputa
tion of Adam's sin.
12. How is the truth of this doctrine established by the fact
of the general prevalence of sin ?
All men, under all circumstances, in every age of the world,
and under whatever educational influences they may be brought
up, begin to sin uniformly as soon as they enter upon moral
agency. A universal effect must have a universal cause. Just
as we judge that man is by nature an intelligence, because the
actions of all men involve an element of intelligence, so we as
certainly judge that man is by nature depraved, because all men
act sinfully.
13. If Adam sinned, though free from any corruption of
nature, how does the fact that his posterity sin prove that their
nature is corrupt ?
The fact that Adam sinned proves that a moral agent may be
at once sinless and fallible, and that such a *being, left to himself,
may sin, but with respect to his posterity the question is, what
is the universal and uniform cause that every individual always
certainly begins to sin as soon as he begins to act as a moral
agent ? The question in the one case is, How could such an one
sin ? but in the other, Why do all certainly sin from the begin
ning ?
14. By what other objections do Pelagians and others attempt
to avoid the force of the argument from the universality of sin ?
1st. Those who maintain that the liberty of indifference is
essential to responsible agency, and that volitions are not deter
mined by the precedent moral state of the mind, attribute all sin
ful actions to the fact that the will of man is unconditioned, and
insist that his acting as he acts is an ultimate fact.
In answer, we acknowledge that a man always wills as he
; pleases, but the question is, Why does he always certainly please
to will wrong ?> An indifferent cause can not account for a uni
form fact. The doctrine of original sin merely assigns the de-

254 ORIGINAL SIN.
praved character of the will itself as the uniform cause of the uni
form fact. i
2d. Others attempt to explain the facts by the universal influ
ence of sinful example.
We answer : (1.) Children uniformly manifest depraved dis
positions at too early a period to admit of that sin being ration
ally attributed to the influence of example. (2.) Children mani
fest depraved dispositions who have been brought up from birth
in contact with such influences only as would incline them to
holiness. 3d. Others, again, attempt to explain the facts by referring
to the natural order in the development of our faculties, e. g., first
the animal, then the intellectual, then the moral : thus the lower,
by anticipating, subverts the higher.
For answer, see above, question 4. Besides, while this is an
imperfect explanation, it is yet a virtual admission of the fact of
innate hereditary depravity. Such an order of development,
leading to such uniform consequences, is itself1 a total corruption
of nature. 15. What argument for the doctrine of original sin may be
derived from the universality of death ?
The penalty of the law was death, including death spiritual,
physical, and moral. Physical death is universal ; eternal death,
temporarily suspended for Christ's sake, is denounced upon all the
impenitent. As one part of the penalty has taken effect, even
upon infants, who have never been guilty of actual transgression,
we must believe the other part to have taken effect likewise.
Brutes, who also suffer and die, are not moral agents, nor were they
ever embraced in a covenant of life, and therefore their case, al
though it has its own peculiar difficulties, is not analogous to that
of man. Geology, affirms that brutes suffered and died in suc
cessive generations before the creation and apostacy of man.
This is at present one of the unsolved questions of God's provi
dence. — See Hugh Miller's Testimonies of the Rocks.
16. How may it be proved by what the Scriptures say con
cerning regeneration ?

PROVED BY THE NECESSITY FOR REDEMPTION. 255
The Scriptures declare —
1st. That regeneration is a radical change of the moral char
acter, wrought by the Holy Ghost in the exercise of supernatural
power. It is called " a new creation ;" the regenerated aie called
•'God's workmanship, created unto good works," etc. — Ezek.
sxxvi., 26 ; Eph. L, 19 ; ii., 5, 10 ; iv., 24 ; 1 Pet. L, 23 ; James
L, 18. 2d. Regeneration is declared to-be necessary absolutely and
universally. — John iii., 3 ; 2 Cor. v., 17.
17. How may it be proved from what the Scriptures say of
redemption ?
The Scriptures assert of redemption —
1st. As to its nature, that the design and effect of Christ's
sacrifice is to deliver, by means of an atonement, all his people
from the power as well as from the guilt of sin. — Eph. v., 25-27;
Titus ii., 14 ; Heb. ix., 12-14 ; xiii., 12.
2d. As to its necessity, that it was absolutely necessary for
all^-for infants who never have committed actual sin, as well as
for adults. — Matt, xix., 14 ; Rev. i., 5 ; y., 9.
Some have essayed to answer, that Christ only redeemed in
fants from the "liability to sin." But redemption being an
atonement by blood, the "just for the unjust," if infants be not
sinners they can not be redeemed. A sinless liability to sin is
only a misfortune, and can admit of no redemption. — See Dr.
Taylor's " Concio ad Clerum," (New Haven, 1828,) pp. 24, 25 ;
also Harvey's Review of the same, (Hartford, 1829,) p. 19.
18. State the evidence afforded by infant baptism.
Baptism, as circumcision, is an outward rite, signifying the in
ward grace of spiritual regeneration and purification. — Mark L, 4;
John iiL, 5 ; Titus iii., 5 ; Deut. x., 16 ; Rom. ii., 28, 29. Both
of these rites were designed to be applied to infants. The appli
cation of the sign would be both senseless and profane if infants
did not need, and were not capable of the thing signified.
19. What is the objection that many present to this doctrine,
drawn from their view of the nature of sin ?
The Pelagians hold that sin consists alone in acts of the will

256 ' ORIGINAL SIN.
transgressing known la'w, and that it is essential to free agency
that a man is always as free to cease from sinning as to continue
to sin, and consequently that there is no such thing as inherent
moral depravity, innate or acquired.
Dr. Nathaniel W. Taylor, of New Haven, the prince of
American new school theology, taught that sin consists solely in
acts of the will. That " original sin is man's own act, consisting
in a free choice of some object rather than God as his chief good."
He includes in this definition the permanent, governing prefer
ence of the will, which determines special and transient acts of
choice ; which preference is formed by each human being as soon
as he becomes a moral agent, and is uniformly a preference of
some lesser good in place of God. He maintains also that the
nature of man, in the condition in which it comes into being, in
consequence of Adam's fall, is the occasion, not the cause, of all
men invariably making a wrong moral preference, and conse
quently original sin is by nature in the sense that the will enacts
it freely though uniformly as occasioned by nature, yet that the
nature itself, or its inherent tendency to occasion sin, is not itself
sin, or ill-deserving— See " Concio ad Clerum," New Haven, 1828,
and Harvey's Review thereof.
20. How may their objections be answered ?
The Pelagian doctrine is disproved by the true theory of moral
agency, (see below, Chapter XVIII.,); by the universal judgment
of men that there is such a thing as moral character, properly the
object of praise or blame, which determines the action, and from
which any action derives all the moral quality it possesses; by all
the Scriptures teach of depravity of heart as well as act, from birth
and by nature ; and by all Jhat they teach also with respect to
man's inability to change himself, and of the nature and neces
sity of the new birth.— See Chapter XVIII., questions 21-25.
The semi-Pelagian theory of Dr. Taylor may be disproved by
the facts, 1st. That infants die, are baptized, and must be re-
¦ deemed before the commencement of moral agency. — See above,
questions 16-19. 2d. The Scriptures declare this corruption to be
hereditary and innate. — Ps. Ii., 5 ; lviii., 3 ; John iii., 6 ; Eph.
ii., 3. 3d. The Scriptures call this inherent principle or state of
the heart sin.— Rom. vi., 12, 17 ; vii., 5, 17 ; Eph. iv., 17, 18 ;

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 257
John viii., 34. If men are " servants of sin," it follows that this
principle, although in the will, lies back of and is superior to the
mere volitional faculty.
21. If God is the author of our nature, and our nature is
sinful, how can we avoid the conclusion that God is the author
of sin ?
That conclusion would be unavoidable if, 1st, sin was an
essential element of our nature, or if, 2d, it inhered in that na
ture originally, as it came from God.
But we know, 1st, that sin originated in the free act of man,
created holy, yet fallible ; 2d, that entire corruption of nature
sprang from that sin ; and, 3d, that in consequence of sin God
has justly withdrawn the conservative influences of his Holy
Spirit, and left men to the natural and penal consequences of
their sin. — See Calvin's Instit, Lib. IL, Chap. I., sec. 6 and 11.
22. How can this doctrine be reconciled with the liberty cf
man and his responsibility for his acts ?
1st. Consciousness affirms that a man is always responsible
for his free actions, and that his act. is always free when he wills
as, upon the whole, he prefers to will. 2d. Original sin consists
in corrupt dispositions, and, therefore, in every sin a man acts
freely, because he acts precisely as he is disposed to act. 3d.
Consciousness affirms that inability is not inconsistent with re
sponsibility. The inherent habit or disposition of the will deter
mines his action, but no man, by a mere choice or volition, can
change his disposition. — See Chap. XVIII., questions 4 and 25.
23. How is this corruption of nature propagated ?
Several theories have been held upon this subject. 1st. The
Manichaeau doctrine was, that matter, eternal and self-existent,
is inherently corrupt and corrupting ; all souls, therefore, being
severally created pure, become vitiated from connection with their
bodies.— Mosheim, Book I., Part IL, Chap. V.
2d. Some have supposed that all human souls were created
cotemporaneouslywith Adam, having since remained in a state
of unconsciousness to the moment of their individual births, and

258 , ORIGINAL SIN.
that, by some law of connection, they became depraved together
with him.
3d. The doctrine designated " ex traduce" supposes that, by
some law of spiritual generation, the soul of the child is propa
gated by, and derives its qualities from the souls of its parents.
This view is now universally abandoned. Yet it is evident that
the soul of the child is created after the analogy of the souls of
its parents, i. e., the child is like the parent, mentally and moral
ly, as well as physically. And surely the soul of the child deter
mines the' individual idiosyncrasies of the body in the womb, not
the body of the soul ; as appears evident from the universally
recognized truth of physiognomy, etc., etc.
4th. The sufficient answer is that the moral health of the soul
depends upon its communion with God. But, because of God's
displeasure with the race, he creates every infant soul in a state
judicially excluded from that fellowship, and hence the tendency
to sin. — Conf. Faith," Chap. VI., sec. 3 ; Gen. v., 3 ; Ps. lvii., 5 ;
Job xiv., 4 ; xv., 14 ; John iii., 6.
24. In what sense may sin be the punishment of sin ?
1st. In the way of natural consequence (1.) in the interior
working of the soul itself, in the derangement of its powers ; (2.)
in the entangled relations of the sinner with God and his fellowmen.
2d. In the way of judicial abandonment. Because of sin God
withdraws his Holy Spirit, and further sin is the consequence. —
Rom. L, 24-28. ,
25. What distinction do the Romanists make between mortal
and venial sins ?
By mortal sins they mean those that turn away the soul from
God, and forfeit baptismal grace. By venial sins they mean those
which only impede the course of the soul to God.
The objections are, 1st. This distinction is never made in the
Scriptures. 2d. Except for the sacrifice of Christ, every sin is
mortal. — James ii., 10 ; Gal. iii., 10.
26. What do the Scriptures teach concerning' the sin against
the Holy Ghost ?

SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 259
See Matt, xii., 31, 32 ; Mark iii., 29, 30 ; Heb. vi., 4-6 ; x.,
26, 27 ; 1 John, v., 16.
These passages appear to teach that this Bin consists in the
malicious rejection of the blood of Christ, and of the testimony
of the Holy Ghost, against evidence and conviction. It is called
the sin against the Holy Ghost because he is immediately present
in the heart of the sinner, and his testimony and influence is
directly rejected and contemptuously resisted. It is unpardon
able, not because its guilt transcends the merit of Christ, or the
state of the sinner transcends the renewing power of the Holy
Ghost, but because it consists in the final rejection of these, and
because at this limit God has sovereignly staid his grace.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE WILL AND OF HUMAN INABILITY. ,
1. Is free-agency an inalienable attribute of the human soul,
or has it been lost by sin ?
Like conscience, free agency is an essential and indestructible
element of human nature, and in every case necessary to moral
accountability. Even devils and lost souls are as free, i. e., vol
untary in their sin', as saints in their holiness. — See below, ques
tion 4. For a definition of the essential elements of free agency,
see above, Chap. XIV., question 6.
2. What are the different senses in which the word will is
used ?
For a full answer see above, Chap. XIV., question 3.
3. When is a man said to be free in willing ?
When he wills in conformity with his prevailing dispositions
or desires at the time, all things considered, in the view his un
derstanding takes of the case.
A man, therefore, always is free in willing, and can never will
otherwise than as free, because the volition, or executive action
¦ of the will is always determined by the man's subjective state of
desire or aversion, and therefore is always free.
4. Do not the Scriptures, however, speak of man's being un
der the bondage of corruption, and his liberty as lost ?
As above shown, a man is always free in every responsible
volition, as much when he chooses, in violation of the law of God
and conscience, as in conformity to it. In the case of unfallen
creatures, and of regenerated men, however, the permanent state
of the will, the voluntary affections and desires (in Soripture Ian-

DEFINITION OF MOTIVE! 261
guage, the heart), are conformed to the light of 'reason and the
law of conscience within, and to the law of God, in its objective
revelation. There are no conflicting principles then within the
bouI, and the law of God, instead of coercing the will by its com
mands and threatenings, is spontaneously obeyed. This is " the
liberty of the sons of God ;" and the law becomes the " royal
law of liberty" when the law in the heart of the subject perfectly
corresponds with the law of the moral Governor.
In the case of fallen men and angels, on the other hand, the
reason and conscience, and God's law, are opposed by the govern
ing dispositions pf the will, and the agent, although free, because
he wills as he chooses, is said to be in bondage to an evil nature,
and " the servant of sin," because he is impelled by his corrupt
dispositions to choose that which he sees and feels to be wrong
and injurious, and because the threatenings of God's law tend to
coerce his will through fear. — See below, questions 13 and 17.
5. What are the two senses in which the word motive, as in
fluencing the will, is used ?
1st. A motive to act may be something outside the soul itself,
as the value of money, the wishes of a friend, the wisdom or folly,
the right or the wrong of any act in itself considered, or the ap
petites and impulses of the body. In this sense it is evident that
the man does not always act according to the motive. What
may attract one man may repel another, or a man may repel the
attraction of an outward motive by the superior force of some
consideration drawn from within the soul itself. So that the
dictum is true, " The man makes the motive, and not the mo
tive the man."
2d. A motive to act may be the state of the man's own mind,
as desire or aversion in'view of the outward object, or motive in,
the first sense. This internal motive evidently must sway the
volition, and as clearly it can not in the least interfere with the
perfect freedom of the man in willing, since the mternal motive
is only the man himself desiring, or the reverse, according to his
own disposition or character.
6. May there not be several conflicting desires, or internal
motives, in the mind at the same time, and in such a case how is
the will decided ?

262 FREE AGENd.
There are often several conflicting desires, or impelling affec
tions in the mind at the same time, in which case the strongest
desire, or the strongest group of desires, drawing in one way, de
termine the volition. That which is strongest proves itself to be
such only by the result, and not by the intensity of the feeling it
excites. Some of these internal motives are very vivid, like a
thirst for vengeance, and others calm, as a sense of duty, yet often
the calm motive proves itself the strongest, and draws the will
its own way. This of course must depend upon the character of
the agent. It is this inward contest of opposite principles which
constitutes the warfare of the Christian life. It is the same ex
perience which occasions a great part of that confusion of con
sciousness which prevails among men with respect to the problem
of the will, and the conditions of free agency. Man- often acts
against motives, but never without motive. And the motive
which actually determines the choice in a given case may often
be the least clearly defined in the intellect, and the least vividly
experienced in the feelings. Especially in sudden surprizes, and
in cases of trivial concernment, the volition is constantly deter-
' mined by vague impulses, or by force of habit almost automati
cally. Yet in every case, if the whole contents of the mind, at
the time of the volition, be brought up into distinct consciousness,
it will be found that the man chdse, as upon the whole view of
the case presented by the understanding at the instant he desired
to choose. 7. What is the distinction between a transient affection or
desire, and a permanent principle or- disposition of the will ?
(Will here understood in the wide sense of the term, as including
the phenomena of desire as well as of volition.)
See above, Chap. XIV., question 4.
8. If the immediately preceding state of the man s mind cer
tainly determines the act of his will, how can that act be truly
free if certainly determined ? "
This objection rests solely upon the confusion of the two dis
tinct ideas of liberty of the will as an abstract faculty, and lib
erty of the man who wills. The man is never determined to will
by any thing without himself. He always himself freely gives;

CERTAINTY CONSISTENT WITH FREEDOM. 263
according to his own character, all the weight to the external
influences which bear upon him that they ever possess. But,
on "the other hand, the mere act of volition, abstractly con
sidered, is determined by the present mental, moral, and emo
tional state of the man at the moment he acts. His rational
freedom, indeed, consists, not in the uncertainty of his act, but
in the very fact that his whole soul, as an indivisible, knowing,
feeling, moral agent, determines his own action as it pleases.
9. Prove that the certainty of a volition is in no degree incon
sistent with the liberty of the agent in that act.
1st. God, Christ, and saints in glory, are all eminently free in
their holy choices and actions, yet nothing can be more certain
than that, to all eternity, they shall always will according to
righteousness. '2d. Man is a free agent, yet of every infant, from his birth, it
is absolutely certain that if he lives he will sin.
3d. God, from eternity, foreknows all the free actions of men
as certain, and he has foreordained them, or made them to be
certain. In prophecy he has infallibly foretold many of them as
certain. And in regeneration his people are made " his work
manship created unto good works, which God has before ordained
that we should walk in them."
4th. Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's charac
ter, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are
often absolutely certain how he will freely act, though absent
from us. This is the foundation of all human faith, and hence
of all human society.
10. What is that theory of moral liberty, styled " liberty of
indifference," " self-determining power of the will," "power of
contrary choice," " liberty of contingency," etc., held by Armin
ians and others ?
This theory maintains that it is essentially involved in the
idea of free agency, 1st, that the will of man in every volition
may decide in opposition, not only to all outward inducements,
but equally to all the inward judgments, desires, and to the whole
coexistent inward state of the man himself. 2d. That man is
conscious in every free volition that he might have willed pre-

264 FREE AGENCY.
cisely the opposite, his outward circumstances and his entire
inward state remaining the same. 3d. That every free volition
is contingent, i. e., uncertain, until the event, since it is deter
mined by nothing but the bare faculty of volition on the part of
the -agent. — Hamilton's Reid, pp. 599 — 624. .
The true theory of moral certainty, on the other hand, is that
the soul is a unit ; that the will is not self-determined, but that
man, when he wills, is self-determined ; and that his volition is
certainly determined by his own internal, rational, moral, emo
tional state at the time, viewed as a whole.
In opposition to the former theory, and in favor of the latter,
we argue — 1st. That the character of the agent does certainly
determine the character of his free acts, and that the certainty of
an act isnot inconsistent with the liberty of the agent in his act. —
See below, question 12.
2d. The Christian doctrines of the divine foreknowledge, fore
ordination, providence, and regeneration. For the Scriptural evi
dence of these, see their respective chapters. They all show that
the volitions of men are neither uncertain or indeterminate.
3d. We agree with the advocates of the. opposite theory in
maintaining that in every free act we are conscious that we had
power to perform it, or not to perform it, as we chose. " But we
maintain that we are none the less conscious that this intimate
conviction that we had power not to perform an act is conditional.
That is, we are conscious that the act might have been otherwise,
had other views or feelings been present to our minds, or been al
lowed their due weight. A man can not prefer against his prefer
ence, of choose against his choice. A man may have one prefer
ence at one time, and another at another. He may have various
conflicting feelings or principles in action at the same time, but
he can not have coexisting opposite preferences."
4th. The theory of the " self-determining power of the will"
regards the will, or the mere faculty of volition, as isolated from
the other faculties of the soul, as an independent agent within an
agent. Now, the soul is a unit. Consciousness and Scripture
alike teach us that man is the free, responsible agent. By this
dissociation of the volitional faculty from the moral dispositions
and desires the volitions can have no moral character. By its
dissoeiation from the reason the volitions can have no rational

CONDITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY. 265
character. Since they are not determined by the inward state of
the man himself, they must be fortuitous, and beyond his contiol.
He can not be free if his will is independent alike of his head and
his heart, and he ought not to be held responsible. — See Bib. Rep.,
January, 1857, Art. V.
11. What are the essential conditions of moral responsi
bility ?
See above, Chapter XIV., question 7.
12. Why is a man responsible for his outward actions ; why
for his volitions ; why for his affections and desires ; and prove
that he is responsible for his affections ?
" A man is responsible for his outward acts, because they are
determined by the will ; he is responsible for his volitions, be
cause they are » determined by his own principles and feelings
(desires) ; he is responsible for his principles and feelings, because
of their inherent nature as good or bad, and because they are
his own and constitute his character." — Bib. Rep., January, 1857,
p. 130. It is the teaching of Scripture and the universal judgment of
men, that " a good man out of the good treasures of his heart
bringeth forth that which is good," and that a " wicked man
out of the evil treasures of his heart bringeth forth that which is
evil." The act derives its moral character from the S/tate of the
heart from which it springs, and a man is responsible for the
moral state of his heart, whether that state be innate, formed by
regenerating grace or acquired by himself, because, 1st, of the
obliging nature of moral right, and the ill desert of sin ; 2d,
because a man's affections and desires are himself loving or
refusing that which is right. It is the judgment of all, that a
profane or malignant man is to be reprobated, no matter how he
became so.
13. What is the distinction between liberty and ability ?
Liberty consists in the power of the agent to will as he pleases,
in the fact that the volition is determined only by the character
of the agent willing. Ability consists in the power of the agent
to change his own subjective state, to make himself prefei

266 FREE AGENCY.
what he does not prefer, and to act in a given case in opposi
tion to the coexistent desires and preferences of the agent's own
heart. Thus man is as truly free since the fall as before it, because
he wills as his e ril heart pleases. But he has lost all ability to
obey the law of God, because his evil heart is not subject to that
law, neither can he change it.
14. But may not an unregenerate man truly desire to obey
the law of God ; and, if so, why does not that desire control his
will ?
An unregenerate man often does heartily desire to avoid the
penalty of God's law, and consequently, through fear of the con
sequences of his sin, may be said to desire to eradicate the preva
lent principle of sin from his heart. He may even, as a matter
of taste smd judgment, desire to obey the law of God in certain
particulars wherein that law does not directly oppose his domi
nant dispositions. But no unregenerate man can love holiness
for its own sake, and earnestly desire to fulfill the whole law of
God in the spirit as well as the letter ; for if he did so, the law
in his case would be fulfilled.
15. What are the Pelagian and the Arminian theories as to
the ability of the sinner to obey the commands of God ?
The Pelagian doctrine is that it is the essence of liberty that
the sinner is as free to cease from sin as to continue it. That
man consequently is as able now to obey God's law perfectly as
Adam was before he fell, and hence that regeneration is the sin
ner's act of simply ceasing to do evil, and commencing to do well.
The Arminian view is that man, by nature and of himself,
is utterly unable to change his own depraved heart, or to obey
the law of ,God, or savingly to receive the gospel, yet that God,
for Christ's sake, gives to every man sufficient grace, if improved,
to enable him to do all that he is responsible for doing. With
out grace no man has ability to obey, with grace every man has
ability either to obey or disobey. — Apol. Conf. Remonstr., p. 162., b.
16. What distinction is intended by the theological terms
natural and moral ability?

NATURAL AND MORAL ABILITY. 267
By natural ability was intended the possession, on the part of
every responsible moral agent, whether holy or unholy, of all the
natural faculties, as reason, conscience, free will, requisite to en
able him to obey God's law. If any of these were absent, the agent
would not be responsible. — Edwards on the Will, Part I., 6ec. 4.
By moral ability was intended that inherent moral condition
of these faculties, that righteous disposition of heart requisite to
the performance of duty.
Although these terms have been often used by orthodox writers
in a sense which to them expressed the truth, yet they have often
been abused, and are not desirable. It is evidently an abuse of
the word to say that sinners are naturally able, but morally un
able to obey the law ; for that can be no ability which leaves the
sinner, as the Scriptures declare, utterly unable either to think,
feel or act aright. Besides the word natural, in the phrase
" natural ability," is .used in an unusual sense, as opposite to
moral, while in the usual sense of that word it is declared in
Scripture that man is by nature, i. e., naturally, a child of wrath.
17. State the common doctrine of the church as to the inability
of the sinner to obey the law of God, or to accept the gospel, and
state how far it is natural and how far moral ?
All men possess those faculties of their nature essential to
constitute them rational, and moral, and free agents, and there
fore all that is necessary to render them responsible for their obe-
. dience to God's law. But the moral state of these faculties is
such, because of the perverted dispositions of their hearts, that
they are utterly, unable either to will or to do what the law
requires. This inability is " natural" since it is innate and consti
tutional. It is " moral" since it does not consist either in disease,
or in any physical defect in the soul, nor merely in the inordinate
action of the bodily affections, but in the corrupt character of the
governing dispositions of the heart. % This inability is total, and,
as far as human strength goes, irremediable. — Confession of Faith,
Chap. IX., sec. 3. Article X. of Church of England, and Article
XVIII. of Augsburg Conf.
18. Prove the fact of this inability from Scripture.
Jer. xiii., 23; Johnvi. 44, 65; xv., 5; Rom. ix., 16; 1 Cor. ii., 14

268 ABILITY.
19. How may the fact of this inability be proved from our
consciousness and experience ?
Consciousness teaches us that while the dispositions and de
sires determine the volitions, no volition can change" the character
of the governing dispositions and desires of our hearts themselves.
Our experience teaches us that while many men have, for outside
considerations of self-interest, desired to serve God, and there
fore have endeavored to change their inherent evil dispositions,
they have always entirely failed in such effort. A specific evil
habit may be abandoned, but the disposition to sin remains, and
always breaks forth with renewed violence under some other form
20. How may it be proved from what the Scriptures say
concerning human depravity, and the necessity of a divine influ
ence in order to salvation ?
The Scriptures declare that by nature all men, without excep
tion', are dead in sin. That the affections are depraved. That .
the wicked man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth
that which is evil. Christ died for us while we were without
strength. Sinners are the servants of sin. Men are said to be
subject to Satan, led about by him at his will.
The change accomplished in regeneration is said to be, not a
mere change of purpose, but a " new birth," a " new creation," a
"begetting anew," a "giving a new heart," the result is the
" workmanship of God." Christ gives repentance to Israel. All
Christian graces are the fruits of the Spirit. The work in us is
accomplished by the iC exceeding greatness of the mighty power of
God."— Eph. L, 18-20 ; John iii., 3-8 ;' Rom. viii., 2 ; Gal. v., 17.
21. How can the fact of man's inability be reconciled with his
responsibility ?
It is objected that " a man can not be justly responsible for
doing that which he is unable to do." This maxim is self-
evidently true when the inability arises either from the absence
of the natural faculties proper to the agent, or from the want of
opportunity to "use them. Neither an idiot, nor a man devoid of
the rudiments of a moral sense, nor a man whose volitions were
not determined by the genuine disposition of his own heart, would
be responsible.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 269
But, on the other hand, it is just as clearly a matter of uni
versal consciousness that when the cause of inability consists iu
the absence of the proper moral dispositions, that inability, in
stead of being inconsistent with responsibility, is the very ground
of righteous condemnation. No matter whence the malignant oi
the profane disposition comes, whether innate or acquired, all
men judge, 1st, that the stronger they are the less is the agent's
ability to change them ; yet, 2d, that the stronger they are the
greater ,is the agent's ill desert on their account.
22. How can man's inability be reconciled with the commands,
. promises, and threatenings of God ?
God righteously deals with the sinner according to the mea
sure of his responsibility, and not according to the measure of his
sinful inability. It would have been a compromise altogether
unworthy of God to have lowered his demands in proportion to
man's sin. Besides, under the gospel dispensation, God makes
use of his commands, promises, and threatenings, as gracious
means, under the influence of his Spirit, to enlighten the minds,
quicken the consciences, and to sanctify the hearts of men.
23. How can man's inability be shown to be consistent with
the ratiqnal use of means ?
The efficiency of all means lies in the power of God, and noi
in the ability of man. God has established a connection between
Certain means and the ends desired ; he has commanded us to
use them, and has promised to bless them ; and human experi
ence has proved God's faithfulness to his engagements, and the
instrumental connection between the means and the end.
24. What are the legitimate, practical effects of this doctrine i
This dreadful fact ought to lead us to feel, 1st, with respect
to ourselves, humility, and self-despair. 2d. With respect to God,
sincere gratitude and perfect confidence. And, 3d, to the prac
tice of constant circumspection lest we grieve the Holy Spirit, and
be left to our own helplessness.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
1. What is the New Testament usage of the term SiaO^Kn ?
This word occurs thirty-three times in the New Testament,
and is almost uniformly translated covenant when it refers to the
dealings of God with his ancient church, and testament when it
refers to his dealings with his church under the gospel dispensa
tion. Its fundamental sense is that of disposition, arrangement ;
in the classics generally that specific form of arrangement or dis
position called a testament, which sense, however, it properly
bears in but one passage in the New Testament, viz., Heb. ix.,
16, 17. Although it is never used to designate that eternal cov
enant of grace which the Father made with the Son as the second
Adam, in behalf of his people, yet it always designates either the
old or the new dispensation, i. e., mode of administration of that
changeless covenant, or some special covenant which Christ has
formed with his people in the way of administering the covenant
of grace, e. g., the covenants with Abraham and with David.
Thus the disposition made by God with the ancient church
through Moses, the Old contrasted in' the New Testament with
the New Siad-qKn (Gal. iv., 24), was really a covenant, both civil
and religious, formed between Jehovah and the Israelites, yet
alike in its legal element, " which was added because of trans
gressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise, was
made," and in its symbolical and typical element teaching of
Christ, it was in a higher view a dispensation, or mode of admin
istration of the covenant of grace. So also the present gospel
disposition introduced by Christ assumes the form of a covenant
between him and his people, including many gracious promises,
suspended on conditions, yet it is evidently in its highest aspect'

USAGE OF diadrjicw. 271
that mode of administering the changeless covenant of grace,
which is called the "new and better dispensation," in contrast
with the comparatively imperfect " old and first dispensation" of
that same covenant. — See 2 Cor. iii., 14 ; Heb. viii., 6., 8, 9, 10 ;
ix., 15 ; Gal. iv., 24.
The present dispensation of the covenant of grace by our Sa
viour, in one respect, evidently bears a near analogy to a will or
testamentary disposition, since it dispenses blessings which could
be fully enjoyed only after, and by means of his death. Conse
quently Paul uses the word 5iaQr\«.r\ in one single passage, to des-.
ignate the present dispensation of the covenant of grace in this
interesting aspect of it. — Heb. ix., 16, 17. Yet since the various
dispensations of that eternal covenant are always elsewhere in
Scripture represented under the form of. special 'administrative
covenants, and not under the form of testaments, it is to be re
gretted that our translators have so frequently rendered this term
diaBrjun, by the specific word testament, instead of the word cove
nant, or by the more general word dispensation. — See 1 Cor. hi.,
6, 14 ; Gal. iii., 15 ; Heb. vii., 22 ; xii., 24 ; xiii., 20
2. What are the three views as to the parties in the covenant
of grace held by Calvinists ?
These differences do not in the least involve the- truth of any
doctrine taught in the Scriptures, but concern only the form in
which that truth may be more or less clearly presented.
1st. The first view regards the covenant of grace as made by
God with elect sinners. God promising to save sinners as such
on the condition of faith, they, when converted, promising faith
and obedience. Christ in this view is not one of the parties to
the covenant, but its Mediator in behalf of his elect, and their
surety, i. e., he guarantees that all the conditions demanded of
them shall be fulfilled by them through his grace.
2d. The second view supposes two covenants, the first, called
the covenant of redemption, formed from eternity between the
Father and the Son as parties. The Son promising tp obey and
suffer, the Father promising to give him a people and to grant
them in him all spiritual blessings and eternal life. The second,
called the covenant_ofjra.ee, formed!^ Godj^ritiijhe^kct as
parties, Christ beingjnediator and surety in behalf of his people.

272" THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
3d. As there are two Adams set forth in the Scripture, the
one representing the entire race in an economy of nature, and the
other representing the whole body of the elect in an economy of
grace, it appears more simple to regard as the foundation of all
God's dealings with mankind of whatever class only the two great
contrasted covenants of works, and of grace. The former made
by God at the creation of the world with Adam, as the federal
head and representative of all his posterity. Of the promises,
conditions, penalty, and issue of that covenant I have spoken
under a former head, see Chapter XV. The latter, or covenant
of grace, formed in the counsels of eternity between the Father
and the Son as contracting parties, the Son therein contracting
as the second Adam, representing all his people as their mediator
and surety, assuming their place and undertaking all their obli
gations, under the unsatisfied covenant of works, and undertaking
to apply to them all the benefits secured by this eternal cqvenant
of grace, and to secure the performance upon their part of all
those duties which are involved therein. Thus in one aspect this
covenant may be viewed as contracted with the head for the sal
vation of the members, and in another as contracted with the
members in their head and sponsor. For that which is a grace
from God is a duty upon our part, as St. Augustin prayed, " Da
quod jubes, et jubes quod vis ;" and hence results this complex
view of the covenant. .
As embraced under one or other of these two great covenants
of works or of grace, every man in the world stands in God's
sight. It is to be remembered, however, that in the several dis-
pensatio.ns, or modes of administration of theeternaL covenant of
grace, Christ has contracted various special covenants with his
people, as administrative provisions for carrying put the engage
ments, and for applying to them the benefits of his covenant with
the Father. Thus, the covenant of Jehovah (the Second Person,
see above, Chapter VIII., question 12,) with Noah, the second
natural head of the human family, Gen. ix., 11, 15. The cove
nant with Abraham, the typical believer, bearing the visible sign
and seal of circumcision, and thus founding the visible church as
an aggregate of families. This covenant continues to be the char
ter of the visible church to this day, the sacraments of baptism
and the Lord's supper now attached to it, signifying and sealing

FACT PROVED. 273
the benefits of the covunant of grace, to wit, eternal life, faith,
repentance, obedience, etc., on God's part, as matters of promise;
on ours as matters of duty, i. e., so far as they are to be performed
by ourselves. Compare Gen. xvii., 9-13, with Gal. iii., 15-17.
The national covenant with the Jews, then constituting the visi
ble church, Ex. xxxiv., 27. The covenant with David, the type
of Christ as Mediatorial King, 2 Sam. vii., 15, 16 ; 2 Chron. vii.,
18. The universal offers of the gospel during the present dispen
sation, alsOj are presented in the form of a covenant. Salvation
is offered to all. on the condition of faith, but faith is God's gift
secured for and promised to the elect, and when given exercised
by them. Every believer, when brought to the knowledge of the
truth, enters into a covenant with his Lord, which he renews in
all acts of faith and prayer. But these special covenants all and
several are provisions for the administration of the eternal cove
nant of grace, and are designed solely to convey the benefits
therein secured to those to whom they belong.
For the statements of our standards upon this subject, com
pare, Confession of Faith, Chapter VII., Section 3, with L. Cat.,
question 31.
3. Prove from Scriptures that there is a covenant of grace
between the Father and Son providing for the redemption of
men. 1st. The Scriptures declare the existence of the promise and
conditions of such a covenant, and present them in connection. —
Isa. liii., 10, 11.
2d. The Scriptures expressly affirm the existence of such a
covenant. — Isa. xiii., 6 ; Ps. lxxxix., 3.
3d. Christ makes constant reference to a previous commission
he had received of his Father. — John x., 18 ; Luke xxii., 29.
4th. Christ claims a reward which had been conditioned upon
the fulfillment of that commission. — John xvii., 4.
5th. Christ constantly asserts that his people and his expected
glory are given to him as a reward by his Father. — John xvii., 6,
9, 24 ; Phil, ii., 6-11.
4. Who were the parties to this covenant of grace ; what

274 ¦« THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
were its promises or conditions on the part of the Father ; and
what its conditions on the part' of the Son ?
1st. The contracting parties were the Father representing the
entire Godhead in its indivisible sovereignty ; and, on the othei
hand, God the Son, as Mediator, representing all his elect people,
and as administrator of the covenant, standing their surety for their
performance of all those duties which were involved on their part.
2d. The conditions upon the part of the Father were, (1.) all
needful preparation, Heb. x., 5 ; Isa. xlii., 1-7 ; (2.) support
in his work, Luke xxii., 43 ; (3.) a glorious reward, first in the
exaltation of his theanthropic person " above every name that is
named," Phil, ii., 6-11, and the universal dominion committed tp
him as Mediator, John v., 22 ; Ps. ex., 1 ; and in committing to
his hand the administration of all the provisions of the covenant
of grace in behalf of all his people, Matt, xxviii., 18 ; John i., 12 ;
xvii., 2 ; vii., 39 ; Acts ii., 33 ; and, secondly, in the salvation
of all those for whom he acted, including the provisions of regene
ration, justification, sanctification, perseverance, and glory, Titus
L, 2 ; Jer. xxxi., 33 ; xxxii., 40 ; Isa. xxxv., 10 ; liii., 10, 11. — •
Dicks' Theo. Lee, Vol, I., pp. 506-509.
3d. The conditions upon the part of the Son were, (1.) that
he should become incarnate, made of a woman, made under the
law, Gal. iv., 4, 5 ; (2.) that he should assume and fully dis
charge, in behalf of his elect, all violated conditions and incurred
liabilities of the covenant of works, Matt, v., 17, 18, which he
was to accomplish, first, by rendering to the precept of the law a
perfect obedience, Ps. xl., 8 ; Isa. xlii., 21 ; John ix., 4, 5 ; viii.,
29 ; Matt, xix., 17 ; and, secondly, in suffering the full penalty
incurred by the sins of his people. — Isa. liii. ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Gal.
iii., 13 ; Eph. v., 2.
5. In what sense is Christ said to be the mediator of the cove
nant of grace ?
Christ is mediator of the eternal covenant Pf grace because,
1st. As the one mediator between God and man, he contracted
it. 2d. As- mediator, he fulfills all its conditions in behalf of his
people. 3d. As mediator, he administers it and dispenses all its
blessings. 4th. In all this, Christ was not a mere, mediatorial
interauntius, as .Moses is called (Gal. iii., 19), but he was medi-

MEDIATOR OF THE COVENANT. 275
ator (1.) plenipotentiary (Matt, xxviii., 18), and (2.) as high
priest who actually effects reconciliation by sacrifice (Rom. iii., 25).
5th. The phrase jj.eairr]g diadrjicrjg, mediator of the covenant, is ap
plied to Christ three times in the New Testament (Heb. viii.,
6 ; ix., 15 ; xii., 24) ; but as in each case the term for covenant
is qualified by either the adjective " new" or " better," it evi
dently here is used to designate not the covenant of grace prop
erly, but that new dispensation of that eternal covenant which
Christ introduced in, person in contrast to the less perfect admin
istration of it wlfich was instrumentally introduced by Moses.*
In the general administration of the covenant of grace, Christ has
acted as sacerdotal mediator from the foundation of the world
(Rev. xiii., 8). On the other hand, the first or " old dispensa
tion," or special mode of administering that covenant visibly
among men, was instrumentally, and as to visible form, " or
dained by angels in the hand of a mediator,", i. e., Moses (Gal.
iii., 19). It is precisely in contradistinction to this relation which
Moses sustained to the outward revelation of those symbolical
and typical institutions, through which the covenant of grace was
then administered, that the superior excellence of the " new" and
"better" dispensation is declared to consist in this, that now
Christ the " Son in his own house" visibly discloses himself as
the true mediator in the spiritual and personal administration of
his covenant. Hence he who from the beginning was the " one
mediator between God and man" (1 Tim., ii., 5) now is revealed
as in way of eminence, the mediator and surety of that eternal
covenant under the " new" and " better" dispensation of it, since
now he is rendered visible in the fullness of his spiritual graces, as
the immediate administrator thereof, whereas under the " first"
and " old" dispensation he was hidden. — See Sampson's Com. on
Hebrews. 6. In what sense is Christ said to be surety of the covenant
of grace ?
In the only instance in which the term surety is applied to
Christ in the New Testament (Heb. vii., 22), " surety of a better
testament," the word translated testament evidently is designed
to designate the new dispensation of the cov enant of grace, as
contrasted with the .old. Paul is contrasting the priesthood of

276 THE .COVENANT OF GRACE.
Christ with the Levitical. He is priest or surety after a higher
order, under a clearer revelation, and a more real and direct ad
ministration of grace, than were the typical priests descended
from Aaron. Christ is our surety at once as priest and as king.
As priest because, as such, fie assumes and discharges all our ob
ligations under the broken covenant of works. As king, (the
two in him are inseparable, he is always a royal priest,) because,
as such, he administers the blessings of his covenant to his peo
ple, and to this end entering into covenants with them, offering
them grace upon the condition of faith and obedience, and then,
as their surety, giving them the graces of faith and obedience,
that they may fulfill their part..
7. What general method has characterized Christ's adminis
tration of his covenant under all dispensations ?
The purchased benefits of the covenant are placed in Christ's
hand, to be bestowed upon his people as free and sovereign gifts.
From Christ to us they are all gifts, but from us to Christ many
of them are duties. Thus,. in the. adminislration_ofltha covenant
of grace, many of these purchased blessings,_which are to take
effect in our acts, e. g., faith, etc., he demands _p.f, us as duties,
and promises otfier benefits as a reward conditioned on our pbe-
dience. Thus, so to speak, fie rewards grace with grace, and con
ditions grace upon grace. Promising faith to his elect, then
working faith in them, then rewarding them for its exercise with
peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, and eternal life,
etc., etc.
8. What is the Arminian view of the covenant of grace ?
They hold, 1st, as to the parties of the covenant, of grace, that
God offers it to all men, and that 'he actually contracts it with all
believers. 2d. As to its promises, that they include all the tem
poral and eternal benefits of Christ's redemption. 3d. As to its
conditions, that God now graciously accepts faith and evangelical
obedience for righteousness, in the place of that perfect legal obe
dience he demanded of man under the covenant of works, the
meritorious work of Christ making it consistent with the princi
ples of divine justice for him so to do. They regard all men
as rendered by sufficient grace capable of fulfilling such conditions,
if they will

ONE FROM THE BEGINNING. " 277
9. In what sense can faith be called a condition of salvation ?
Faith is a condition sine qua non of salvation, i. e., no adult
man can be saved if he does not believe, and every man that does
believe shall be saved. It is, however, a gift of God and the first
part or stage of salvation. Viewed on God's side it is the be
ginning and index of his saving work in us. Viewed on our side
it is our duty, and must be our own act. It is, therefore, as our
act, the instrument of our union with Christ, and thus the neces
sary antecedent, though never the meritorious cause of the graci
ous salvation which follows.
10. What are the promises which Christ, as the administra
tor of the covenant of grace, makes to all those who believe ?
The promise to Abraham to be a " God to him and to his
seed after him" (Gen. xvii., 7) embraces all others. All things
alike, physical and moral, in providence and grace, for time and
eternity, are to work together for our good. " All are yours, and
ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." — 1 Cor. iii., 22, 23.
11. Prove that Christ was mediator of men before as well as
after his advent in the flesh.
1st. As mediator he is both priest and sacrifice, and as such
it is affirmed that he is the " Lamb slain from the foundation of
the earth," and a " propitiation for the sins that are past." — Rev.
xiii., 8 ; Rom. iii., 25 ; Heb. ix., 15.
' 2d. He was promised to Adam, Gen. iii., 15.
3d. In the 3d chapter of Gal. Paul proves that the promise
made to Abraham, Gen. xvii., 7, xxii., 18, is the very same gos
pel that the apostle himself preached. Thus Abraham became
the father of those that believe.
4th. Acts x., 43, " To him give all the prophets witness, that
through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall receive re
mission of sin." — See 53d chap, of Is., also chap, xlii., 6.
5th. The ceremonial institutions of Moses were symbolical
and typical of Christ's work ; as symbols they signified Christ's
merit and grace to the ancient worshiper for his present salvation,
while as types they prophesied the substance which was'to come. —
Heb. x., 1-10 ; Col. ii., 17.

278 THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
6th. Christ was the. Jehovah of the old dispensation. — See
above, Chap. VIII., question 12.
12. Prove that faith was the condition of salvation before the
advent of Christ, in the same sense that it is now ?
1st. This is affirmed in the Old Testament, Hab. ii., 4 ; Ps.
ii., 12. 2d. The New Testament writers illustrate their doctrine of
justification by faith by the examples of Old Testament be
Uevers. — See Rom. iv., and Heb. xi.
13, Show that Christ, as administrator of the covenant of
grace, gave to the members of the Old Testament church pre
cisely the same promises that he does to us.
1st. The promises given to Christ's ancient people clearly em
brace all spiritual and eternal blessings, e. g., the promise given
to Abraham, Gen. xvii., 7, as expounded by Christ, Matt, xxii.,
32, and the promise given to Abraham, Gen. xxii., 18 ; xii. 3 ;
as expounded by Paul, Gal. iii., 16 ; see also Is. xliii., 25 ; Ezek.
xxxvi., 27 ; Dan. xii., 2, 3.
2d. This is plain also from the expectation and prayers of
God's people, 51st Ps. and 16th Ps ; Job xix., 24-27 ; Ps. Ixxiii.,
24-26. 14. How was the covenant of grace administered from Adam .
to Abraham ?
1st. By promise, Gen. iii., 15.
2d By means of typical sacrifices instituted in the family of
Adam. 3d. By means of immediate revelations and appearances of the
Jehovah, or divine mediator to his people. Thus " the Lord" is
-represented throughout the first eleven chapters of Genesis as
"speaking" to men. That these promises and sacrifices were
then understood in their true spiritual intent is proved by Paul,
Heb. xi., 4-7. And that this administration of the covenant of
grace reached many of the people of the earth, during this era, is
proved by the history of Job in Arabia, of Abraham in Mesopo
tamia, and of Melchisedec in Canaan.

" MOSAIC DISPENSATION. 279
1,5. How was it administered from Abraham to Moses ?
1st. The promise given during the preceding perfod, (Gen. iii.,
15,) is now renewed in the form of a more definite covenant, re
vealing the coming Saviour as in the line of Abraham's posterity
through Isaac, and the interest of the whole world in his salva
tion is more fully set forth, Gen. xvii., 7 ; xxii., 18. This was
the gospel preached beforehand, Gal. iii., 8.
2d. Sacrifices were continued as before.
3d. The church, or company of believers, which existed from
the beginning in its individual members, was now formed into a
general^body_as_anaggregate of families, by the institution of
circumcision, as a visiblVsymboTof' the benefits of the covenant \\
of grace, and as a badge of church membership.
16. What was the true nature of the covenant made by God
with the Israelites through Moses ?
It may be regarded in three aspects —
1st. As a_national and political nnyp.TTa.Titj whereby, in a po- i
litical sense, they became his people, under IuVtheocratical_gov-
ernment, and in this peculiar sense he became their God. The
church and the state were identical. In one aspect the whole
system had reference to this relation.
2d. It was in one aspect a legaicovenant, because the moral
law, obedience to which wasthecon3itioii~of the .covenant of
works, was prominently set forth, and conformity to thisjaw was
made the condition of God's^favor^and^X^T^tional blessings.
Even the ceremonial system in its merely literal, and apart from
its symbolical aspect, was also a rule of works, for cursed was he
that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. — Deut.
xxvii., 26.
3d. But in the symbolical and typical significance of all the
Mosaic institutions, they wsrej^learer jind. fuller^evelation_of
the provisipjM_of_Jie_covenant of grace than had ever before
been made. This PauT~abundantiy~proves throughout the
Epistle to the Hebrews. — Hodge on Romans.
17. What are the characteristic differences between the dis
pensation of the covenant of grace under the law of Moses and
after the advent of Christ ?

280 THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
These differences, of course, relate only to the mode of admin
istration, and not to the matter of the truth revealed, nor of the
grace administered. 1st. The truth was then signified by sym
bols, which, at the same time, were types of the real atonement
for sin afterwards to be made. Now the truth is revealed in the
plain gospel history. 2d. That revelation was less full as well
as less clear. 3d. It was so encumbered with ceremonies as to be
comparatively a carnal dispensation. The present dispensation is
spiritual. 4th. It was confined to one people. The present dis
pensation, disembarrassed from all national organizations, em
braces the whole earth. 5th. The former method of administra
tion was evidently preparatory to the present, which is final.

CHAPTER XX.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
1. How can it be proved that the promised Messiah of the
Jeivish Scriptures has already come, and that Jesus Christ is
that person ?
We prove that he must have already come by showing that
the conditions of time and circumstances, which the prophets
declare should mark his advent, are no longer possible. We
prove, secondly, that Jesus of Nazareth was that person by show
ing that every one of those conditions was fulfilled in him.
2. Prove (hat Gen. xlix., 10, refers to the Messiah, and show
how it proves that the Messiah must have already come.
The original word, translated shiloh, signifies peace, and is
applied to the Messiah. (Compare Micah v., 2, 5, with Matt, ii.,
6.) Besides, it is only to the Messiah that the gathering of the
nations is to be, see Isa. Iv., 5 ; lx., 3 ; Hag. ii., 7. The Jews,
moreover, have always understood this passage as referring to the
Messiah. Up to the time of the birth of Jesus Christ the sceptre and
the lawgiver did remain with Judah ; but seventy years after his
birth, at the destruction of Jerusalem, they finally departed. If
the advent of the Messiah had not occurred previously this pro.
phecy is false.
3. Do the same with reference to the prophecy of Dan. ix.,
24-27. This prophecy refers expressly to the Messiah, and to his
peculiar and exclusive work. That the seventy weeks here men
tioned are to be interpreted weeks of years is certain, 1st, from

282 THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
the fact that it was the Jewish custom so to divide time ; 2d,
from the fact that this was precisely the common usage of the
prophetical books, see Ezek. iv., 6 ; Rev. xii. 6 ; xiii., 5 ; 3d,
from the fact that the literal application of the language as seventy
common weeks is impracticable.
The prophecy is, that seven weeks of years, or forty-nine years
from the end of the captivity, the city would be rebuilt. That
sixty-two weeks of years, or four hundred and thirty-four years
after the rebuilding of the city, the Messiah should appear, and
that during the period of one week of years he should confirm the
'covenant, and in the midst of the week be cut off.
There is some doubt as to the precise date from which the
calculation ought to commence. The greatest difference, however,
is only ten years, and the most probable date causes the pro
phecy to coincide precisely with the history of Jesus Christ.
4. What prophecies, relating to the time, place, and circum
stances of the birth of the Messiah, have been fulfilled in Jesus of
Nazareth ? • ,
As to time, it was predicted that he should come before the
sceptre departed from Judah, (Gen. xlix., 10,) at the end of four
hundred and ninety years after the going forth of the command to
rebuild Jerusalem, and while the second temple was still stand
ing. — Hag. ii., 9 ; Mai. iii., 1.
As to place and circumstances, he was to be born in Beth
lehem, (Micah v., 2,) of the tribe of Judah, of the family of Da
vid, Jer. xxiii., 5-6. He was to be born of a virgin, Isa. vii., 14;
and to be preceded by a forerunner, Mai. iii., 1. All these met
in Jesus Christ, and can never again be fulfilled in another, since
the genealogies of tribes and families have been lost.
5. What remarkable characteristics of the Messiah, as de
scribed in the Old Testament, were verified in our Saviour ?
He was to be a king and conqueror of universal empire, Ps. ii.,
6, and ^Ps. xiv. ; Isa. ix , 6, 7 ; and yet despised and rejected, a
man of sorrow, a prisoner, pouring forth his soul unto death, Isa;
liii. He was to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, and under his
administration the moral condition of the whole earth was to be
changed, Isa. xlii., 6 ; xlix., 6 ; lx., 1-7. His death was to be

JESPS CHRIST THE MESSIAH. 283
vicarious, Isa. liii., 5, 9, 12. He was to enter the city riding upon
an ass, Zech. ix., 9. He was to be sold for thirty pieces of silver,
and his price purchase a potter's field, Zech. xi., 12, 13. His
garments were to be parted by lot, Ps. xxii., 18. They were to
give him vinegar to drink, Ps. Ixix., 21. The very words he was
to utter on the cross are predicted, Ps. xxii., 1 ; also that he
should be pierced, Zech. xii., 10; and make his. grave with the
wicked and with the rich, Isa. liii., 9. — See Dr. Alexander's Evi
dences of Christianity.
6. What peculiar work was the Messiah to accomplish, which
has been performed by Christ ?
All his mediatorial offices were predicted in substance. He
was to do the work of a prophet, (Is. xlii., 6 ; lx., 3,) and that
of a priest, (Is. liii., 10,) to make reconciliation for sin, (Dan. ix.,
24.) As king, he was to administer the several dispensations of
his kingdom, closing one and introducing another, sealing up the
vision and prophecy, causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease
(Dan. ix., 24), and setting up a kingdom that should never cease
(Dan. ii., 44). ¦
7. What are the three points involved in the true doctrine of
the person of Christ as the incarnate Son of God ?
1st. The absolute divinity of Christ as the eternal Son of God,
the second person of the Trinity. 2d. The perfect manhood of
Christ ; the presence in his divine person of a true body and a
reasonable soul, which, beginning to exist only in union with the
Godhead, never had a distinct personal subsistence. 3d. The
person, therefore, is the eternal Son of God, into which person
ality has been assumed, and in which is ever more sustained a
perfect human nature ; so that he ever more continues one per
son, constituted of two entire and distinct natures.
8. How may it be proved that Christ is really a man ?
He is called man, 1 Tim., ii., 5. His most common title is
Son of Man, Matt, xiii., 37, also seed of the woman, Gen. iii.,
15 ; the seed ,of Abraham, Acts iii., 25 ; Son of David, and fruit
of his loins, Luke L, 32 ; made of a woman, Gal. iv., 4. He

284 THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
had a body, ate, drank, slept, and increased in stature, Luke ii.,
52 ; and through a life of thirty-three years was recognized by all
men as a. true man. He died in agony on the cross,, was buried,
rose, and proved his identity by physical signs, Luke- xxiv.,
36-44. He had a reasonable soul, for he increased in wisdom.
He exercised the common feelings of our nature, he groaned in
Bpirit and was troubled, he wept, John xi., 33, 35. He loved
Martha and Mary, and the disciple that Jesus loved leaned upon
his bosom, John xiii., 23.
The absolute divinity of Christ has been proved above, Chap.
VIII. 9. How may it be proved that both these natures constituted
but one person ?
In many passages both natures are referred to, when it is evi
dent that only one person was intended (Phil, ii., 6-11). In
many passages both natures are set forth as united. It is never
affirmed that divinity abstractly, or a divine power, was united
to, or manifested in a human nature, but of the divine nature
concretely, that a divine being was united to a human being. — .
Heb. ii., 11-14 ; 1 Tim., iii., 16 ; GaL iv., 4 ; Rom. viii., 3, and
i., 3, 4 ; ix., 5 ; John L, 14 ; 1 John, iv., 3.
The union of two natures in one person is also clearly taught
by those passages in which the attributes of one nature are predi
cated of the person, while that person is designated by a title
derived from the other nature. Thus human attributes and
actions are predicated of Christ in certain passages, while the
person of whom these attributes or actions are predicated is design
nated by a divine title. — Acts xx., 28 ; Rom. viii.,, 32 ; 1 Cor.,
ii., 8 ; Matt. L, 23 ; Luke L, 31, 32 ; Col. L, 13, 14.
On the other hand, in other passages, divine attributes and
actions are predicated of Christ, while his person, of whom those
attributes are predicated, is designated by a human title. — John
iii., 13 ; vi., 62 ; Rom. ix., 5 ; Rev. v., 12.
10. What is the general principle upon which those passages
are to be explained which designate the person of Christ from ,
one nativre, and predicate attributes to it belonging to the other?
The person of Christ, constituted of two natures, is one per-

HIS HUMAN, NATURE — HOW AFFECTED. 285
son. He may therefore indifferently be designated by divine or
human titles, and both divine and human attributes may be truly
predicated of him. He is still God when he dies, and still man
when he raises his people from their graves.
Mediatorial actions pertain to both natures. It must be re
membered, however, that while the person is one, the natures are
distinct as such. What belongs to either nature is attributed t®
the one person to which both belong, but what is peculiar to one
nature is never attributed to the other. God, i. e., the divine
person who is at once God and man, gave his blood for his church,
i. e., died as to his human nature (Acts xx., 28). But human
attributes or actions are never asserted of Christ's divine nature,
nor are divine attributes or actions ever asserted of his human
nature. 11. What were the effects of this personal union upon the di
vine nature of Christ ?
His divine nature being eternal and immutable, and of course
incapable of addition, remained unaffected by this union. The
whole immutable divine essence continued tp subsist as the same
eternal person. That divine person now embraced a perfect hu
man nature, exalted by, yet dependent upon, the divine nature, to
which it is united.
12. What were the effects of that union upon his human na
ture ?
The human nature, being perfect after its kind, began to exist
in union with the divine nature, and as one constituent of the
divine person, and as such it ever continues distinct and uncon-
founded. The effect of this, union upon Christ's human nature, therer
fore, was not so much change as exaltation of all natural and
possible human excellence, in degree above every other creature,
John L, 14 ; iii., 34 ; Is. xi., 2 ; together with an unparalleled
exaltation of outward dignity and glory, above every name that
is named, and a community of honor and worship with the di
vinity in virtue of its union therewith in the one divine person.
13. How far is the human -nature of Christ included in the
worship due to him ?

286 THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
We must distinguish between the object and the grounds of
worship. There can be no proper ground of worship except the
possession of divine attributes. The object of worship is not the
divine excellence in the abstract, but the divine person of whom
that.excellence is an attribute. The God-man, consisting of two
natures, is to be worshiped in the perfection of his entire person,
because only of his divine attributes.
14. If Christ had, a reasonable soul how can we escape the
conviction that he was a human person ?
It is indeed a great mystery that the unity of personality
should remain in the God-man, while there are two centers of
consciousness, an infinite knowing on the one hand, and a finite
knowing on the other, and two distinct though ever harmonious
wills. The fact, however, that a God took, not a man, but a
human nature into his eternal personality, is clearly revealed in
Scripture. The one person in both God and man. The mystery
remains for the exercise of our faith.
15. What were the principle heresies which obtained in the
early church concerning the constitution of Christ's person ?
1st. The Manichaaan heresy, disseminated by Manes, one of
the converted Magi, who, during the third century taught a
mixed system of religious philosophy, adapting the historical facts
of Christianity to the peculiar principles of the Persian philoso
phy. He taught that Christ and the Holy Ghost were immediate
emanations from the eternal God, superior to all creatures, and
that the Christ of history was this spiritual being, who appeared
among the Jews in the shadow or appearance of a material body,
which existed only in the perception of men". As Manes taught
that matter is essentially evil, and that Christ appeared for the
very purpose of delivering human souls from their entanglement
in matter, he necessarily also taught that Christ's human body
was only an appearance assumed for the purpose of making his
presence known to man as at present organized.
2d. The Apollinarian heresy, disseminated by Apollinaris the
younger, bishop of Laodicea, in the fourth century. He taught
the orthodox doctrine concerning the trinity, and further that the

HERETICAL OPINIONS. 287
Eternal Word, second person of the trinity, became incarnate by
taking to himself a true human body. On the other hand he
denied that Christ had a human soul, since the place of a soul in
his person was occupied by his divinity. In his view, then, the
person of Christ embraced (1.) the Eternal Word, (2.) a i/w%??, or
principle of sensitive animal life ; and (3.) a true human body —
but no rational human soul.
3d. The Nestorian heresy, charged upon Nestorius, a Syrian
by-birth, and bishop of Constantinople, during the fifth century,
by his enemy, Cyril, the an-ogant bishop of Alexandria. Cyril
obtained a judgment against Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus,
A. D. 431, to the effect that he separated the two natures of
Christ so far as to teach the coexistence in him of two distinct
persons, a God and a man, intimately united. But it is now,
however, judged most probable by Protestant historians that Nes
torius was personally a brave defender of the true faith, and that
the misrepresentations of his enemies were founded only upon his
uncompromising opposition to the dangerous habit then promi
nently introduced of calling the" Virgin Mary the mother of God,
because she was the mother of the human nature of Christ.
4th. The Eutychian heresy, disseminated by Eutiches, an.
abbot of a convent in Constantinople in the fifth century, was
precisely the opposite extreme to that charged upon Nestorius.
He taught " that Christ was truly God and truly man, united in
one person, but that these two natures after their union did not
remain two distinct natures, but constituted one compound
nature." — Mosheim's Eccle. Hist.
5. While the Lutheran Church in her first standards affirm
all the points of 'the orthodox doctrine as to the constitution of
Christ's person, (see Augsburg Confession, article 3d,) yet, in
order to maintain their doctrine of consubstantiation, or the lit
eral local presence of Christ's body and blood, with, in and under
the bread and wine of the sacrament, many of her theologians
have used language on this subject very much assimilated to the
Eutychian heresy above defined. They teach that while Christ's
single person consists of two distinct natures, yet, in their union,
the human body and soul participate in divine attributes, e. g.,
his human soul participates in the omniscience, and his body in
the omnipresence of his divine nature, etc. This doctrine (com-

288 THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
municatio idiomatum) was opposed by Melancthon, but affirmed
by the Formula of Concord, generally adopted circum, 1850.
This imagination is inconsistent (1.) with the clearly revealed
fact that the two natures in Christ are distinct, i. e., that he ever
remains truly man as well as truly God. For, if his human soul
possesses divine attributes, it is no longer a human soul. (2.)
With many passages of Scripture, which directly assert that his
human nature ever continued subject to those limitations, as to
knowledge, space and time, etc., which intrinsically belong to it
as a creature, and as human. — Matt, xxviii., 5, 6 ; Mark xiii., 32 ;
Luke ii., 52 ; Acts iii., 21 ; Heb. viii., 4.
16. How can it be shown that the doctrine of the incarnation
is a fundamental doctrine of the Gospel ?
1st. This doctrine, and all the elements thereof, is set forth
in the Scriptures -with, preeminent clearness and prominence.
2d. Its truth is essentially involved in every other doctrine
of the entire system of faith ; in„every mediatorial act of Christ,
as prophet, priest and king ; in the whole history of his estate
of humiliation, and in every aspect of his estate of exaltation ;
and, above all, in the significance and value, of that vicarious sac
rifice which is the heart of the gospel. If Christ is not in the
same person both God and man, he either could not die, or his
death could not avail. If he be not man, his whole history is a
myth ; if he be not God, to worship him is idolatry, yet not to
worship him is to disobey the Father. — John v., 23.
3d. Scripture expressly declares that this doctrine is essen
tial.— 1 John, iv., 2, 3.

CHAPTER XXI.
i
MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.
1 What are the different senses of the word Mediator, and
in which of these senses is it used when applied to Christ ?
1st. In the sense of internuntius or messenger, to explain the
will and to perform the commands of one or both the contracting
parties, e. g., Moses, Gal. iii., 19.
2d. In the sense of simple advocate or intercessor, pleading
/ / the cause of the offending in the presence of the offended party.
3d. In the sense of efficient peace-maker. Christ, as Mediator,
1st, has all power and judgment committed to his hands, Matt.
xxviii., 18, and ix., 6 ; John v., 22, 25, 26, 27 ; and, 2d, he effi
ciently makes reconciliation between God and man by an all-
satisfactory expiation and meritorious obedience.
2. Why was it necessary that the Mediator should be pos
sessed both of a divine and human nature ?
1st. It was clearly necessary that the Mediator should be
God. (1.) That he might be independent, and not the mere
creature of either party, or otherwise he could not be the efficient
maker ef peace. (2.) That he might reveal God and his salva
tion to men, " For no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and
he to whom the Son will reveal him," Matt, xi., 27 ; John L, 18.
(3.) That being, as to person, above all law, and as to dignity of
nature, infinite, he might render to the law in behalf of his peo
ple a free obedience, which he did not otherwise owe for himself,
and that his obedience and suffering might possess an infinite
, , value. (4.) That he might possess the infinite wisdom, knowl
edge, and power requisite to administer the infinite realms of
providence and grace, which are committed to his hands as me
diatorial prince. 19

290 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE "OF CHRIST.
2d. It is clearly necessary that he should be man. (1.) That
he might truly represent man as the second Adam. (2.) That
he might be made under the law, in order to render obedience,
suffering, and temptation possible, Gal. iv>, 4, 5 ; Luke iv., 1-13.
(3.) " In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest,"
Heb. ii., 17, 18, and iv., 15, 16. (4.) That in his glorified hu
manity he might be the head of the glorified church, the example
and pattern to whom his jpeople are "predestined to be con
formed, that he might be the first-born among many brethren,"
Rom. viii., 29.
3. What diversity of opinion exists as to whether Christ acts
as Mediator in one or both natures ?
The Romanists hold that Christ was Mediator only in his hu
man nature, arguing that it is impossible that God could mediate
between man and himself.
The very opposite has been maintained, viz., that Christ was
Mediator only in his divine nature.
The doctrine of the Bible is, that Christ was Mediator as the
God-man, in both natures.
4. How may 'the acts of Christ be classified ivith reference to
his two natures ?
Theologians have properly distinguished (vide Turrettin, in
loco) between the person who acts and the nature or inward
energy whereby he acts.
Thus we affirm of the one man, that he thinks and that he
walks. The same person performs these two classes of action so
radically distinct, in virtue of the two natures embraced in his
single person. So the single person of the God-man performs all
actions involving the attributes of a divine nature in virtue of his
divine nature, and all actions involving the attributes of a human
nature in virtue of his human nature.
5. How can it be proved that he was Mediator, and acted as
such both in his divine and human natures ?
1st. From the fact that the discharge of each of the three
great functions of the mediatorial office, the prophetical, priestly,

CHRIST THE ONLY MEDIATOR 291
and kingly, involves the attributes of both natures, as has been
fully proved under question 2
2d. From the fact that the Bible attributes all his acts as
Mediator to the one person, viewed as embracing both natures.
The person is often designated by a term derived from the attri
butes of one nature, while the mediatorial action attributed to
that person is plainly performed in virtue of the other nature
embraced within it. — See Acts xx., 28 ; 1 Cor. ii., 8 ; Heb.
ix., 14.
3d. From the fact that he was Mediator from the foundation
of the earth, (see Chapter XIX., question 11,) it is clear that he
was not Mediator in his human nature alone ; and from the fact
that the Eternal Word became incarnate, in order to prepare him
self for the full discharge of his mediatorial work, (Heb. ii., 17,
18,) it is equally plain that he was not Mediator in his divine na
ture alone.
6. In what sense do the Romanists regard saints and angels
as mediators ?
They do not attribute either to saints or angels the work of
propitiation proper. Yet they hold that the merits of the saint
are the ground and measure of the efficiency of his intercession,
as in the case of Christ.
7. How far do they ascribe a mediatorial character to their

The Protestant holds that the church is composed of a com
pany of men united to one another in virtue of the immediate
union of each with Christ the head. The Romanist holds, on the
contrary, that each individual member is united immediately to
the church, and through the church to Christ. Their priests,
therefore, of »the true apostolic succession, subject to apostolic
bishops, being the only authorized dispensers of the sacraments,
and through them of Christ's grace, are mediators —
1st. Between the individual and Christ, the necessary link of
union with him.
2d. In their offering the sacrifice of the Mass., and making
therein a true propitiation for the venial sins of the people.
Christ's great sacrifice having atoned for original sin, and laid

292 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.
the foundation for the propitiatory virtue which' belongs to the
Mass. 3d. In their being eminent intercessors.
8. How can it be proved that Christ is our only Mediator in
the proper sense of the term ?
1st. Direct testimony of Scripture, 1 Tim. ii., 5.
2d. Because the Scriptures show forth Christ as fulfilling in
our behalf every mediatorial function that is necessary, alike pro
pitiation and advocacy, 1 John ii., 1 ; on earth and in heaven,
Heb. ix., 12, 24, and vii., 25.
3d. Because in virtue of the infinite dignity of his person and
perfection of his nature, all these functions were discharged by
him exhaustively, Heb. x., 14 ; Col. ii., 10.
4th. Because there 'is "complete" salvation in him, and no
salvation in any other, and no man can come to the Father ex
cept through him, John xiv., 6 ; Acts iv., 12.
5th. There is no room for any mediator between the individual
and Christ, (1.) because he is our "brother" and "sympathising
high priest," who invites every man immediately to himself,
Matt, xi., 28 ; (2.) bepause the work of drawing men to Christ
belongs to the Holy Ghost, John vi., 44, and xvi., 14.
9. What relation do the Scriptures represent the Holy Ghost
as sustaining to the mediatorial work of Christ ?
1st. Begetting and replenishing his human nature, Luke L,
35 ; ii., 40 ; John iii., 34 ; Ps. xiv., 7.
2d. All Christ's mediatorial functions were fulfilled in the
Spirit ; his prophetical teachings, his priestly sacrifice, and his
kingly administrations. The Spirit descended upon him at his
baptism, Luke iii., 22 ; and led him into the wilderness to be
tempted, Matt, iv., 1 ; he returned in 'the power of the Spirit into
Galilee, Luke iv., 14 ; through the eternal Spirit he offered himt
self without spot to God, Heb. ix., 14.
3d. The dispensation of the Spirit, as " the Spirit of truth,"
" the Sanctifier," and " the Comforter, ' vests in Christ as Medi
ator, as part of the condition of the covenant of grace, John xv.,
26, and xvi., 7 ; and vii., 39 ; Acts ii., 33. ¦'
4th. The Holy Spirit thus dispensed by Christ as Mediator

PROPHET, PRIEST, AND KING. 293
acts for him, and leads to him in teaching, quickening, sanctifying,
preserving, and acting all grace in his people. As Christ when on
earth led only to the Father, so the Holy Ghost now leads only to
Christ, John xv, 26, and xvi.-, 13, 14 ; Acts v., 32 ; 1 Cor. xii., 3.
5th. While Christ as Mediator is said to be our "naodicXnTog,"
" advocate," with the Father, (1 John ii., 1,) the Holy Ghost is
said to be our " -napdnXnTog," " advocate," translated " Comforter"
on earth, to abide with us for ever, to teach us the things of
Christ, and to hold a controversy with the world, John xiv., 16,
26, and xv., 26, and xvi., 7-9.
6th. While Christ is said to be our Mediator to make inter
cession for us in heaven, Heb. vii., 25 ; Rom. viii., 34, the Holy
Ghost, by forming thoughts and desires within us according to
the will of God, is said to make intercession for us with unutter
able groanings, Rom. viii., 26, 27.
7th. The sum of the whole is, " We have introduction to the
Father through the Son by the Spirit," Eph. ii., 18.
10. On what ground are the threefold offices of prophet, priest
and king applied to Christ ?
1st. Because these three functions are all equally necessary,
and together exhaust the whole mediatorial work.
2d. Because the- Bible ascribes all of these functions to Christ.
.Prophetical, Deut. xviii., 15, 18 ; compare Acts iii., 22, and vii.,
37 ; Heb. L, 2 ; priestly, Ps. ex., 4, and the whole Epistle to the
Hebrews ; kingly, Acts v., 31 ; 1 Tim. vi., 15 ; Rev. xvii., 14.
It is always to be remembered that these are not three offices,
but three functions of the one indivisible office of mediator.
These functions are abstractly most distinguishable, but in the
concrete and in their exercise they qualify one another in every
act. Thus, when he teaches, he is essentially a royal and priestly
teacher, and when he rules he is a priestly and prophetical king,
and when he either atones or intercedes he is a prophetical and
Kingly priest.
11. What is the scriptural sense of the word prophet. ?
Its general sense is one who speaks for another with authority
as interpreter. Thus Moses was prophet for his brother Aaron,
Ex. vii., 1.

294 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST.
A prophet of God is one qualified and authorized to speak for
God to men. Foretelling future events is only incidental.
12. How does Christ execute the office of a prophet ?
I. Immediately in his own person, as when (1.) on earth with
his disciples, and (2.) the light of the new Jerusalem in the midst
of the throne, Rev. xxi., 23.
II. Mediately, 1st, through his Spirit, (1.) by inspiration, (2.)
by spiritual illumination. 2d. Through the officers of his church,
(1.) those inspired as apostles and prophets, and (2.) those natur
ally endowed, as the stated ministry, Eph. iv. 11.
III. Both externally, as through his word and works ad
dressed to the understanding, and,
IV. Internally, by the spiritual illumination of the heart, 1
John ii., 20, and v., 20.
V. In three grand successive stages of development, a Before
his incarnation ; b since his incarnation ; c throughout eternity
in glory, Rev. vii., 17, and xxi., 23.
13. How can it be proved that he acted as such before his in
carnation ?
1st. His divine title of Logos, " Word," as by nature as well
as office the eternal Revealer.
2d. It has oeen before proved (Chap. XIX., question 11, and
Chap. VIII., question 12) that he was the Jehovah of the Old Tes
tament economy. Called Counselor, Is. ix., 6. Angel of the Cov
enant, Mai. iii., 1. Interpreter, Job xxxiii., 23.
3d. The fact is directly affirmed in the New Testament, 1
Pet. L, 11.
14. What is essential to the priestly office, or what is a priest
in the scriptural sense of that term ?
As the general idea of a prophet is, one qualified and author
ized to speak for God to men, so the general idea of a priest is,
one qualified and authorized to treat in behalf of men with God.
A priest, therefore, must —
1st. Be taken from among men to represent them, Heb. v.,
1, 2 ; Ex. xxviii., 9, 12, °1, 29.

MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 295
21. Chosen by God as his special election and property, Num.
xvi., 5 ; Heb. v., 4.
3d. Holy, morally pure and consecrated to the Lord, Lev.
xxi., 6, 8 ; Ps. cvi., 16 ; Ex. xxxix., 30, 31.
4th. They have a right to draw near to Jehovah, and to bring
near, or offer sacrifice, and to make intercession, Num. xvi., 5 ;
Ex. xix., 22 ; Lev. xvi., 3, 7, 12, 15.
The priest, therefore, was essentially a mediator, admitted
from among men to stand before God, for the purpose, 1st, of
propitiation by sacrifice, Heb. v., 1, 2, 3 ; and, 2d, of intercession,
Luke L, 10 ; Ex. xxx., 8 ; Rev. v., 8, and viii., 3, 4. — Taken from
Fairbairn's Typology, Vol. IL, Part IIL, Chap. III.
15. Prove from the Old Testament that Christ was truly a
priest. 1st. It is expressly declared. Compare Ps. ex., 4, with Heb.
v., 6, and vi., 20 ; Zech. vi., 13.
2d. Priestly functions are ascribed to him, Is. liii., 10, 12 ;
Dan. ix., 24, 25.
3d. The whole meaning and virtue of the temple, of its ser
vices, and of the Levitical priesthood lay in the fact that they were
all typical of Christ and his work as priest. This Paul clearly
proves in the Epistle to the Hebrews.,
16. Show from the New Testament that all the requisites of a
priest were found in him.
1st. Christ was a man taken from among men to represent
them before God, Heb. ii., i 6, and iv., 15.
2d. He was chosen by God, Heb. v., 5, 6.
3d. He was perfectly holy, Luke L, 35 ; Heb. vii., 26.
4th. He had the right of the nearest access, and the greatest
influence with the Father, John xvi., 28, and xi., 42 ; Heb. L,
3, and ix., 11, 12, 13, 14, 24.
17. Show that he actually performed all the duties of the
office. The duty of the priest is to mediate by (1.) propitiation, (2.)
intercession.

296 MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF CHRIST.
1st. He mediated in the general sense of the word, John
xiv., 6 ; 1 Tim., ii., 5 ; Heb. viii., 6, and xii., 24.
2d. He offered propitiation, Eph. v., 2 ; Heb. ix., 26, and
x., 12 ; 1 John, ii., 2.
3d. He offered intercession, Rom. viii., 34 ; Heb. vii., 25 ;
1 John, ii., 1.
That this propitiatory work of Christ was real, and not meta
phorical, is evident from the fact that it superseded the, temple
services, which were only typical of it. A type and shadow
necessarily presupposes a literal substance, Heb. ix., 10-12, and
x., 1 ; Col. ii., 17. ,
18. What part of his priestly work did Christ execute on
earth, and what part in heaven ?
On earth he rendered obedience, propitiation, intercession,
Heb. v., 7-9, and ix., 26, 28 ; Rom. v., 19.
In heaven he has presented his sacrifice in the most holy
place, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Heb. vii., 24,
25, and ix., 12, 24.
19. In what respects did the priesthood of Christ excel the
Aaronic ?
1st. In the dignity of his person. They were mere men. He
was the eternal Son. They were sinners who had first to make
atonement for their own sin, and afterwards for the sin of the
people. He was holy, harmless and undefiled, Heb. vii., 26, 27.
He was perfect man, and yet his access to God was infinitely
nearer than that of any other being, John x., 30 ; Zech. xiii., 7.
2d. In the infinite value of his sacrifice. Theirs could not
cleanse from sin, Heb. x., 4, and were repeated continually, Heb.
x., 1-3. His sacrifice was perfectly efficacious, and once for all,
Heb. x., 10-14. Thus theirs were only the shadow of his, Heb.
x., 1. 3d. In the manner of their consecration. They without, he
with an #ath, Heb. vii., 20-22.
4th. They, being many, succeeded each other by generation.
He cohtinueth for ever, Heb. vii., 24.
5th Christ's priesthood is connected with a "greater and

MEDIATORIAL PRIEST. 297
more perfect tabernacle," earth the outer court, heaven the true
sanctuary, Heb. ix., 11-24.
6th. Christ's intercession is offered from a throne, Rom. viii.,
34, and Heb. viii., 1, 2.
7th.. While several of the Old Testament servants of God
were at once both prophet and king, as David ; and others both
prophet and priest, as Ezra ; Christ alone, and that in divine
perfection, was at once prophet, priest and king. Thus his
divine prophetical and kingly perfections qualified and enhanced
the transcendant virtue of every priestly act. — Zech. vi., 13.
20. In what sense was Christ a priest after the order of Mel-
chizedec ?
The Aaronic priesthood was typical of Christ, but in two
principal respects it failed in representing the great antitype.
1st. It consisted of succeeding generations of mortal men.
2d. It consisted of priests not royal.
The Holy Ghost, on the other hand, suddenly brings Mel-
chizedec before us in the patriarchal history, a royal priest, with
the significant names " King of Righteousness" and " King of
Peace," Gen. xiv., 18-20, and as suddenly withdraws him.
Whence he comes and whither he goes we know not. As a pri
vate man he had an unwritten history, like others. But as a
loyal priest he ever remains without father, without mother,
without origin, succession, or end ; and therefore, as Paul says,
Heb. vii., 3, made beforehand of God, an exact type of the eter
nity of the priesthood of Christ, Ps. ex., 4. The prophecy was,
" Thou shalt be a priest/or ever," or an eternal priest " after the
order of Melchizedec."
The similitude of this type, therefore, included two things :
1st, an everlasting priesthood ; 2d, the union of the kingly and
priestly functions in one person. — Fairbairn's Typology, Vol. IL,
Part IIL, Chap. III.
21. How can it be proved that the Christian ministry is not
a priesthood ?
1st. Human priests were ever possible only as types, but types
ire possible only before the revelation of the antitype. The pur-

298 MEDIATORIAL OFFICES OF CHRIST.
pose of the Aaronic priesthood was fulfilled in Christ, and there
fore the institution was for ever abolished by Christ, Heb. x.,
1, 9, 18.
2d. Christ exhaustively discharges all the duties and pur
poses of the priestly office, so that any human priest (so called)
is an antichrist, Heb. x„, 14 ; Col. ii., 10.
3d. There can be no need of any priest to open the way for
us to Christ. Because, while the Scriptures teach us that we
can only go to God by Christ, John xiv., 6, they teach us no
less emphatically that we must come immediately to Christ,
Matt, xi., 28 ; John v., 40, and vii., 37 ; Rev. iii., 20, and
xxii., 17.
4th. No priestly function is ever attributed to any New Tes
tament officer, inspired or uninspired, extraordinary or ordinary.
The whole duty of all these officers of every kind is comprised in
the functions of teaching and ruling, 1 Cor. xii., 28 ; Eph. iv.,
11, 12 ; 1 Tim. iii., 1-13 ; 1 Pet. v., 2.
5th. They are constantly called by different designations, ex
pressive of an entirely different dlass of functions, as " messengers,
watchmen, heralds of salvation, teachers, rulers, overseers, shep
herds, and elders." — See Bib. Repertory, Jan., 1845.
22. In what sense are all believers priests ?
Although there can not be in the Christian church any class
of priests standing between their brethren and Christ, yet in con
sequence of the union, both federal and vital, which every Chris
tian sustains to Christ, which involves fellowship with him in all
of his human graces, and in all of his mediatorial functions and
prerogatives, every believer has part in the priesthood of his head
in such a sense that he has immediate access to God through
Christ, even into the holiest of all, Heb. x., 19-22 ; and that
being sanctified and spiritually qualified, he may there offer up,
as a " holy priest," a " royal priest," spiritual sacrifices, not ex
piatory, but the oblation of praise, supplication and thanksgiving,
through Jesus Christ, and intercession for living friends, Heb
xiii., 15 ; 1 Tim. ii., 1, 2 ; 1 Pet. ii., 5, 9.
Thej are by equal reason also prophets and kings in fellow
ship with Christ, 1 John ii., 20 ; John xvi., 13 ; Rev. L, 6, and
v., 10.

CHAPTER XXII.
THE ATONEMENT : ITS NATURE, NECESSITY, PERFECTION, AND
EXTENT.
I. The Nature of the Atonement.
1. What is the meaning of the word atonement, as used in
Scripture ?
The word atonement occurs but once in the English transla
tion of the New Testament, Rom. v., 11. But the Greek word,
of which in that case it is a translation, naTaXXayrj, and the verb
of the same origin and meaning, KaraXXdaau, (to change, ex
change, to reconcile,) occur together ten times in the New Testa
ment, viz., Rom. v., 10, twice ; v., 11 ; xi., 15 ; 1 Cor. vii., 11 ;
2 Cor. v., 18, twice, verse 19, twice, and verse 20. In every case
the verb is translated to reconcile, and except in Rom. v., 11, the
noun is rendered, reconciliation. The mode of this reconciliation
being clearly indicated, (Rom. v., 10,) viz., " by the death of his
Son." Throughout the Old Testament the word atonement is con
stantly used to signify the reconciliation of God, by means of
bloody sacrifices, to men alienated from him by the guilt of sin.
The priest made atonement for the transgressors of the law, by
sacrifices, and it was forgiven them, Lev. iv, 20 ; v., 6 ; vi., 7 ;
xii., 8 ; xiv., 18 ; Num. xv., 25. On the great " day of atone
ment" the, high priest made atonement, first, for his own sin, by
the sacrifice of a bullock, and then for the sins of all the people,
by the sacrifice of a goat ; and then the sins thus atoned for were
confessed and laid upon the head of the live goat, and. carried
aw ay by him into oblivion. — Lev. xvi., 6-22.
2. How do the words atonement and satisfaction differ ?
Satisfaction is the more specific term ; atonement is the re-

300 , CHRIST MEDIATORIAL "PRIEST.
conciliation of God to man by the death of his Son. Satisfaction
expresses the relation which the work of Christ sustains to the
demands of God's law and justice. i
3. Wherein does the satisfaction rendered by Christ consist ?
By the conditions of the covenant of grace, Christ assumes
precisely the place and all the obligations of his people, under the
broken and unsatisfied covenant of works. These obligations
were evidently, 1st, perfect obedience as the condition of reward ;
and, 2d, the penalty of death incurred by the failure of obedience
both in their representative Adam and in their own persons.
4. How may it be proved that the " active obedience" of
Christ to the precepts of the law enters into his satisfaction ?
1st. The necessity of the case. The position of Christ was
that of second Adam, 1 Cor. xv., 22, 45. He came to fulfill the
law in our behalf. But the law demands obedience as its con
dition of life, Rom. x., 5. Here the first Adam had failed.
2d. The fixed -meaning of the word dataioo-vvrj, righteousness,
in the New Testament, is perfect conformity to the whole law,
Rom. vi., 13, 16 ; viii., 4 ; x.; 4 ; Phil, iii., 6 ; Tit. iii., 5 ; 1
John ii., 29. Yet Christ is said to be for us, " the end of the law
for righteousness," Rom. x., 4, and we are said to be made, " the
righteousness of God in him," 2 Cor. v., 21.
3d. It is expressly asserted in Rom. v., 19, where Adam's dis
obedience, which subjected us to guilt, is contrasted with the
obedience of Christ, whereby we are made righteous.
5. What is the Socinian view as to the nature of the atone
ment ?
They deny, 1st, of sin, that it inherently, for its own sake,:
deserves punishment, and, 2d, of God, that his infinitely perfect1
righteousness determines him to demand the punishment of all
sin. On the other hand they hold that God may, in perfect con
sistency with his benevolent care for the best interests of his gen
eral moral government, forgive sin at any time, upon the repent
ance of the sinner. The death of Christ, therefore, was designed
simply to soften the heart, and to encourage the confidence of the

NATURE OF HIS ATONEMENT. 301
sinner in God, and so dispose him to repentance, by that eminent
exhibition of divine love. — Cat. Racov, pp. 261-268.
6. What is the Governmental theory as to the nature of the
atonement ?
The advocates of this theory, which is distinctively New En-
'gland and New School, agree with the Socinians iff their funda
mental propositions.
1st. That sin does not intrinsically deserve punishment^ i. e.,
the true end of punishment is rather to prevent sin, than to sat
isfy vindicatory justice, and, 2d, that there is no principle in God
which demands the punishment of all sin for its own sake alone.
On the other hand, they differ from the Socinians in denying
that God can consistently forgive sin upon the mere repentance
of the sinner, since such a habit, on his part, would be inconsis
tent with the good government of the universe, by removing all
the restraints which fear of punishment presents to sin. They re
gard the sufferings of Christ, therefore, as designed to make a
moral impression upon the universe, by the emphatic display of
God's determination to punish sin, and thus to make the forgive
ness of sinful men consistent with the good government of the
moral universe as a whole.
7. How may that system be disproved ?
1st. This system regards the ill desert of sin as resulting from
its tendency to produce disorder in the universe. But it is an
ultimate fact of consciousness that virtue intrinsically deserves
well, and that sin intrinsically is ill desert. (1.) Every awakened
conscience feels this. (2.) God constantly asserts it, Jer. xii v.,
4 ; Deut. xxv., 16. (3.) It is implied in all punishment. For
any man to be hung for the good of the community is murder,
and for any soul to be damned for the sake of an example would
be an infinite outrage.
2d. This system resolves the justice of God into a mode of his
universal benevolence, and denies that his perfect righteousness
unchangeably demands the punishment of all sin, simply as such,
in exact proportion to its ill desert. This is contrary to Scrip
tures, Heb. i. 13 ; Ps. v., 4, 5 ; Prov. xvii., 15 ; Heb. xii., 29, vi.,
10 ; Rom. iii., 5 ; 2 Thess. i., 6, 8.

302 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
3d. It represents God as deriving the motives of his acts from
the exigencies of his creation, and not from the inherent princi
ples of his own nature, which is derogatory to his sovereignty and
independence. 4th. It degrades the infinite work of Christ to the poor level
of a governmental adjustment, whereas it was the most glorious
exhibition of eternal principles.
5th. This system makes the atonement a theatrical inculca
tion of principles, which were not truly involved in the case. For
if Christ died, not that the sins of his people which he bore should
be truly punished in him, but only to manifest to the moral uni
verse that sin must be punished, it is very evident that then sin
was not punished in this case, and that Christ's death conse
quently could not teach the really intelligent portion of the uni
verse any such lesson as that sin must .be punished, but rather
the reverse.
6th. It has no support in Scripture, it is advocated simply on
the principles of rational science, so called.
7th. It is absolutely inconsistent with the positive teaching
of the Scriptures respecting the work of Christ, Is. liii. ; Gal. iii.,
13 ; Rom. viii., 3 ; 1 Pet. ii., 24 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Heb. ix., 28.
For only through this satisfaction to justice was it possible. for
God to be both just and the justifier of the transgressor, Rom.
iii., 26.
8th. If Christ's death is merely designed to produce a moral
impression on the universe ; if it did not really render satisfaction .
to divine justice, in what sense can we be said to be united to
Christ, to die with him, or to rise again with him ? " What is
meant by living by faith, of which he is the object ? The
fact is, this theory changes the whole nature of the gospel ;
the nature of faith, and. of justification, the mode ,of access
to God, our relation to Christ, and the inward exercises of
communion with him." — Hodge's Review of Beman on the Atone
ment. 8. State the common orthodox doctrine of the atonement.
The Socinian theory sets forth the sufferings of Christ as de
signed to produce a moral effect upon the heart of the individual
sinner.

NATURE OF HIS ATONEMENT. 303
The governmental theory claims that that work was designed
to produce a moral effect upon the intelligent universe.
The orthodox view, while embracing both of- the above as
incidental ends, maintains that the immediate and chief end of
Christ's work was to satisfy that essential principle of the divine
nature which demands the punishment of sin. This theory em
braces the following points :
" 1st. Sin for its own sake deserves the wrath and curse of God.
2d. God is disposed, from the very excellence of his nature, to treat
his creatures as they deserve. 3d. To satisfy the righteous judg
ment of God, his Son assumed our nature, was made under the
law, fulfilled all righteousness, and bore the punishment of our
sins. 4th. By his righteousness, those who believe are consti
tuted righteous, his merit being so imputed to them that they
are regarded as righteous in the sight of God." — Hodge's Essays,
p. 131. 9. In what sense were Christ's sufferings penal, and what is
the difference between calamity, chastisement, and punishment ?
Calamity is suffering, which has no relation to sin ; chastise
ment, that suffering which is designed for the improvement of the
sufferer ; punishment, that which is designed for the satisfaction
of justice. The penalty of the law is that suffering which the
law demands as a satisfaction to justice for the violation of its
commands. — Hodge's Essays, p. 152.
The sufferings of Christ were penal, therefore, because he suf
fered precisely that kind and degree of evil that divine justice
demanded as a complete satisfaction for all the sins of all his
people. — Is. liii. ; GaL iii., 13 ; Matt, xx., 28 ; Rom. viii., 3 ; 2
Cor., v., 21. His sufferings are said to have been penal in dis
tinction, 1st, to. calamity or chastisement ; 2d, to pecuniary sat
isfaction. 10. State the difference between pecuniary and penal satis-

" 1st. In the one case, the demand is upon the thing clue ; in
the other, it is upon the person of the criminal. 2d. In the one,
the demand is for an exact equivalent-^-a piece of money in the
hands of a king is of no more value than in the hands of a peas-

304 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
ant ; in the other case, the demand being upon the person, and
for the satisfaction of justice, must be satisfied by very different
kinds and degrees of punishment, depending upon the dignity of
the person and the conditions of the law. 3d. The creditor is
bound to accept the payment of the debt, no matter by whom
offered ; whereas, in the case of crime, the sovereign is neither
bound to provide a substitute, nor to accept one when offered.
4th. Hence penal satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate ; the
acceptance is a matter of free grace, and is determined by arrange
ment or covenant." — Hodge's Essays, pp. 165, 166.
11. What is the penalty of the law, and in what sense did
Christ bear that penalty ?
" The penalty- of the law in Scripture is called ' death,'
which includes every kind of evil inflicted by divine justice in
punishment of sin, and inasmuch as Christ suffered ^such evil,
and to such a degree as fully satisfied divine justice, he suffered
what the Scriptures call the penalty of the law. It is not any
specific kind or degree of suffering. The penalty in the case of
the individual sinner involves remorse, despair, and eternal ban
ishment from God ; in the case of Christ, they involved none of
these. It is not the nature, but the relation of sufferings to the
law that gives them their distinctive value." It is not the de
gree of the sufferings merely, but the dignity of the sufferer also,
which determines their sin-atoning efficacy. — Hodge's Essays
p. 152. Our standards declare that the penalty of the law in the case
of .Christ includes " the miseries of this life, the wrath of God,
the accursed death of the cross, and continuance under the power
of death for a time."
12. In what sense and on what ground were the sufferings of
Christ equivalent to the sufferings of all his people ?
They were unutterably great, and equivalent to the sufferings
of all his people, not in a pecuniary sense as precisely a quid pro
quo, both in kind and degree : but in a penal sense, as in tha
judgment of God fully satisfying in their behalf all the penal
claims of the law.

NATURE OF HIS ATONEMENT. 305
The ground upon which God judges the sufferings of Christ
to be, in a penal sense, equivalent to the sufferings of all his peo
ple, is not the nature or degree of that suffering, but the dignity
of the sufferer. Those sufferings, though endured in a finite na^
ture, were of infinite value, because of the infinite dignity of his
person. 13. In what sense were Christ's sufferings vicarious, and in
what sense was he the substitute of his people ?
A substitute is one who acts or suffers in the place of or in be
half of another, and that is, vicarious obedience or suffering which
is rendered or endured by the substitute in the place of another.
In this sense Christ is our substitute, and his sufferings vica
rious.— Rom. v., 8 ; Matt, xx., 28 ; 1 Tim. ii., 6 ; 1 Pet. ii., 24 ;
iii.,- 18 ; Isa. liii., 6.
14. What were the qualifications necessary for such a sub
stitute ?
1st. That he should be personally independent of the law,
owing it nothing on his own account.
2d. That, possessing the same identical nature with man, he
might be made under the law, and introduced into precisely the
same legal and covenant relations sustained by those for whom
he stood. 3d. That his person should possess infinite dignity, in order
to give an infinite moral value to his finite sufferings.
4th. That there should be a sovereign designation upon the
part of the Father, and a voluntary assumption on the part of
the Son, of the position of covenanted head and legal representa
tive of his elect.
15. What is the Scriptural meaning of the phrase " to bear
sin or iniquity ?" and show what light is thence thrown on the
nature of the atonement.
The phrase, " to bear sin or iniquity," has a perfectly definite
usage, and it signifies to bear the guilt of sin, or the penal con
sequences attached by the law to sin. — Lev. v., 1 ; x., 17 ; xvi.,
22 ; xx., 20 ; Num. xviii., 22 ; Ezek. xviii., 19, 20.
Of course, this language, which is applied frequently to Christ,
20

306 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
(Heb. ix., 28 ; Isa. liii., 6, 11, 12 ; 1 Pet. ii., 24,) precisely de
fines the relation of his sufferings to the penalty of the law.
16. In what sense was Christ an offering for sin ?
Both Jews and Gentiles were familiar witfi sacrifices for sin,
and both recognized in them precisely the same transference of
guilt from the offerer to the victim, and the extinguishment of
that guilt by the death of the victim. This was the_deflnite
sense of the phrase universally received bv those to whom the
apostle wrote.
This is plain — *
1st. Because without the shedding of blood there was no re
mission, Heb. ix., 22. " For the life of the flesh is in the blood,
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement
for your souls," Lev. xvii., 11. Life was "substituted for fife.
2d. The sacrifice must be spotless, Lev. iii., 1. A spotless
life must be offered in place of one forfeited by the guilt of sin.
3d. The offerer laid his hands upon the victim, which act was
symbolical of transfer, Lev. L, 4 ; iii., 2 ; iv., 4, 15 ; 2 Chron.
xxix., 23; and confessed his sins, and his sins were laid upon the
victim, Lev. xvi., 21.
All this was said to be the shadow of good things to come,
while the substance is Christ. He is called " the Lamb of God,"
" Lamb without blemish and without spot," " his blood cleanseth
from all sin," "his soul is an offering for sin," Isa. liii., 10; 1 John
L, 7 ; John i., 29 ; 1 Pet. L, 19.— Hodge's Essays, p. 149 ; Fair
bairn's Typology, Vol. IL, p. 221.
17. State the argument on this subject derived from those
passages which ascribe our salvation to the death or blood of
Christ. See 1 Pet. L, 19 ; Rev. v., 9 ; lJohn L, 7 ; Rom. v., 9, 10 ;
Heb. ix., 15 ; ii., 9, 14, 15. In these and similar (passages it is
taught that the "death" or "blood of Christ" "redeems us,"
"cleanses us from sin," "justifies us," "reconciles us to God,"
"delivers us from bondage," "redeems us from the curse of the
law." This language can mean nothing, if the sole purpose of
Christ's death was to produce a moral impression either upon the
individual sirner, or upon the universe as a common subject of.

NATURE OF HIS ATONEMENT. 307
divine government. But their use is appropriate, if the death of
Christ really satisfies God's justice, and by satisfying the penalty
of the law removes, by ending, the guilt, or legal obligations of
our sins.
18. In what sense is Christ said to hove purchased or re
deemed his church ?
Two Greek words are translated by the word redeem in our
version, 1st, XvTpou, to release for a ransom, mid., to ransom,
redeem. 2d. i^ayopd^u, to buy out of the hands of, to redeem, buy
off. These, of course, when applied to the work of Christ, 1 Pet.
i., 18, etc., are not to be understood in the sense of a pecuniary
transaction, i. e., purchase by the payment of an exact equivalent
in value. But if they mean any thing they must teach that Christ
has acquired a right to his church by doing and suffering that
which God has demanded as the condition of its deliverance and
his possession. It is expressly said that the ransom demanded was
his blood, and that the condition from which his church was
bought off was that of subjection to the curse of the law.
19. How can the Bible doctrine of the nature of the atone
ment be further proved from the revealed fact that Christ offered
himself to God as our High Priest ?
That he is truly a priest, and that he fulfilled all the func-
.tions of that office has been fully proved above, Chapter XXL,
questions 14-17. Now when an Israelite sinned he went to the
priest, who, taking a victim, offered it to God, life for life, and
thus making atonement for sin it was forgiven the transgressor,
Lev. iv., 20, 26, 31 ; v., 10, 18. " Therefore it is of necessity
that this man have somewhat also to offer," and " not by the blood
of goats and calves, but by his own blood he hath obtained an eter
nal redemption for us," Heb. viii., 3 ; ix., 12. The priest never
offered the sacrifice to obtain the possibility of salvation for his
client, nor to manifest the determination of God to punish sin, but
always to obtain remission of the penalty.
20. How may it be shown that the substitution of Christ in
the place of his people did not cause him to become personally a
sinner.

308 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
Reason and Scripture alike teach that the personal character
of one man can never be transfered to another, but, on the other
hand, that the legal responsibility, or liability to punishment, un
der which one man's labors may be transferred to another, when
soever sovereign authority recognizes one as legally representing
the other. Christ is said (2 Cor. v., 21) " to be made sin for us"
in the same sense that we are said " to be made the righteousness
of God in him." When we are justified, or declared to be righte
ous for Christ's sake, we are no less than before personally sinners
in heart and habit, because it is his legal merit, and not his per
sonal holiness, that is counted oufs. So Christ remains no less
infinitely "holy, harmless, and undefiled," when the chastise
ment of our sins is laid upon him, or their legal responsibility
counted his.
21. Show that the doctrine of a full satisfaction to justice does
not destroy the gratuitous nature of salvation.
1st. Christ did not die to make the Father love the elect, but
was given to die because of that love, John iii., 16 ; 1 John iv., 9.
2d. Christ made full satisfaction to divine justice in order to
render the exercise of love consistent with justice, Rom. iii., 26 ;
Ps. lxxxv, 10. The greater the obstacle, and the more costly the
price demanded of love by justice, the greater the love and the
freer. On this ground God commendeth his love, Rom. v., 8.
3d. God the Father and God the Son are one God, identical-
in nature, moved by the same love, and exacting the same satis^
faction. 4th. Penal satisfaction differs from pecuniary. If a sovereign
appoints or accepts a substitute it is all of grace.
5th. To Christ, as Mediator, the purchased salvation of his
people belongs of right, from the terms of the eternal covenant,
but to us that salvation is given in all its elements, stages, and
instrumentalities only as a free and sovereign favor. The gift
is gratuitous if the beneficiary has no shadow of claim to it,
and if no conditions are exacted of him. The less worthy
the beneficiary is, and the more difficult the conditions which
justice exacts of the giver, the more eminently gratuitous tha
gift is.

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 309
II. The necessity of the Atonement.
22. What view do the Socinians entertain as to the ground
of the necessity of Christ's death ?
Every man's view of the grounds upon which the necessity of
Christ's atomng work rests must be determined by his view as to
its nature. For the Socinian view, as to the nature of the atone
ment, see above, question 5. The necessity of the atonement ac
cording to this view, therefore, results simply in the indisposition
of men to repent, and the necessity of providing motives adequate
to that end.
23. On what grounds do those who maintain the governmental
theory of the atonement hold it to have been necessary ?
See above, question 6. According to this view the necessity
of the atonement springs from the exigencies of God's general,
moral government, which demand uniform and certain punish
ment as a warning to the subject, and thus as a restraint upon sin.
24. What is the doctrine of those who admit only a hypotheti
cal necessity for the atonement ?
These truly hold that the necessity for the atonement is in
God, but they err in maintaining that this necessity springs from
his^mere will, and not from his nature, and that God sovereignly
chose this as one of many ways of reconciling the forgiveness of
sins with himself and his moral government.
25. What is the Scriptural view of the ground of this neces
sity ?
1st. Sin itself intrinsically deserves punishment. 2d. God is,
by the perfection of his own righteous nature, immutably de
termined to punish all sin as intrinsically hateful. 3d. The
necessity for the atonement, therefore, lies in God's infinite, wise,
holy, just, free, and immutable nature.
26. How can the absolute necessity of the atonement be proved^
i e., on the assumption that sin is to be pardoned ?
Every argument set forth above to prove that the atonement

310 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
was designed to satisfy divine justice for the sins of Christ's peo
ple, also clearly proves that it was absolutely necessary to the end
of their salvation. There can be no such thing as an unnecessary
"ransom," or "satisfaction," or "penal sufferings."
This is further evident from, 1st. The inherent ill desert of sin.
2d. The inherent righteousness of God. 3d. The nature of the
human conscience, which will not be pacified unless justice be
satisfied. 4.. From the nature of God as infinitely merciful, and
from the nature of the gospel as an eminent provision of mercy.
Suffering not necessary would be inconsistent with both. 5th.
From the infinite greatness and glory of the sufferer. " God so
loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." If that gift
was not absolutely necessary to our salvation, it would be no real
measure of God's love for us. 6th. God is limited by no impos
sibilities without himself, but it is his glory that his will is
always freely determined by the immutable perfections of his
nature.
III. The Perfection of the Atonement.
27. What is theflomish doctrine as to the perfection of the
atonement ?
The Romish theologians admit that the value of Christ's
death is infinite ; their frequent expression is, that " one drop of
Christ's blood is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world."
Yet they .hold that the direct effect of Christ's satisfaction is only
to atone for original sin, and to redeem believers from the eternal
punishment thereof. All earthly sorrows they regard rather in the
light of expiations than of chastisements. All sins committed
after baptism must be expiated by sufferings endured by the be
liever in person. Thus they attribute to the repeated sacrifice of
Christ's person in the Mass, to the pains of penance and purgatory,
a real sin-atoning efficacy. They also hold that the death of
Christ has secured an infinite fund of merit, the dispensation of
which is intrusted to the church, whence flows the efficiency of
priestly absolution, sacramental grace, and indulgences.— See Cat,
Rom., Part IL, Chapters IV. and V, and Decrees of Council of
Trent, Sess. 13 and 14.

PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT. 311
28. What is the doctrine of the Remonstrants or Dutch dis
ciples of Arminius on this subject ?
They taught that the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice to atone
for the sins of all men resulted from the free and gracious estima
tion of it as sufficient by God. — Limborch's Theologia Chris
tiana 3, 22.5. and 21, 6.
29. What is the orthodox doctrine on this point ?
. That although the sufferings of Christ were not precisely,
either in kind or degree, the same that justice would have de
manded of his people in person, yet he suffered precisely that
kind and degree of evil which the infinitely righteous judge de
manded, as in his infinitely exalted person a satisfaction equiva
lent in the rigor of justice to the penalty denounced by the law
upon all his people, for whom he died.
His satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of his people,
therefore, was perfect, 1st, intrinsically, and in the rigor of jus
tice ; 2d, as so satisfying the law that it demands no penal evils
whatsoever of believers, all their sufferings being simply discipli
nary ; 3d, while it was perfect in securing the salvation of all his
elect, it is perfect also in its sufficiency for all men, thus laying
the foundation for the bona fide offer of an interest in his salva
tion to all who will accept it.
This absolute perfection of the atonement is proved, 1st, by
the infinite dignity of the sufferer, and the consequent infinite
moral value of his sufferings.
2d. Paul proves the insufficiency of the Old Testament sacri
fices from the necessity of their repetition, and establishes the
fact that the one sacrifice of Christ is perfect, since it is never re
peated, Heb. ix., 25-28 ; x*, 1-14
3d. Christ stood in the law place of his people, having assumed
all their legal liabilities, but God set his seal publicly to his" ap
probation of Christ's work as a perfect satisfaction to justice in
behalf of his elect, in that he raised him from the dead and set
him at his own right hand, 1 Cor., xv., 20-23 ; Phil, ii., 5-11 ;
1 Pet., L, 3-5.
4th. Our perfected redemption is always referred in Scripture
to the death of Christ. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth fi om

312 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
all sin. Both the merit of works and the expiatory virtue of pen
ance are destitute of all Scriptural evidence, and are repugnant
to all else the Scriptures teach.
IV. The Extent of the Atonement.
r
30. What is the precise point in dispute between the differ
ent parties in the Church on this subject ?
All parties agree, 1st, that the atonement accomplished by
tb,6 sufferings of Christ was sufficient in its moral value to satisfy
justice for the sins of all men ; and, 2d, that it was exactly
adapted to meet the requisitions of justice, growing out of the
legal relations of all men. The only debate concerns the pur
pose of Christ in dying, and of the Father in giving his Son
to die. 31. What is the Arminian view as to the design of God in
the gift of his Son ?
That he should die in the place and stead of all men as a sac
rificial oblation, by which satisfaction is made for the sins of every
individual, so that they become remissible upon the terms of the
evangelical covenant, i. e., upon the condition of faith. — Wat
son's Theo. Institutes, Part IL, Chap. XXV.
The design of God, then, was, 1st, that Christ should die for
all men ; 2d, that by the satisfaction rendered by his death the
salvation of all men should be made possible.
32. What is the Scriptural doctrine on this subject ?
Christ came in fulfillment of the eternal covenant of the
Father with the Son. He assumed the federal and criminal rela
tions of his people to the law of works, and it was provided that
his people should receive all the benefits of his merits.
The design of God in the atonement, then, was —
1st. That Christ should bear the penalty which justice de
nounced upon his own people.
2d. That he should not merely make the salvation of those
for whom he died possible, but that-he should actually achieve it
for them, and freely present it to them.

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. ' 313
The Arminian view, therefore, differs from the Calvinistic in
two points. They maintain that Christ died, 1st, for the relief
of all men ; 2d, to make salvation possible. We hold, on the
other hand, that Christ died, 1st, for his elect ; 2d, to make their
salvation certain.
The Calvinist, of course, admits that it was a subordinate de
sign of Christ's death, as a means to the attainment of its chief
design, that an interest in the satisfaction of Christ should be
offered to all men, as available to all who believe. In this objec
tive sense the salvation of all men is rendered possible by the
death of Christ, since none to whom the gospel is preached are
excluded except by their own wicked refusal. — See Dr. Hodge's
Com. on 1 Cor. viii., 11.
33. How can the true doctrine as to the design of the atone
ment be proved from the nature of the atonement as above estab
lished ?
If it is involved in the very nature of the atonement, as above
proved, that all the legal responsibilities of those for whom h6
died were laid upon Christ ; if he suffered the very penalty
which divine justice exacted of them, then it follows, necessarily
that all those for whom he died are absolved, since justice can not
demand two perfect satisfactions, nor inflict the same penalty once
upon the substitute and again upon the principal.
34. What Scriptures teach that the love of God which was
manifested in redemption was not mere benevolence but special
love for his church ?
John xvii., 6-19 ; xv., 13-16 ; x., 11 ; Rom. v., 8-10 ; viii.~
32, 33 ; Eph. v., 25-27 ; iii., 18, 19 ; 1 John iii., 16 ; iv., 9-10.
The design of God must have been determined by his motive.
If his motive was peculiar love to his own people then his de
sign must have been to secure their salvation, and not that of
all men. 35. What argument on this point may be derived from th&
doctrine of election ?
As proved from Scripture above, in Chapter X., God, in his
eternal decree, elected his own people to everlasting life, deter-

314 " CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
mining to leave all others to the just consequences of their own
sins. Consequently he gave his son to die for these. He could
not consistently give his Son to die for the purpose of saving the
rest. »
36. By what argument may it be proved that the effect of
Christ's satisfaction was not merely to render salvation possible,
but that of his elect certain ?
1st. Christ is infinitely wise, powerful, and unchangeable,
consequently his design can never be frustrated. His design,
therefore, may be measured by the effect. He designed to save
those whom he does save.
2d. The Scriptures prove that his purpose was actually to
save those for whom he died, not merely to make their salvation
possible, Matt, xviii., 11 ; Luke xix., 10 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Gal. L,
4 ; iv., 5 ; 1 Tim. L, 15. Here his purpose is declared to be to
redeem, to save, to deliver, to make righteous. " But to make
salvation possible is not to save, to make holiness possible is not
to purify, to open the door is not to bring us near to God."
3d. The Scriptures declare that the effect of Christ's death is
reconciliation and justification, Rom. v., 10 ; Eph. ii., 16 ; remis
sion of sins, Eph. L, 7 ; peace, Eph. ii., 14 ; deliverance from
wrath, 1 Thess. L, 10 ; from death, Heb. ii., 14 ; from the curse of
the law, Gal. iii., 13 ; from sin, 1 Pet. L, 18. To deliver from
sin and the law is not to make deliverance possible, but actually
to deliver, and Christ could not have designed to deliver those
whom he does not actually deliver. — Hodge's Essays.
37. What connection do the Scriptures represent as subsist
ing between the work of Christ and the gift of the Holy Ghost,
and how may it be hence argued that he died specially for his
own people ?
The Scriptures everywhere teach that the Holy Ghost was
promised to Christ as the reward of his obedience and suffering,
to be by him bestowed upon those for whom he obeyed and suf
fered. > " Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law that we
might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith," Gal. iii.,
13, 14 ; Acts ii., 33 ; Titus iii., 5, 6 ; Eph. L, 3. Then it fol
lows that all for whom he died must receive that Spirit whose in-

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 315
fluences were secured by his death. If the influences of the Holy
Spirit are secured by his death, to J;each, renew, and sanctify, it
can not be denied that those, and only those thus taught, renewed,
and sanctified, are those for whom he died."
38. How is this truth proved by the connection mutually sus
tained by the different parts of Christ's mediatorial work ?
Christ came into "this world, obeyed, suffered, died, appeared
before God, intercedes and sends his Spirit as mediator. These
are all essential" parts of the same office. If he died for all, there
fore, he must perform every other mediatorial act for all, he must
sanctify all, and intercede for all. All these are represented as
united in the Scriptures, 1 John ii., 1, 2 ; Rom. viii., 34 ; iv.,
25 ; John xvii., 9. As these are all inseparably united in the
execution, they must have been united in the design.
39. What is the Scriptural doctrine concerning substitution,
and how does that principle answer the question as for whom
Christ died ?
As shown above, (question 16,) the sacrificial victim under the
Old Testament was substituted in the place of the offerer. It was
fife for life. Christ as an " offering for sin" was the substitute of
those for whom he died. As second Adam, also, he died by cove
nant in the place of and in behalf of those for whom he died,
2 Cor. v., 21 ; Gal. iii., -13 ; Isa. liii., 5 ; Rom. v., 19 ; 1 Pet. iii.,
18. If so, then all for whom he died must be absolved, or else
the substitution of Christ would be made of nought in each case
wherein it fails.
40. What is the Scripture doctrine as to the union of Christ
with his people, and how does that doctrine determine the design
of the atonement ?
This union is declared to be, 1st, federal, 1 Cor. xv., 22 ; Rom.
v., 19 ; 2d, vital and spiritual, John xiv., 20 ; 1 Cor. xii., 13,
27 ; GaL ii., 20. In consequence of this every gracious benefit
the believer receives is said to be " in Christ," and " with Christ."
We die in his death, live in his life, and thus are united to him
in all his mediatorial actions and career. " I am crucified with
Christ," " If one died for all then are all dead." "Now, if we be

316 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
dead with Christ we believe that we shall also live with him,"
Col. iii., 1-3 ; Rom. vi., 8-11$ Gal. ii., 20 ; 2 Cor. v., 14 ; Eph.
ii.,. 5, 6. Hence it follows, 1st, Christ could have designed to die
only for those who were united with him in his death ; 2d, those
who are united with him in his death must also "walk with him
in newness „of life," i. e., the federal union necessarily leads to the
vital and spiritual union of Christ and his people.
41. If Christ died only for his own people, on what ground
does the general offer of the gospel rest ?
" The Lord Jesus, in order to secure the salvation, of his peo
ple, and with a specific view to that end, fulfilled the condition
of the law or covenant under which they and all mankind were
placed. These conditions were, (1.) perfect obedience ; (2.) satis-
tion to divine justice. Christ's righteousness, therefore, consists
of his obedience and death. That righteousness is precisely What
the law demands of every sinner in order to justification before
God. It is, therefore, in its nature adapted to all sinners who
were under that law. Its nature is not altered by the fact
that it was wrought out for a portion only of such sinners, oi
that it is secured to them by the covenant between the Father
and the Son. What is necessary for the salvation of one man
is necessary for the salvation of another and of all. It is also
of infinite value, being the righteousness of the eternal Son'
of God, and therefore sufficient for all."' — Hodge's Essays, pp.
181, 182.
A bona fide offer of the gospel, therefore, is to be made to all
men, 1st. Because the satisfaction rendered to, the law is sufficient
for all men. 2d. Because it is exactly adapted to the redemption
of all. 3d. Because God designs that whosoever exercises faith
in Christ shall be saved by him. The design of Christ's death
being to secure the salvation of his own people, incidentally to the
accomplishment of that end, it comprehends the offer of that sal
vation freely and honestly to all men on the condition of their
faith. No man is lost for the want of an atonement, or because
there is any other barrier in the way of his salvation than his own
most fr ?e and wicked will.
42. How can the condemnation of men for the rejection of

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. / 317
Christ be reconciled with the doctrine that Christ died for the
elect only ?
A salvation all-sufficient and exactly adapted to his necessities
is honestly offered to every man to whom the gospel comes ; and
in every case it is his, if he believes ; and in no case does anything
prevent his believing other than his own evil disposition. Evi
dently he is in no way concerned with the design of God in pro
viding that salvation beyond the assurance that God intends to
give it to him if he believes. If a man is responsible for a bad
heart, and the exercises thereof, he must be above all worthy of
condemnation for rejecting such a Saviour.
43. On what principles are those texts to be explained which
speak of Christ's bearing the sins of the world, and of his dying
for all ?
These are such passages as Heb. ii., 9 ; 1 Cor. xv., 22 ; 1
John ii., 2 ; 1 Tim. ii., 6 ; John L, 29 ; iii., 16, 17 ; vi., 51.
These terms, " world" and " all," are unquestionably used in very
various degrees of latitude in the Scriptures. In many passages
that latitude is evidently limited by the context, e. g., 1 Cor. xv.,
22 ; Rom. v., 18 ; viii., 32 ; John' xii., 32 ; Eph. L, 10 ; Col. i.,
20 ; 2 Cor. v., 14, 15. In others the word " world" is opposed
to the Jewish nation as a people of exclusive privileges, Rom. xi.,
12, 15 ; 1 John ii., 2. It is evident that statements as to the de
sign of Christ's death, involving such general terms, must be defined
by the more definite ones above exhibited. Sometimes this gen
eral form of statement is used to give prominence to the fact that >
Christ, being a single victim, by one sacrifice atoned for so many.
Compare Matt, xx., 28, with 1 Tim. ii., 6, and Heb. ix., 28.
And although Christ did not die with the design of saving all,
yet he did suffer the penalty of that law under which all were
placed, and he does offer the righteousness thus wrought out
to all. 44 How are we to understand those passages which sp>eak
of the possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died ?
Such passages are hypothetical, and truly indicate the nature
and tendency of the action against which they warn us, and are

318 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL PRIEST.
the means which God uses, under the administration of his Spirit,
to fulfill his purposes. God always deals with men, and thus
fulfills his own designs through our agency by addressing motives
to our understandings and wills. As in the case of Paul's ship
wreck, it was certain that none should perish, and yet all would
perish except they abode in the ship, Acts xxvii., 24, 31. On
the same principle, also, must be explained all such passages, as
Heb. x., 26-30 ; 1 Cor. viii., 11, etc. See Dr. Hodge's Com. on
1 Cor. viii., 11.

C HAP T E R XXIII.
THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST.
1. In what sense is Christ to continue a priest for ever ?
This is asserted by Paul, .Heb. vii., 3, 24, to contrast the
piiesthood of Christ with that of Aaron, which consisted of a
succession of mortal men in their generations. His priesthood is
perpetual, because, 1st, by one sacrifice for sin he hath for ever
perfected them that are sanctified ; 2d, he ever liveth to make
intercession for us ; 3d, his person and work as mediator will
continue for all eternity the ground of our acceptance, and the
medium of our communion with the Father.
2. Did he intercede for his people on earth ?
He did exercise this function of his priesthood on earth, Luke
xxiii., 34 ; John xvii., 20 ; Heb. v., 7 ; the principal scene of its
exercise, however, is his estate of exaltation in heaven.
3. What is the view which the Scriptures present of the in
tercession of Christ ?
1st. He appears in the presence of God for us, as the priestly
advocate of his people, and presents his sacrifice, Heb. ix., 12, 24 ;
Rev. v., 6.
2d. He acts as our advocate with the Father, and on the basis'
of his own perfect work under the terms of the covenant of grace,
claims as his own right, though as infinitely free grace to usward,
the fulfillment of all the promises of his covenant, 1 John ii.,
1 ; John xvii., 24 ; xiv., 16 ; Acts ii., 33 ; Heb. vii., 25.
3d. Because' of his community of nature with his people, and
his personal experience of the same . sorrows and temptations
which now afflict them he sympathizes with them, and watches

320 THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST.
and succors them in all their varying circumstances, and adapts
his oeaseless intercessions to the entire current of their experiences.
Heb ii., 17, 18 ; iv., 15/16 ; Matt, xxviii., 20 ; xviii., 20.
4th. He presents, and through his merits gains acceptance for
the persons and services of his people, 1 Pet. ii., 5 ; Eph. L, 6 ;
Rev. viii., 3, 4 ; Heb. iv., 14-16.
4 For whom does he intercede ?
Not for the world, but for his own people of every fold, and
of all times, John x., 16 ; xvii., 9, 20.
5. Show that his intercession "is an essential part of his
priestly work.
It is absolutely essential, Heb.*viL, 25, because it is necessary
for him as mediator not merely to open up a way of possible sal
vation, but actually to accomplish the salvation of each of those
given to him by the Father, and to furnish each with an " intro
duction" (-npoaayuyrj) to the Father, John xvii., 12 ; Epfi. ii., 18 ;
iii., 12. The communion of his people with the Father will ever
be sustained through him as mediatorial priest, Ps. ex., 4 ; Rev.
vii., 17.
6. What relation does the work of the Holy Ghost sustain to
the intercession of Christ ?
Christ is a royal priest, Zech. vi., 13. From the same throne,
as king, he dispenses his Spirit to all the objects of his care, while
as priest he intercedes for them. The Spirit acts for him,' taking
only of his things. They both act with one consent, Christ as
principal, the Spirit as his agent. Christ intercedes for us, with
out us, as our advocate in heaven, according to the provisions of
the eternal covenant. The Holy Ghost works upon our minds
and hearts, enlightening and quickening, and thus determining
_our desires " according to the will of God," as our advocate
within us. The work of the one' is complementary to that of the
other, and together they form a complete whole, Rom. viii., 26,
27 ; John xiv., 26.

CHAPTER XXIV.
MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST.
1. Hoto does the sovereignty of Christ as Mediator differ from
his sovereignty as God ?
His sovereignty as God is essential to his nature, underived,
absolute, eternal and unchangeable.
His sovereignty as mediatorial King is derived, given to him
by his Father as the reward of his obedience and suffering ; it is
special, having respect to the salvation of his own people and the
administration of the provisions of the covenant of grace ; and it
attaches, not to his divine nature as such, but to his person as
God-man, occupying the office of Mediator.
2. What is the extent of Christ's mediatorial kingdom, and
what are the different aspects which it presents ?
Christ's mediatorial authority embraces the universe, Matt.
xxviii., 18 ; Phil, ii., 9-11 ; Eph. L, 17-23. It presents two
great aspects. 1st. In its general administration as embracing
the universe as a whole. 2d. In its special administration as
embracing the church.
3. What are the objects of his mediatorial authority over the
universe, and how is it administered i
Its object is to accomplish the salvation of his church in the
execution of all the provisions of the covenant of grace, which de
volves upon him as Mediator, Eph. L, 23. As the universe con
stitutes one physical and moral system, it was necessary that his
headship as 'Mediator should extend to the whole, in order to
cause all things to work together for good to his people, Rom.
viii., 28 ; to establish a kingdom for them, Luke xxii., 29 ; John
21

322 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL KING.
xiv., 2 ; to reduce to subjection all his enemies, 1 Cor. xv., 25 ;
Heb. x., 13 ; and in order that all should worship him, Heb. i.,
6 ; Rev. v., 9-13. His general mediatorial government of the
universe is administered, 1st, providentially ; 2d, judicially, John
v., 22, 27; ix., 39 ; 2 Cor. v., 10.
4. How was the kingship of Christ foretold in the Old Testa
ment ?
1st. Typically in the persons of the theocratic princes, Jer.
xxiii., 5 ; Is. ix., 7. 2d. By explicit prediction, Dan. ii., 44 ;
Ps. ii., 6 ; Is. ix., 6.
5. What are the various senses in which the phrases " king
dom of God," and "kingdom of heaven," are used in the New
Testament ?
They signify the different aspects of that one spiritual reign,
also called the " Kingdom of Christ." 1st. For true religion,
or the reign of Christ in the heart, Luke xii., 31 ; xvii., 21 ;
Mark x., 15 ; Rom. xiv., 17. 2d. For the visible church under
the new dispensation see parables of the Sower, Tares, etc., Matt.
xiii. ; iv., 17 ; Mark L, 15. 3d. The perfected church in glory,
Luke, xiii., 29 ; 2 Pet. L, 11.
6. What is the nature of Christ's kingly administration of
the affairs of his own people, i. e., of his kingdom as distinct
from the universe ?
1st. It is providential. He administers his providential gov
ernment over the universe with the design of accomplishing there
by the support, defence, enrichment and glorification of his people.
2d. It is accomplished by the dispensation of his Spirit effectually
calling, sanctifying, comforting, preserving, raising, and glorifying
his people, John xv, 26 ; Acts ii., 33-36. 3d. It is accomplished
by his prescribing the form, and order, and functions of his church,
the officers who are to act as the organs of those functions, and
the laws which they are to administer, Matt, xxviii., 18, 19,
;20 :; Eph. iv., 8, 11. 4th. By designating the persons who are
successively to assume those offices, by means of a spiritual call,
expressed in the witness of the Spirit, the leadings of providence,

HIS KINGDOM SPIRITUAL. 323
and the call of the brethren, Acts L, 23, 24 ; vi., 5 ; sin., 2, 3 ;
xx., 28 ; 1 Tim. L, 12 ; iv., 14.
Under this administration thiskingdoin presents two aspects,
1st, as militant, Eph. vi., 11-16 ; 2d, as glorified, Rev. iii., 21.
And accordingly Christ presents himself as fulfilling, in his ad
ministration of the affairs of his kingdom, the functions of a great
Captain, Rev. xix, 11, 16, and of a sovereign Prince reigning
from a throne, Rev. xxi., 5, 22, 23.
The throne upon which he sits and from which he reigns is
presented in three different aspects, corresponding to the different
relations he sustains to his people and the world ; as a throne of
grace, Heb. iv., 16 ; a throne of judgment, Rev. xx., 11-15 ;
and a throne of glory, compare Rev. iv., 2-5 with Rev. v., 6.
7. In what sense is Christ's kingdom spiritual ?
1st. The King is a spiritual and not an earthly sovereign,
Matt, xx., 28 ; John xviii., 36. 2d. His throne is at the right
hand of God, Acts ii., 33. 3d. His sceptre is spiritual, Is. liii.,
1 ; Ps. ex., 2. 4th. The citizens of his kingdom are spiritual
men, Phil, iii., 20 ; Eph. ii., 19. 5th. The mode in which he ad
ministers his government is spiritual, Zech. iv., 6, 7. 6th. His
laws are spiritual, John iv., 24. 7th. The blessings and the pen
alties of -his kingdom are spiritual, 1 Cor. v., 4-11 ; 2 Cor. x.,
4 ; Eph. i., 3-8 ; 2 Tim. iv., 2 ; Tit. ii., 15.
8. What is the extent of the powers which Christ has vested
in his visible church ?
In respect to the civil magistrate the church is absolutely in
dependent. In subjection to- the supreme authority of Christ her
head the powers of the church are solely, 1st, declarative, i. e., to
expound the Scriptures, which are the perfect rule of faith and
practice, and thus to witness to and promulgate the truth in creeds
and confessions, by the pulpit and the press. And, 2d, minis
terial, i. e., to organize herself according to the pattern furnished in
the Word, and then to administer, through the proper officers, the
sacraments, and those laws and that discipline prescribed by the
Master, and to make provision for the^ proclamation of the gospel
of the kingdom to every creature, Is. viii., 20 ; Deut. iv, 2 ; Matt.
xxviii., 18-20 ; Heb. xiii., 17 ; 1 Pet. ii., 4.

324 CHRIST MEDIATORIAL KING.
9. What are the conditions of admission into Christ's king
dom ?
Simply practical recognition of the authority of the sovereign.
As the sovereign and the entire method of his administration are
spiritual, it is plain that his authority must be understood and
embraced practically, according to its spiritual nature. This is
that spiritual faith which involves spiritual illumination, John
iii., 3, 5 ; L, 12 ; 1 Cor. xii., 3.
10. What is the Romish doctrine of the relation of the Church
to the State ?
According to the strictly logical Romish doctrine, the state is
only one phase of the church. The whole nation being in all its
members a portion of the church universal, the civil, organization
is comprehended within the church for special subordinate ends,
and is responsible to the church for the exercise of all the au
thority delegated to it.
11. What is the Erastian doctrine as to the relation of the
Church to the State ?
This doctrine, named from Erastus, a physician resident in
Heidelberg in the sixteenth century, is precisely contrary to that
of the Romanists, i. e., it regards the church as only one phase of
the state. The state, being a divine institution, designed to pro
vide for all the wants of men, spiritual as well as temporal, is
consequently charged with the duty of providing for the dissemi
nation of pure doctrine, and for the proper administration of the
sacraments, and of discipline. It is the duty of the state, there-
fere, to support the church, to appoint its officers, to define its
laws, and to superintend its administration.
12. What is the common doctrine of the Reformed Church on
ijhis point f
That the church and the state are both divine institutions,
having different objects, and in every respect independent of each
other. The members and officers of the church are, as men,
members of the state, and ought to be good citizens ; and the*.
members and officers of the state, if Christians, are members of
the church, and as such subject to her laws. But neither the offi>

CHURCH AND STATE. 325
cers nor the laws of either have any authority within the sphere
of the other.
13. What is the idee and design of the State ?
Civil government is a divine institution, designed to protect
men in the enjoyment of their civil rights. It has, therefore, de
rived from God authority to define those rights touching all ques
tions of person and property, and to provide for their vindication,
to regulate intercourse, and to provide all means necessary for its
own preservation.
14. What is the design of the visible Church ?
It is a divine institution designed to secure instrumentally the
salvation pf men. To that end it is specially designed —
1st. To bring men to a knowledge of the truth.
2d. To secure their obedience to the truth, and to exercise
their graces by the public confession of Christ, the fellowship
of the brethren, and the administration of the ordinances and
discipline. 3d. To constitute the visible witness and prophetic type of the
church invisible and spiritual.
15. What are the duties of the State with regard to the
Church ?
The State, of course, sustains precisely the same relation to •
the persons of church members and officers, and to the public
property of the church, that she does to all other persons and
property subject to her jurisdiction and. under her protection.
Otherwise the State neither possesses rights nor owes duties to
the church ; yet, as the Scriptures and the power which the State
administers are alike directly from God, and since each individual,
legislative, judicial, and executive officer of the State is bound to
receive every word of Scripture as God's will, it follows necessa
rily that all the deliverances of Scripture upon all the subjects
which fall within the jurisdiction of the State, ought, by a divine
right, to be acknowledged and obeyed as an inviolable element in
the supreme law of every State. For instance, no laws can be right
upon the great subjects of marriage, oaths, the Sabbath day, the

326 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST.
duties and the rights of slaves, etc., which dp not express the prin
ciples which God has revealed in his word upon those subjects.
The church, however, hence acquires no rights to expound this
law of God authoritatively for the guidance of the State. All
her teaching must be within her own sphere, and her influence
upon the State can only be indirect, through the citizens of the
State, who have been enlightened not as citizens, but as members
of the congregation. ,
16. What are the duties of the Church with regard to the
State ?
1st. The church owes obedience to the State in the exercise
of her lawful authority over the public property of the church.
2d. She is bound to use all the lawful means in her possession for
carrying the gospel to all the members of the State. Beyond this
the church owes no duty to the State whatever.
17. In what sense is Christ to return Ms kingdom to his Fa
ther, and in what sense will his mediatorial headship continue
for ever ?
The sum of what is revealed to us upon this subject appears
to be, that after the complete glorification of his people, and the
destruction of his enemies, Christ will demit his mediatorial au
thority over the universe which he has administered as God-man,
in order that the Godhead absolute may be immediately all in all
to the creature, 1 Cor. xv, 24-28. But his mediatorial headship
over his own people, including the offices of prophet, priest, and
king, shall continue for ever. This is certain, 1st. Because he is
a priest forever, and of his kingdom there is no end, Ps. ex., 4 ;
Dan. vii., 14 ; Luke L, 33. 2d. The personal union between his
divine and human nature is to continue for ever. 3d. As Media
tor he is the head of the church, which is his fullness, and the
consummation of the marriage of the Lamb is the beginning of
heaven, Rev. xix., 7 ; xxi., 2, 9. 4th. As " a Lamb that ' had
been slain," he is represented in heaven on the throne as ever
more the temple and the light of the city, and as feeding his peo
ple, and leading them to fountains of living waters, Rev. v., 6 ;
vii., 17; xxi., 22, 23.

HIS ESTATE OF HUMILIATION. 327
CHRIST EXECUTED HIS OFFICE OF MEDIATOR BOTH IN HIS ESTATE
OF HUMILIATION AND EXALTATION.
18. Wherein does Christ's humiliation consist ?
See Larger Catechism, questions 46-50 ; Shorter Catechism,
question 27.
19. In what sense was Christ made under the law, and how
was that subjection an act of humiliation ?
In his incarnation Christ was born precisely into the law
place of his people, and sustained to the law precisely that relation
which they did. He was born under the law, then, 1st, as a rule
of duty ; 2d, as a covenant of life ; 3d, as a broken covenant,
whose curse was already incurred. His voluntary assumption of
such a position was preeminently an act of humiliation : 1st.
His assumption of a human nature was voluntary, 2d. After his
incarnation his person remained divine, and the claims of law ter
minating upon persons, and not upon natures, his submission to
those claims was purely gratuitous. 3d. This condescension is
immeasurably heightened by the fact that he accepted the curse
of the law as of a covenant of life already broken, Gal. iii., 10-13;
iv., 4, 5.
20. In what sense did Christ undergo the curse of the law,
and how was that possible for God's well-beloved Son ?
In his own person, absolutely considered, Christ is often de
clared by the Father to be his " beloved Son, with whom he was
well pleased," Matt, iii., 17 ; 2 Pet. L, 17 ; and he always did
that which pleased God, John viii., 29. But in his office as me
diator he had assumed our place, and undertaken to bear the
guilt of our sin. The wrath of God, then, which Christ bore,
was the infinite displeasure of God against our sins, which dis
pleasure terminated upon Christ's person vicariously, because of
the iniquity of us all which was laid upon him, Matt, xxvi., 38 ;
xxvii., 46 ; Luke xxii.,- 44.
21.. What are the different interpretations of the phrase in the
apostles' creed, "he descended into hell?"
Our standards teach that the phrase in the creed, which is

328 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST.
borrowed from Ps. xvi., 10, and Acts ii., 27, means Christ's con
tinuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death
till the third day, Larger Cat, question 50. didrjg, translated hell,
appears to be used in its etymological and most general sense for
the invisible state of the dead, presenting no definite idea of
place, but rather of a state marked, 1st, as invisible, i. e., to the
living ; - 2d, by separation of soul and body. Compare Acts ii.,
24-28 ; ii., 31 ; with Ps. xvi., 8-11.
The Romanists interpret " hell" in this phrase as signifying
the "Limbus Patruni," or that region of the invisible world "into
which the souls of the just who died before Christ were received,
and where, without experiencing ,any sort of pain, and supported
by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose.
To liberate these souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham, were ex
pecting the Saviour Christ, the Lord descended into hell." — Cate
chism of Coun. of Trent, Part I., Art. 5th.
Some have held the revolting opinion that Christ actually de
scended into the place of torments to triumph over the powers of
darkness, which is evidently inconsistent with Luke xxiii., 43, 46.
22. What is the true meaning of 1 Pet. iii., 19-21 ?
This passage is very obscure. The Romish interpretation is
shown in the answer to the preceding question, i. e., that Christ
went to the Limbus Patrum and preached the gospel to those
imprisoned spirits that were awaiting his advent.
The common Protestant interpretation is that Christ was put
to death in the body, but quickened, or restored to life by the
Spirit, by which Spirit, inspiring Noah as a preacher of righteous
ness, Christ many centuries previously had descended from
heaven, and preached to the men of that generation, who in their
sin and unbelief were the " spirits in prison." Only eight persons
believed and. were saved ; therefore, Christian professors and
teachers ought not to faint because of the unbelief of mankind
now. Another interpretation, suggested by Archbishop Leighton in
a note, as his last opinion, and expounded at large by the late Dr.
John Brown, of Edinburgh, is, that Christ dying in the body as
a vicarious sacrifice is quickened in the spirit, i. e., spiritually
quickened, manifested as a complete Saviour in a higher degree

HIS ESTATE OF EXALTATION. 329
than was possible before, as a grain of wheat dying he began to
bear much fruit ; and thus quickened, he now, through the inspi
ration of .his Spirit, preached to " spirits in prison," i. e., prison
ers of sin and Satan, just as he had before done, though with less
power, through Noah and all the prophets, when the spirits were
disobedient ; under the ministry of Noah only eight souls being
saved ; but since Christ was quickened in spirit, i. e., manifested
as a complete Saviour, multitudes believed.
23. Wherein does Christ's exaltation consist?
Shorter Cat., question 28, Larger Caty questions 51-54.
24. In what' sense was it possible for the coequal Son of God
to be exalted ?
As the coequal Son of God this was impossible, yet his person
as God-man was capable of exaltation in several respects.
1st. Through the union of the divine and human natures, the
outward manifestations of the glory of his person had been veiled
from the eyes of creatures. 2d. As Mediator he occupied officially
a position inferior to the Father, condescending to occupy the
place of sinners. He had been inconceivably humbled, and, as a
reward consequent upon his voluntary self-humiliation, the
Father highly exalted him, Phil, ii., 8, 9 ; Heb. xii., 2 ; Rev.
v., 6. 3d. His human soul and body were inconceivably exalted,
Matt, xvii., 2 ; Rev. L, 12-16 ; xx., 11.
25. What are the various sources of proof by which the resur
rection of Christ is established ?
1st. The Old Testament predicted it. Compare Ps. xvi., 10,
and Acts ii., 24-31. All the other predictions concerning the
Messiah were fulfilled in Christ, therefore this.
2d. Christ predicted it, and therefore, if he was a true prophet,
he must have risen, Matt, xx., 19 ; John x., 18.
3d. The event, his extraordinary origin and character consid
ered, is not antecedently improbable.
4th. The testimony of the eleven apostles. These men are
proved- by their writings to have been good, intelligent and seri
ous, and they each had every opportunity of ascertaining the fact,
and they sealed their sincerity with their blood, Aots L, 3.

330 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST.
5th. The separate testimony of Paul, wh6, as one born out
of due time, saw his risen Lord, and derived his revelation and
commission from him in person, 1 Cor. xv., 8 ; Gal. i., 12 ; Acts
ix., 3-8.
6th. He was seen by five hundred brethren at once, to whom
Paul appeals, Cor. xv., 6.
7th. The.change of the Sabbath, from the last to the first day
of the week, is a monument of the concurrent testimony of the
whole of the first generation of Christians, to the fact that they
believed that Christ rose from the dead.
8th. The miracles wrought by the apostles were God's seals
to their testimony that he had raised Christ, Heb. ii., 4.
9th. The accompanying witness of the Holy Ghost, honoring
the apostles' doctrine and ministry not merely by miraculous
gifts, but by his sanctifying, elevating and consoling power, Acts
v., 32.— Dr. Hodge.
26. By whose power did Christ rise from the dead ?
The Scriptures ascribe his resurrection —
1st. To himself, John ii., 19 ; x., 17.
2d. To the Father, Acts xiii., 33 ; Rom. x., 9 ; Eph. L, 20.
This is reconciled upon the principle that all acts of divine
power, terminating upon objects external to the Godhead, may be
attributed to either of the divine persons, or to the Godhead abso
lutely, John v., 17-19.
27. On what ground does the apostle declare that our faith is
vain if Christ be not risen, (1 Cor. xv., 14) ?
1st. If Christ be risen indeed, then he is the true Messiah,
and all the prophecies of both dispensations have in that fact a
pledge of their fulfillment. If he has not risen,- then are they all
false. 2d. The resurrection proved him to b<, the Son of God, Rom.
i., 4, for (1.) he rose by his own power, (2.) it authenticated all
his claims with respect to himself.
3d. In the resurrection of Christ the Father publicly declared
his approbation and acceptance of Christ's work as surety of hia
people, Rom. iv., 25.

HIS ESTATE OF EXALTATION. 331
, 4th. If Christ has risen, we have an advocate with the Father,
Rom. viii., 34 ; Heb. ix., 11, 12, 24.
5th. If Christ be raised, we have assurance of eternal life ; if
he lives, we shall live also, John xiv., 19 ; 1 Pet. i., 3-5.
6th. Owing to the union between Christ and his members,
which is both federal and spiritual, his resurrection secures ours,
(1.) because, as we died in Adam, so we must live in Christ, 1
Cor. xv, 21, 22 ; (2.) because of his Spirit, that dwelleth in us,
Rom. viii., 11 ; 1 Cor. vi., 15 ; 1 Thess. iv, 14.
7th. Christ's resurrection illustrates and determines the na
ture of our resurrection as well as secures it, 1 Cor. xv, 49 ; Phil.
iii., 21 ; 1 John, iii., 2. — Dr. Hodge.
28. When, at what place, and in whose presence did Christ

He ascended forty days after his resurrection, from a portion
of the Mount of Olives, near to the village of Bethany, in the
presence of the eleven apostles, and possibly of other disciples,
whfie he was in the act of blessing them, and while they beheld
him, and were looking steadfastly. Luke says, moreover, that
there were two glorified men present, who are conjectured by
Professor J. A. Alexander to have been Moses and Elijah. He
was attended also with angels celebrating his victory over sin, and
his exaltation to his mediatorial throne, Luke xxiv., 50, 51 ; Mark
xvi., 19 ; Acts L, 9-11 ; Eph. iv., 8 ; Col. ii., 13-15 ; Ps. xxiv,
7-10 ; lxviii., 18.
29. What are the different opinions as to the nature of Christ 's
ascension ?
Those who, as the Lutherans, believe that Christ's body is
omnipresent to his church, of course, maintain that his ascension
consisted not in any local change, but in the withdrawal of his
former sensible intercourse with his disciples.
It is certain, however, that his human soul and body did ac
tually pass up from earth to the abode of the blessed, and that
his entire person, as the God-man, was gl6riously exalted. He
ascended as Mediator, triumphing over his enemies, and giving gifts
to his friends, Eph. iv., 8-12 ; to complete his mediatorial work,
John xiv, 2, 3 ; as the Forerunner of his people, Heb. vi. 20 ; and

332 THE MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST.
to fill the universe with the manifestations of his glory and power,
Eph., iv, 10.
30. What is included in Christ's sitting at the right hand of
the Father ?
See Ps. ex., 1 ; Mark xvi., 19 ; Rom. viii., 34 ; Eph. L, 20,
22 ; Col. iii., 1 ; Heb. L, 3, 4 ; x., 12 ; 1 Pet. iii., 22.
This language is evidently figurative, yet it very expressively
. sets forth the supreme glorification of Christ in heaven. It pre
sents him as the God-man, and in his office as Mediator exalted to
supreme and universal glory, felicity and power over all princi
palities and powers, and every name that is named, Heb. ii., 9 ;
Ps. xvi., 11 ; Matt, xxvi., 64 ; Dan. vii., 13, 14 ; Phil, ii., 9, 11 ;
John v., 22 ; Rev. v., 6. Thus publicly assuming his throne as
mediatorial Priest and King over the universe for the benefit of
his church.
Seated upon that throne he, during the present dis
pensation, as Mediator, effectually applies to his people,.
through his spirit, that salvation which he had previ
ously achieved for them in his estate of humiliation.

CHAPTER XXV.
EFFECTUAL CALLING.
1. What is the New Testament usage of the words KaXuy (to
call), KXrjaig (calling), and KXr/rog (the called) ?
KaXeiv is used in the sense, 1st, of calling with the voice, John
x., 3 ; Mark i., 20 ; 2d, of calling forth, to summon authorita
tively, Acts iv., 18 ,"- xxiv., ii. ; 3d, of inviting, Matt., xxii., 3 ;
ix., 13 ; 1 Tim. vi., 12. Many are called, but few chosen. 4th.
Of the effectual call of the Spirit, Rom. viii., 28-30 ; 1 Pet. ii.,
9 ; - v., 10. 5th. Of an appointment to office, Heb. v., 4. 6th.
In the sense of naming, Matt. L, 21 ; tcXijaig occurs eleven times
in the New Testament, in each instance it signifies the effectual
call of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of 1 Cor. vii., 20, where
it is used as synonymous with business or trade. — See Rom. xi.,
29 ; 1 Cor. L, 26, etc., etc. — Robinson's Lex.
nXvTog occurs ten times in the New Testament. It is used to
signify, 1st, those appointed to any office, Rom. L, 1. 2d. Those
who receive the external call of the word, Matt, xx., 16. 3d.
The effectually called, Rom. L, 7 ; viii., 28 ; 1 Cor. L, 2, 24 ;
Jude i.; Rev. xvii., 14.
The very word lKK,Xr\oia (church) designating the company of
the faithful, the heirs of all the promises, signifies, etymologicaUy,
the company called forth, the body constituted by "the calling."
2. What is included in the external call ?
1st. A declaration of the plan of salvation. 2d. A declara
tion of duty on the part of the sinner to repent and believe. 3d.
A declaration of the motives which ought to influence the sin-
tier's mind, such as fear or hope, remorse or gratitude. 4th. A

S34 EFFECTUAL CALLING.
promise of acceptance in the case of all those who comply with
the conditions. — Dr. Hodge.
3. How can it be proved that the external call to salvation is
made only through the word of God ?
The law of God, as impressed upon the moral constitution of
man, is natural, and inseparable from man as a moral responsible
agent, Rom. L, 19, 20 ; ii., 14, 15. But the gospel is no part of
that natural law. It is of grace, not of nature, and it can be
made known to us only by a special and supernatural revelation.
This is further evident, '1st, because the Scriptures declare
that a knowledge of the word is essential to salvation, Rom. x.,
14-17 ; and, 2d, because they also declare that those who neglect
the word, either written @r preached, are guilty of the eminent
sin of rejecting all possibility of salvation,- Matt, xi., 21, 22 ; ,
Heb. ii., 3.
4. On what principle is this external call addressed equally to
the non-elect as well as to the elect ?
That it is addressed indiscriminately to both classes is proved,
1st. From the express declaration of Scripture, Matt, xxii., 14.
2d. The command to preach the gospel to every creature, Mark
xvi., 15. 3d. The promise to every one who accepts it, Rev. xxii.,
17. 4th. The awful judgment pronounced upon those who reject
it, John iii., 19 ; xvi., 9.
It is addressed to the non-elect equaUy with the elect, because
it is equally their duty and interest to accept the gospel, because
the provisions of salvation are equally suited to their case, and
abundantly sufficient for all, and because God intends that its
benefits shall actually accrue to every one who accepts it.
5. How can it be proved that there is an internal spiritual
call distinct from an external one ?
1st. From those passages which distinguish the Spirit's influ
ence from that of the word, John vi., 45, 64, 65 ; 1 Thes. L, 5,
6. 2d. Those passages which teach that the Spirit's influence is
necessary to the reception of the truth, Eph. L, 17. 3d. Those
that refer aU good in man to God, Phil, ii., 13 ; Eph. ii., 8 ; 2

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 335
Tim., ii., 25, e. g., faith and repentance. 4th. The Scripture
distinguishes between the two calls ; of the subjects of the one it
is said " many are caUed and few are chosen," of the subjects of
the other it is said, " whom he called them he also justified." Of
the one he says, " Because I have caUed, and ye have refused,"
Prov. L, 24. Of the other he says, " Every man therefore who hath
heard and hath learned of the Father eometh unto me," John vi.,
45. 5th. There is an absolute necessity for such an internal,
spiritual call, man by nature is " blind" and " dead" in tres
passes and sins, 1 Cor. ii , 14 ; 2 Cor. iv., 4 ; Eph. ii., 1.
6. What is the Pelagian view of the internal call ?
Pelagians deny original sin, and maintain that right and
wrong are qualities attaching only to executive acts of the will.
They therefore assert, 1st. The full ability of the free will of man
as much to cease from sin at any time as to continue in its prac
tice. 2d. That the Holy Spirit produces no inward change in the
heart of the subject, except as he is the author of the Scriptures,
and as the Scriptures present moral truths and motives, which of
their own nature exert a moral influence upon the soul.
7. What is the Semi-Pelagian view ?
These maintain that grace is necessary to enable a man suc
cessfully to return unto God and live. Yet that from the very
nature of the human will man must first of himself desire fo be
free from sin, and to choose God as his chief good, when he may
expect God's aid in carrying his desires into effect.
8. What is the Arminian view ?
The Arminians admit the doctrine of man's total depravity,
and that in consequence thereof man is utterly unable to do any
thing aright in the unaided exercise of his natural faculties.
Nevertheless, as Christ died equally for every man, sufficient grace,
enabling its subject to do all that is required of him, is granted to
aU. Which sufficient grace becomes efficient only when it is co
operated with and improved by the sinner. — Apol. Conf. Re-
monstr., p. 162, b.; Limborch, Theo. Christ., 4, 12, 8.

336 EFFECTUAL CALLING.
9. What is the doctrine on this subject taught by the symbols
of the Lutheran Church ?
The Lutherans agree entirely with the Calvinistic view on the
point of efficacious grace, although they are logically inconsistent
in denying the doctrine of election. — Additions to Luther's Small
Catechism, III. Order of Salvation, questions 74-88.
10. What is the Synergistic view of this point ?
At the cafi of Maurice, the new elector of Saxony, the divines
of Wittemburg and Leipsic assembled a{ Leipsic, A. D. 1548, in
conference, and on that occasion the Synergistic controversy arose.
The term signifies cooperation. The Synergists were Lutheran
theologians, who departed from their own system on this one sub
ject, and adopted the position of the Arminians. Melanch
thon used these words at that conference : " God so draws and
converts adults that some agency of their will accompanies his
influences." 11. What is the common doctrine of the Reformed Churches
as to the internal call ?
That it is an exercise of divine power upon, the soul, imme
diate, spiritual, and supernatural, communicating a new spiritual
life, and thus making a new mode of spiritual activity possible.
That repentance, faith, trust, hope, love, etc., are purely and
simply the sinner's own acts ; but as such are possible to him
only in virtue of the change wrought in the moral condition of
his faculties by the recreative power of God. — See Conf. of Faith,
Chap. X., Sections 1 and 2.
12. What diversity of opinion prevails among the Romanists
upon this subject?
The disciples of Augustin in that church, of whom the Jan-
senists were the most prominent, are orthodox, but these have
been almost universally overthrown, and supplanted by their ene
mies the Jesuits, who are Semi-Pelagians. The Council of Trent
attempted to satify both parties. — Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Can.
3 and 4. The doctrines of Quesnel, who advocated the truth on
this subject, were condemned in the Bull " Unigeuitus," A. D,

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 337
1713. Bellarmine taught that the same grace is given to every
man, which, by the event only, is proved practically congruous to
the nature of one man, and therefore in his case efficacious, and
incongruous to the nature of another, and therefore in his case
ineffectual. 13. What is meant by " common grace," and how may it be
shown that the Spirit does operate upon the minds of those who
are not renewed in heart ?
" Common grace" is the restraining and persuading influences
of the Holy Spirit acting only through the truth revealed in the
gospel, or through the natural light of reason and of conscience,
heightening the natural moral effect of such truth upon the un
derstanding, conscience, and heart. It involves no change of
heart, but simply an enhancement of the natural powers of the
truth, a restraint of the evil passions, and an increase of the
natural emotions in view of sin, duty, and self-interest.
That God does so operate upon the hearts of the unregenerate
is proved, 1st, from Scripture, Gen. vi., 3 ; Acts vii., 51 ; Heb.
x., 29 ; 2d, from universal experience and observation.
14. How does common differ from efficacious grace ?
1st. As to its subjects. AU men ase more or less the subjects
of the one ; only the elect are subjects of the other, Rom. viii., 30;
xi., 7 ; 2 Thes. ii., 13.
2d. As to its nature. Common grace is only mediate, through
the truth^ and it is merely moral, heightening the moral influence
natural to the truth, and exciting only the natural powers of
the soul, both rational and moral. But efficacious grace is im
mediate 'and supernatural, since it is wrought directly in the soul
by the immediate energy of the Holy Ghost, and since it implants
a new spiritual life, and a capacity for a new mode of exercising
the natural faculties.
' 3d. As to its effects. The effects of common grace are super
ficial and transient, modifying the action, but not changing the
nature, and its influence is always more or less consciously re
sisted, as opposed to the prevailing dispositions of the soul. But
efficacious grace, since it. acts not upon but in the will itself,
changing the governing desires, and giving a new direction to the
22

338 EFFECTUAL CALLING.
active powers of the soul, is neither resistible nor irresistible,, but
most free, spontaneous, and yet most certainly effectual.
15. How can it be proved that this efficacious grace is con
fined to the elect ?
1st. The Scriptures represent the elect as the caUed, and the
called as the elect, Rom. viii., 28, 30 ; Rev. xvii., 14. 2d. This
effectual calling is said to be based upon the decree of election, 2
Thes. ii., 13, 14 ; 2 Tim. L, 9, 10. 3d. Sanctification, justifica
tion, and all the temporal and eternal benefits of union with
Christ are declared to be the effects of effectual caUing, 1 Cor. i.,
2 ; Eph. ii., .5 ; Rom. viii., 30.
16. Prove that it is given on account of Clirist.
1st. All spiritual blessings are given on account of ' Christ,
Eph. L, 3 ; Titus iii., 5, 6. 2d. The Scriptures specifically de
clare that we are called in Christ, Rom. viii., 2 ; Eph. ii., 4-6 ;
'2 Tim. L, 9.
17. What is meant by saying that this divine influence is im
mediate and supernatural ?
It is meant, 1st, to deny, (1.) that it consists simply in the
moral influence of the truth ; (2.) that it consists simply in the
moral influence of the Spirit, heightening the moral influence of
the truth as objectively presented ; (3.) that it excites the mere
natura] powers of the soul. It is meant, 2d, to affirm, (1.) that
the Holy Spirit acts immediately upon the soul from within ;
(2.) that the Holy Spirit, by an exercise of recreative power, im
plants a new moral nature or principle of action.
18. What arguments go to show that there is an immediate
influence of the Spirit on the soul, besides that which is exerted
through the truth ?
1st. The influence of the Spirit is distinguished from that of
the word, John vi., 45, 64, 65 ; Rom. xv, 13 ; 1 Cor. ii. 12-15 ;
1 Thess. L, 5, 6.
2d. A divine influence is declared to be necessary to the recep
tion of the truth, Ps. cxix., 18 ; Acts xvi., 14 ; Eph. i.; 17.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 339
3d. Such an internal operation on the heart is attributed to
God, Phil, ii., 13 ; 2 Thess. L, 11 ; Heb. xiii., 21.
4th. The gift of the Spirit is distinguished from the gift of the
word, John xiv., 16 ; 1 Cor. iii., 16 ; vi., 19 ; Eph. iv, 30.
5th. The nature of this influence is evidently different from
that effected by the truth, Eph. L, 19 ; iii., 7. And the effect is
called a " new creation," " new birth," etc., etc.
6th. Man by nature is dead in sin, and needs such a direct
intervention of supernatural power. — Turettin, Theo. Instits., L.
XV., Quaestio 4.
19. What are the different reasons assigned for calling this
grace efficacious ?
1st. Most of the Jesuits, and the Arminians, holding that aU
men receive sufficient grace to enable them to obey the gospel if
they will, maintain that this grace becomes efficacious when it is
cooperated with by the will of the individual, and in any case is
proved to be such only by the event.
2d. Bellarmine, and others, maintain - that the same grace
given to aU is congruous to the moral nature of one man, and
in that case efficacious, and incongruous to the nature of another,
and in his case ineffectual.
3d. Some Romanists have maintained what is called the doc
trine of cumulative influence. The consent of the soul is secured
by the suasive influence of the spirit, rendered effectual by con
stant repetition and long continuance.
4th. The orthodox doctrine is that the efficacy of this grace
is inherent in its very nature, because it is the exercise of the
mighty power of God in the execution of his eternal and un
changeable purpose.
20. In what sense is grace irresistible ?
It must be remembered that the true Christian is the subject
at the same time of those moral and mediate influences of grace
upon the will, common to him and to the unconverted, and also
of those special influences of grace within the will, which are cer
tainly efficacious. The first class of influences Christians may
and constantly do resist, through the law of sin remaining in
their members. The second class of influences are certainly effi-

340 EFFECTUAL CALLING.
cacious, but are neither resistible nor irresistible, because they act
from within and carry the will spontaneously with them. » It is
to be lamented that the term irresistible grace has ever been ,used,
since it suggests the idea of a mechanical and coercive influence
upon an unwilling subject, while, in truth, it is the transcendent
act of the infinite Creator, making the creature spontaneously
willing. 21. How can this grace be proved to be certainly efficacious ?
1st. By the evidence we have given above, as to its nature as
the immediate operation of the mighty power of God.
2d. By the description of the work of grace. Men by nature
are " blind," " dead," " slaves," etc. The change effected is a
" new creation," etc.
3d. From the promises of God, which are certain. The means
which he uses to vindicate his own faithfulness must be effica
cious, Ezek. xxxvi., 26 ; xi., 19 ; John vi., 45.
4th. From the connection asserted by Scripture between
calling and election. The called are the elect. . As God's de
crees are certain, the call must be efficacious. — See above, ques
tion 15.
5th. Faith and repentance are the gifts of God, and he who
truly repents and believes is saved. Therefore, the grace which
communicates those gifts is effectual, Eph. ii., 8 ; Acts xi., 18 ;
2 Tim. ii., 25.
22. How may it be proved that this influence is congruous
with our nature ?
While discarding utterly the distinction made by Bellarmine,
(for which see above, question 19,) we say that efficacious grace is
congruous to human nature as such, in the sense that the Spirit
of God, while exerting an immediate and recreative influence
upon the soul, nevertheless acts in perfect consistency with the
integrity of those laws of our free, rational, and moral nature,
which he has himself constituted. Even in the miraculous reve
lation of the new birth, he acts upon our reasons and upon our
wiUs in perfect accordance with the constitution of each. ' This
is certain. 1st. The same God creates and recreates ; his object
is not to destroy, but to restore his own work. 2d. The Scrip-

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 341
tures and our own experience teach that the immediately conse
quent acts of the soul in the exercise of implanted grace, are
preeminently rational and free. In fact, the soul never acted
normally before, Ps. ex., 3 ; 2 Cor. iii., 17 ; Phil . ii., 13. 3d. This
divine influence is described by such terms as "drawing," "teach
ing," " enlightening," John vi., 44, 45"; Eph. L, 18.
23. What do the Scriptures teach as to the connection of this
influence with the truth ?
In the case of the regeneration of infants the truth, of course,
is not used. In the regeneration of adults the truth is always
present. In the act of regeneration the Spirit acts immediately
upon the soul, and changes its subjective state, while the truth
is the object consciously apprehended, upon which the new facul
ties of spiritual discernment and the new affections are exercised.
The Spirit gives sight, the truth is the light discerned. The
Spirit gives feeling, the truth presents the object beloved, Rom.
x, 14, 17 ; James i., 18 ; John xvii., 17.
24 What reason may be assigned for the belief that the Spirit
does not renew those adults to whom the truth is not known ?
Negatively. The Bible never leads us to expect such an ex
tension of grace, and neither the Scriptures nor our own experi
ence among the modern heathen ever present us with any exam^
pies of such a work.
Positively. The Scriptures always associate aU spiritual in
fluence with the truth, and declare the necessity of the preaching
the truth to the end of saving souls, Rom. x., 14.
25. What are the objections to the Arminian doctrine of suf
ficient grace ?
They hold that God has willed the salvation of all men, and
therefore has caUed all alike, giving to all a grace sufficient, if
'they will improve it.
We object, 1st. The external call of the gospel has been ex
tended to comparatively few. The heathen are responsible with
the light of nature, and under the law of works, yet they have no
means of grace, Rom. i., 18-20 ; ii., 12-15.

342 EFFECTUAL CALLING.
. 2d. This doctrine is inconsistent with. God's purpose of elec
tion. — See above, Chapter X.
3d. According to the Arminian system it depends upon the
free will of the man to make the sufficient grace of God common
to all men efficient in his case. But the Scriptures declare that
salvation is altogether of grace, and a gift of God, Eph. ii., 8 ; 2
Tim. ii., 25 ; Rom. ix., 15, 16.
4th. The Scriptures expressly declare that not even all who
receive the external call have sufficient grace, Rom. ix, 16-24 ;
xi., 8.

CHAPTER XXVI.
REGENERATION.
1. What are the various Scripture terms by which this work
of Gud is designated ?
1st. " Creating anew," Eph. iv., 24. 2d. " Begetting," James
i., 18. 3d. "Quickening," John v., 21; Eph. ii., 5. 4th. "Call
ing out of darkness into marvelous light," 1 Pet. ii., 9. The
subjects of it are said, 1st, to be " alive from the dead," Rom. vi.,
13. 2d. To be "new creatures," 2 Cor. v., 17. 3d. To be
"born again," John iii., 3, 7. 4th. To be "God's workman
ship," Eph. ii., 10. ,
2. What is the Pelagian view of regeneration ?
They hold that sin can be predicated only of volitions, and
that it is essential to the liberty and responsibility of man that
he is always as able to cease from as to continue in sin. Regen
eration is therefore a mere reformation of life and habit. The
man who has chosen to transgress the law, now chooses to obey it.
3. What is the doctrine of the Romish church on this subject ?
The Romanists, 1st, confound together justification and sancti
fication, making these one act of God, whereby,for his own glory,
for Christ's merits sake, by the efficient powers of the Holy Ghost,
and through the instrumentality of baptism, he at once cancels
the guilt of our sins, and delivers us from the inherent power and
defilement of original sin. — Council of Trent, Sess. VI., Chap. VII.
2d. They hold the doctrine that regeneration is accomplished
only through the instrumentality of baptism. This is effectual in
every instance of its application to an infant. In the case of
adults its virtue may be either resisted and nullified, or received
and improved. In baptism (1.) sins are forgiven ; (2.) the mora]

344 REGENERATION. v
nature of the subject is renewed, (3.) he is made a son and heii
of God.— Cat. Rom., Part IL, Chap. II.
4 What are the different views as to baptismal- regeneration
entertained in the Church of England ?
1st. The theory of the party styled Puseyite, which is identical
with that of the Romish church.
2d. That of a large party most ably represented by the late
Bishop H. U. Underdonk, in his " Essay on Regeneration, Phila.,
1835." He maintained that there are two distinct regener
ations ; one a change of state or relation, and the other a change
of nature. The first is baptismal, the second moral, though both
are spiritual in so far as both are wrought by the Holy Ghost.
The first or baptismal regeneration is a new birth, since it con
stitutes us sons of God, as the Jews were made his peculiar peo
ple by that covenant, the seal of which was circumcision. The
second is a new birth, or creation in a higher sense, being a grad
ual sanctifying change wrought in the whole moral character by
the Holy Ghost, and not necessarily connected with baptism.
5. What view of regeneration is held by those in America who
maintain the " Exercise Scheme ?"
These theologians deny the existenoe in the soul of any per
manent moral habits or dispositions, and admit the existence only
of the soul or agent and his acts or "exercises." In. the natural
man the series of acts are wholly depraved. In the regenerated man
a new series of holy acts are created by the Holy Ghost, and con
tinued by his power. — Emmons, Sermon LXIV., on the New Birth.
* *
6. What is the New Haven view, advocated by Dr. N. W.
Taylor, on this subject ?
Dr. Taylor agreed with the advocates of the " Exercise
Scheme," that there is nothing in the soul but the agent and his
actions ; but he differed from them by holding that man and not
God is the independent author of human actions'. He held that
when God and the world is held up before the mind regeneration
consists in an act of the sinner in choosing God as his chief good,
thus confounding regeneration and conversion. The Holy Spirit,
in some unknown way, assists in restraining the active operation

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 345
of the natural, selfish principle which prefers the world as its
chief good. " A mind thus detached from the world as its su
preme good instantly chooses God for its portion, under the im
pulse of that inherent desire for happiness, without which no
object could ever be regarded as good, as either desirable or
lovely." This original motive to that choice of God which is
regeneration is merely natural, and neither morally good nor bad.
Thus, 1st. Regeneration is man's own act. 2d. The Holy Spirit
helps man, (1.) by suspending the controlling- power of his sin
ful, selfish disposition ; (2.) by presenting to his mind in the clear
light of truth the superiority of God as an object of choice. 3d.
Then the sinner chooses God as his chief good under the convic
tion of his understanding, and from a motive of natural, though
not sinful, self-love, which is to be distinguished from selfishness,
which is of the essence of sin. — See Christian Spectator, Decem
ber, 1829, pp. 693, 694, etc.
7. What is the common doctrine held by evangelical Chris
tians ?
1st. That there are in the soul, besides its several faculties,
habits, or dispositions, of which some are innate and others are
acquired, which lay the foundation for the soul's exercising its
faculties in some particular way. Thus we intuitively judge a
man's moral disposition to be permanently evil when we see him
habitually acting sinfully, or to be permanently good when we'
see him habitually acting righteously.
2d. These dispositions are anterior to moral action, and deter
mine its character as good or evil.
3d. In creation God made the disposition of Adam's heart
holy. 4th. In the new creation God recreates the governing disposi
tion of the regenerated man's heart holy.
It is, therefore, properly caUed a "regeneration," a "new
creation," a " new birth."
8. When it is said that regeneration consists in giving a new
heart, or in implanting a new principle or disposition, what is
meant by the terms " heart," "principle," or "disposition ?"
President Edwards says, " By a principle of nature in this

346 REGENERATION.
place, I mean that foundation which is laid in nature, either old
or new, for any particular kind or manner of exercise of the facul
ties of the soul. So this new ' spiritual sense' is not a new faculty
of understanding, but it is a new foundation laid in the nature
of the . soul for a new kind of exercise of the same faculty of
understanding. So that new holy disposition of heart that at
tends this new sense is not a new faculty of will, but a founda
tion laid in the nature of the soul for a new kind of exercise of
the same faculty of wiU." — Edwards on Religious Affections,
Pt. III. sec. 1.
The term " heart," signifying that prevailing moral disposition
xthat determines the volitions and actions, is the phrase most
commonly used in Scripture, Matt, xii., 33, 35 ; xv., 19 ; Luke
vi., 43, 45.
9. How may it be shown that this view of regeneration does not
represent it as involving any change in the essence of the soul?
This charge is brought against the orthodox doctrine by all
. those who deny that there is any thing in the soul but its consti
tutional faculties and their exercises. They hence argue that if
any thing be changed except the mere exercises of the soul,, its
fundamental constitution would be physically altered. In oppo
sition to this, we argue that we have precisely the same evidence
for the existence of a permanent moral quality or disposition in
herent in the will, as the reason why a good man acts habitually
righteously, or a bad man viciously, that we have for the exist
ence of the invisible soul itself, or of any of it's faculties as the
reason why a man acts at all, or why his actions are such as
thought, emotion, volition. It is not possible for us to conceive
of the choice being produced in us by the Holy Spirit in more
than three ways. "First, by. his direct agency in producing the
choice, in which case it would be no act of ours. Second, by ad
dressing such motives to our constitutional and natural principles
of self-love as would induce us to make the choice, in which case
there would be no morality n the act. Or, thirdly, by producing
such a relish for the divine character, that the soul as spontane
ously and immediately rejoices in God as its portion as it rejoices
in the perception of beauty."
" If our Maker can endow us, not only with the general sus-

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 347
ceptibility of love, but also with a specific disposition to love our
children ; if he can give us a discernment and susceptibility of
natural beauty, he may give us a taste for spiritual loveliness.
And if that taste, by reason of sin, is vitiated and perverted, he
may restore it by means of his spirit in regeneration." — Hodge's
Essays. *
10. In what sense may the soul be said to be passive in regen
eration ?
Dr. Taylor maintains that regeneration is that act of the soul
in whioh man chooses God as his portion. Thus, the man him
self, and not God, is the agent.
But the Christian church, on the contrary, holds that in re
generation the Holy Ghost is the agent, and man the subject.
The act of the Holy Spirit, in implanting a new principle, does
not interfere with the essential activity of the soul itself, but sim
ply gives to that activity a new direction, for the soul, though
active, is nevertheless capable of being acted upon. And although
the soul is necessarily active at the very time it is regenerated,
yet it is rightly said to be passive with respect to that act of the
Holy Spirit whereby it is regenerated.
1st. The soul, under the conviction of the Holy Ghost, and in
the exercise of merely natural feelings, regards some aspect of
saving truth, and strives to embrace it. 2d. The Holy Ghost,
by an exertion of creative power, changes the governing disposi
tion of the heart in a manner inscrutable, and by an influence not
apprehended by the consciousness of the subject. 3d. Simulta
neously the soul exercises new affections and experimentaUy em
braces the truth.
11, What is the difference between regeneration and conver
sion ?
- The term conversion is often used in a wide sense as including
both the change of nature and the exercise of that nature as
changed. When distinguished from regeneration, however, con
version signifies the first exercise of the new disposition implanted
in regeneration, i. e., in freely turning unto God.
Regeneration is God's act ; conversion is ours. Regeneration
is the implantation of a gracious principle ; conversion is the ex-

348 REGENERATION.
ercise of that principle. Regeneration is never a matter of direct
consciousness to the subject of it ; conversion always is such to the
agent of it. Regeneration is a single act, complete in itself, and
never repeated ; conversion, as the beginning of holy living, is the
commencement of a series, constant, endless, and progressive.
" Draw me, and I Will run after thee," Cant, i., 4
12. How can it be proved that there is any such thing as that
commonly called regeneration ?
1st. By those Scriptures that declare such a change to be
necessary, John iii., 3 ; 2 Cor. v., 17 ; Gal. vi., 15.
2d. By those passages which describe the change, Eph. ii., 5 ;
iv, 24 ; James L, 18 ; 1 Pet. L, 23.
3d. From the fact that it was necessary for the most moral
as well as for the most profligate, 1 Cor. xv., 10 ; Gal. L, 13-16.
4th. That this inward change is not a mere reformation is
proved by its being referred to the Holy Spirit, Eph. L, 19, 20 ;
Titus iii., 5.
5th. From the comparison of man's state in grace with his
state by nature, Rom. vi., 13 ; viii., 6-10 ; Eph. v., 8.
6th. From the experience of all Christians, and from the tes
timony of their lives.
13. What is the nature of supernatural illumination ?
The soul of man is a unit. A radically defective or perverted
condition of any faculty will injuriously affect the exercise of all
the other faculties. The essence of sin consists in the perverted
moral dispositions and affections of the will. But a perverted
condition of these affections must affect the exercises of the in
tellect, concerning all moral objects, as much as the volitions
themselves. We can not love or desire any object unless we per
ceive its loveliness, neither can we inteUectually perceive its love
liness unless its qualities are congenial to our inherent taste or
dispositions. Sin, therefore, is essentiaUy deceitful, and man as
a sinner is spirituaUy blind. This does not consist in any physi
cal defect. He possesses all the faculties requisite to enable him
to see the beauty, and to experience the power of the truth, but
his whole nature is moraUy perverted through his evil disposi-

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 349
tions. As soon as these are changed he will see, and, seeing, love
and obey the'' truth, although no constitutional change is wrought
in his nature, i. e., no new faculty given, but only his perverted
faculties morally rectified. This niumination is called super
natural, 1st, because, having been lost, it can be restored only by
the immediate power of God. 2d. In contradistinction to the
mained condition of man's present depraved nature. It, how
ever, conveys no new truths to the mind, nor does it relieve the
Christian, in any degree, from the diligent and prayerful study
of the Word, nor does it lead to any fanciful interpretations of
Scripture foreign to the plain sense of the letter, it only leads to
the perception and appreciation of the native spiritual beauty and
power of the inspired word, and the truths therein revealed.
14 How may it be proved that believers are the subjects of
such illumination ?
1st. It is necessary, 1 Cor. ii., 14 ; 2 Cor. iii., 14 ; iv., 3 ;
John xvi., 3, From the constitution of our nature we must ap
prehend an object as lovely before we can love it for its own sake.
2d. The Scriptures expressly affirm it., " To know God is
eternal life," John xvii., 3 ; 1 Cor. ii., 12, 13 ; 2 Cor. iv., 6 ;
Eph. i., 18 ; Phil. L, 9 ; Col. iii., 10 ; 1 John iv., 7 ; v., 20 ; Ps.
xix., 7, 8 ; xliii., 3, 4
As the soul is a unite, a change in its radical moral dispo
sitions must simultaneously modify the exercise of all its facul
ties in relation to moral and spiritual objects. The soul can not
love that the loveliness of which it does not perceive, neither can
it perceive the loveliness of an object which is totally uncongenial
to its own nature. The first effect of regeneration, or a radical
change of moral disposition, in the order of nature, therefore, is
to open the eyes of our understandings to the excellency of divine
truth, and the second effect is the going forth of the renewed
affections toward that excellency so perceived. This is what Pres.
Edwards (Religious Affections, Pt. IIL, sec. 4) calls " the sense
of the heart."
15. What is the nature of that conviction of sin which is the
attendant of regeneration ?
Spiritual illumination immediately leads to the perception of
the righteousness, goodness, and exceeding breadth and exactness
of God's law. and bv contrast of the exceeding sinfulness of sin

350 REGENERATION.
in the abstract, Rom. vii., 7, 13 ; and above aU of his own sin — ¦
thus revealing, in contrast to the divine purity and righteousness,
the pollution of his own heart, his total ill-desert, and. his entire
helplessness in all his relations to God, Job xlii., 5, 6. This is a
practical experimental knowledge,— produced by the wrestling
sXeyxog, of the Holy Ghost (John xvi., 8)— of guilt, of pollution,
and of helplessness.
16. What is the nature of that conviction of sin which often
occurs before or without regeneration, and how may it be distin
guished from the genuine ?
Natural conscience is an essential and indestructible element
of human nature, including a sense of right and wrong, and pain
ful emotions associated with a sense of the latter. Although this
faculty may be for a time perverted, and the sensibility associated
with it hardened, yet it may be, and often is, in the case of the
unregenerate quickened to a painful activity, leading to a senes
of ill desert, pollution, helplessness and danger. In eternity this
will constitute a large measure of the sufferings of the lost.
On the other hand, that conviction of sin which is peculiar to
the regenerate is distinguished by being accompanied by a sense
of the positive beauty of holiness, and an earnest desire to escape
not merely the pangs of remorse, but chiefly the pollution and
the dominion of sin.
17. What is the nature of those new affections which flow
from the renewal of the heart, and how are they distinguished
from the exercises of unrenewed men ?
Spiritual illumination gives the perception of that loveliness
which the renewed affections of the heart embrace and delight in.
These are spiritual because they are formed in us, and preserved
in healthy exercise by the Spirit of God. They are holy because
their objects are holy, and because they delight in their objects as
holy. The affections of unrenewed men, on the other hand, how
ever pure or even religious they may be, are merely natural in
their source, and attach merely to natural objects. They may be
grateful to God for his benefits, but they never love him simply
for the perfections of his own nature.
18. What is the nature of that new obedience which results
from, regeneration, and how does it differ from mere morality ?

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 351
The perfect law is spiritual, and consequently requires per
fect conformity of being as well as of action ; the central and gov
erning principles of life must be in harmony with it. The re
generate man, therefore, thinks, and feels, and wills, and acts in
conformity with the spirit of the whole word of God as far as re
vealed to him, because it is God's word, from a motive of love to
God, and with an eye single to his glory. The sanctified affec
tions are the spring, the heart-searching law the rule, and the
glory of God the end, and the Holy Ghost the co-worker in every
act of Christian obedience.
. Morality, on the other hand, has its spring in the merely na
tural affections ; it aims only at the conformity of the outward
actions to the letter of the law, while self, in some form of self-
righteousness, reputation, safety, or happiness, is the determin
ing end.
19. How may the absolute necessity of regeneration be
proved ?
1st. The Scriptures assert it, John iii., 3; Rom. viii., 6; Eph.
ii., 10 ; iv., 21-24. 2d. It is proved from the nature of man as a
sinner, Rom. vii., 18 , viii., 7-9 ; 1 Cor. ii., 14 ; Eph. ii., 1. 3d.
From the nature of heaven, Isa. xxxv., 8 ; Iii., 1 ; Matt, v., 8 ;
xiii., 41 ; Heb. xii., 14 ; Rev. xxi., 27. The restoration of holi
ness is the grand end of the whole plan of salvation, Eph. L, 4 ;
v., 5, 26, 27.
20. Are infants susceptible of regeneration ; and, if so, what
is the nature of regeneration in them ?
Infants, as well as adults, are rational and moral agents, and
by nature totally depraved. The difference is, that the faculties
of infants are in the germ, while those of adults are developed
As regeneration is a change wrought by creative power in the in
herent moral condition of the soul, infants may plainly be the
subjects of it in precisely the same sense as adults, in both cases
the operation is miraculous, and therefore inscrutible.
The fact is established by what the Scriptures teach of innate
depravity, of infant salvation, of infant circumcision and bap
tism, Luke L, 15 ; xviii., 15, 16 ; Acts ii., 39. — See, below,
Chapter XXXIX.

CHAPTER XXVII.
FAITH.
1. What, according to its etymology and New Testament
usage, is the meaning of the word mang, "faith," "belief?"
It is derived from the verb ireidto, to persuade, convince. In
the New Testament it is used, 1st.' To expresss that state of mind
which is induced by persuasion, Rom. xiv., 22. 2d. It often sig
nifies good faith, fidelity, sincerity, Rom. iii., 3 ; Titus ii., 10.
3d. Assentto the truth, Phil. L, 27 ; 2 Thes. ii., 13. 4th. Faith
towards, on, or in God, (tm, eig irpog,) Heb. vi., 1 ; 1 Thes. L, 8 ;
1 Pet. L, 21 ; Mart xi., 22. In Christ, Acts, xxiv., 24 ; Gal. iii.,
26 ; and in his blood, Rom. iii., 22, 25 ; Gal. ii., 16, 20. 5th. It
is used for the object of faith, viz., the revelation of the gospel,
Rom. L, 5 ; x., 8 ; 1 Tim. iv., 1. — Robinson's Lex. of New
Testament. 2. State the different meanings of the verb moTeveiv (to believe),
and' of the phrases mareveiv elg, or ini (to believe in or upon.)
maTeveiv signifies —
1st. To assent to, to be persuaded of the truth, Luke L, 20 ;
John iii., 12.
2d. To credit the truth of a person, John v., 46.
3d. To trust, to have confidence in, Acts xxvii., 25.
The phrases moreveiv elg, or ini, are always used to express
trust and confidence terminating upon God, or upon Christ as
Mediator. We are often said to believe or credit Moses or other
teachers of the truth, but we can believe in or on God or Christ
alone. Upon God, John xiv., 1 ; Rom. iv., 24 ; 1 Pet. i., 21 ;
upon Christ, Acts xvi., 31 ; John iii., 15-18.
3. How may faith be defined ?

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 353
Faith is a complex act of the soul, involving the concurrent
action of the understanding and the will, and modified in differ
ent instances of its exercise by the nature of its object, and of the
evidence upon which it rests. The most general definition, em
bracing all its modifications, affirms faith to be " assent to truth
upon the exhibition of the appropriate evidence. But it is evident
that its nature must vary with the nature of the truth believed,
and especially with the nature of the evidence upon which our
assent is founded. Assent to a speculative or abstract truth is a
speculative act ; assent to a moral truth is a moral act ; assent
to a promise made to ourselves is an act of trust. Our belief
that the earth moves round its axis is a mere assent ; our be
lief in the exceUence of virtue is of the nature of a moral judg
ment ; our belief in a promise is an act of trust." So like
wise with respect to the evidence upon which our faith is
founded. " The same man may believe the same truth on differ
ent grounds. One may believe the Christian system simply be
cause others around him believe it, and he has been brought up
to receive it without questi&i ; this is the faith of credulity.
Another may believe it on the ground of its external evidence,
e. g., of miracle, prophecy, history, its logical consistency as a sys
tem, or its plausibility as a theory in accounting for the pheno
mena of creation and providence. This is speculative faith. An
other may believe, because the truths of the Bible recommend
themselves to his reason and conscience, and accord with his in
ward experience. This faith is founded on moral evidence.
There is another faith founded on the intrinsic excellence, beauty,
and suitableness of the truth from a sense and love of its^noral
excellence. This is spiritual faith, which is the gift of God." —
Way of Life.
4 How far is faith an act of the understanding, and how far
an act of the will ?
The one indivisible soul knows and loves, desires and decides,
and these several acts of the soul meet on the same object. The
soul can neither love, desire, nor choose that which it does not
know, nor can it know an object as true or good without some
affection of will towards it. Assent to a purely speculative truth
may be simply an act of understanding, but belief in a moral
23

354 FAITH.
truth, in testimony, in promises, must be a complex act, em
bracing both the understanding and the will. The understanding
apprehends the truth to be believed, and decides upon the valid
ity of the evidence, but the disposition to believe testimony, or
moral evidence, has its foundation in the will. Actual trust in a
promise is an act of the will, and not a simple judgment as to it a
trustworthiness. There is an exact relation between the moral
judgment and the affections, and the will, as the seat of the
moral affections, determines the moral judgments. Therefore, as
a man is responsible for his will, he is responsible for his faith.
5. What is the difference between knowledge and faith ?
Generally, knowledge is the apprehension of an object as true,
and faith is an assent to its truth. It is obvious, therefore, that
in this general sense of the term every exercise of faith includes
the knowledge of the Object assented to. It is impossible to dis
tinguish between the apprehension of the truthfulness of a purely
speculative truth and an assent to it as true. In such a case faith
and knowledge appear identical. But while the apprehension of
the trustworthiness of a promise is knowledge, the actual reliance
upon it is faith. The apprehension of the moral truthfulness of
an object is knowledge, the assent to it, as good and desirable, is
faith. Sometimes the Scriptures use the word knowledge as equiva
lent to faith, John x., 38 ; 1 John ii., 3.
Generally, however, the Scriptures restrict the term knowledge
to the apprehension of those ideas which we derive through the
natural sources of sensation and reason and human testimony,
while the term faith is restricted to the assent to those truths
which rest upon the direct testimony of God alone, objectively
revealed in the Scriptures, as discerned through spiritual illumi
nation. Thus, faith is the " evidence of things not seen," Heb.,
xi., 1. We are commanded " to walk by faith, and not by sight,"
2 Cor. v., 7. Here the distinction between faith and knowledge
has reference particularly to the mode of knowing. The one is
natural and discursive, the other supernatural and intuitive.
6. What distinction do the Romanists make between implicit
and explicit faith ?

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 355
Romanists and Protestants agree that it is not essential to
faith that its object should be comprehended by the understand
ing. But, on the other hand, Protestants affirm, and Romanists
deny, that it is essential that the object believed should be appre
hended by the mind ; that is, that knowledge of what we believe
is essential to faith. The Romanists, therefore, have invented
the distinction between explicit faith, which terminates upon an
object distinctly apprehended by the mind,- and implicit faith,
which a man exercises in the truth of propositions of which he
knows nothing. They hold that if a man exercises explicit faith
in a general proposition, he therein exercises implicit faith in
every thing embraced in it, whether he knows what they are or
not. If a man, for instance, has explicit faith that the church is
an infallible teacher, he thereby exercises virtual or implicit faith
in every doctrine taught by the church, although he may be igno
rant as to what those doctrines are. They distinguish, moreover,
between those truths which it is necessary to regard with explicit
faith, and those which may be held implicitly. They commonly
teach that it is necessary for the people to hold only three doc
trines explicitly, 1st, that God is ; 2d, that he is a rewarder,
including future rewards and punishments ; 3d, that he is a re
deemer. " This doctrine has been recently revived by the Puseyites,
under the title of reserve. The distinguishing truths of the gos
pel, instead of being clearly presented, should, it is said, be con
cealed or kept in reserve. The people may gaze upon the cross
as the symbol of redemption, but need not know whether it is the
form, or the material, or the great sacrifice once enacted on it, to
which the efficacy is due. ' Religious light is intellectual dark
ness,' says Dr. Newman. This theory rests upon the same false
assumption that faith can exist without knowledge." — Dr. Hodge.
7. What is the difference between knowing and understanding
a thing, and how far is knowledge essential to faith ?
We know a thing when we simply apprehend it as true. We
understand it only when we fully comprehend its nature, and the
perfect consistency of aU its properties with each other and with
the entire system of things of which it forms a part. We know

356 FAITH.
the doctrine of the trinity when its several parts are stated to us,
but no creature can ever understand it.
That knowledge, or simple apprehension of the object believed
and confided in, is essential to faith is evident from the nature of
faith itself. It is that state of mind which bears the relation of
assent to a certain object, involving that action of understanding
and of will which is appropriate to that object. If a man loves,
fears, or believes, he must love, fear, or believe some object, for it
is evident that these states of mind can exist only in relation to
their appropriate objects. If a real object is not present the
imagination may present an ideal one, but that very fiction of.
the imagination must first be apprehended as true (or known)
before it can be assented to as, true (or believed.) Just as it is
impossible for a man to enjoy beauty without perceiving it in
some object of the mind, or to exercise complacent love in a vir
tuous act without perceiving it, so it is, for the same reason, im
possible for a man to exercise faith without knowing what he be
lieves. " Implicit faith" is a perfectly unmeaning formula.
8. How can the fact that knowledge is essential to faith be
proved from Scripture ?
1st. From the etymology of the word mang, from ireidu, to
persuade, instruct. Faith is that state of mind which is the re
sult of teaching. 2d. From the use of the word knowledge in
Scripture as equivalent to faith,' John x., 38 ; 1 John ii., 3. 3d.
From what the Bible teaches as to the source of faith. It comes
by teaching, Rom. x., 14-17. 4th. The Scriptures declare that
the regenerate are enlightened, have received the unction, and
know all things, Acts xxvi., 18 ; 1 Cor. ii., 12-15 ; Col. iii., 10.
5th. The means of salvation consist in the dissemination of the
truth. Christ is the great teacher. Ministers are teachers, 1
Cor. iv., 1 ; 1 Tim., iii., 2 ; iv., 13. Christians are begotten by
the truth, sanctified by the truth, John xvii., 19 ; James L, 18. —
Dr. Hodge. ,
9. How are those passages to be explained which speak of
knowledge as distinguished from faith ?
Although every act of faith presupposes an act of knowledge,
yet both the faith and the knowledge vary very much, both with

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 357
the nature of the object known and believed, and with the man
ner in which the knowledge is received, and with the evidence
upon which the faith rests. The faith which the Scriptures dis
tinguish from knowledge is the strong persuasion of things not
seen. It is the conviction of the truth of things which do not
fall within the compass of our own observation which may entirely
transcend the powers of our understanding, and which rest upon
the simple testimony of God. This testimony faith relies upon
in spite of whatever to human reason appears inconsistent Or im
possible. Knowledge, though essential to faith may be distinguished
from it, 1st, as faith includes also an act of the will assenting, in
addition to the act of the understanding apprehending. 2d. As
knowledge derived through a natural is distinguished from knowl
edge derived through a divine source. 3d. As present imperfect
apprehension of divine things (i. e., faith) differs from that per-r
feet knowledge of divine things we shall have in heaven, 1 Cor.
xiii., 12.
10. If faith necessarily includes knowledge, how can men bt
commanded to believe ?
1st. No man is ever commanded to believe that which is not
revealed to him, either in the light of nature or by the inspired
word. 2d. No man is ever commanded to believe a purely specu
lative truth. The truths of religion rest on the testimony of
God. They are enforced by moral evidence, and faith in them
involves a moral and spiritual knowledge of them, and delight in
them. Moral evidence can be appreciated only by a mind pos
sessed of moral sensibility. And such moral insensibility as leads
to blindness to the distinction between right and wrong is itself
a very aggravated state of depravity.
The Scriptures, therefore, luminous with their own self-
evidencing light, present the truth to all to whom they come, and
demand its instant reception upon the testimony of God. If that
evidence is not felt to be conclusive by any one, it must be be
cause of the sinful blindness of his mind. Therefore Christ says,
" ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." And unbe
lief is uniformly charged to the " evil heart."

358 FAITH.
11. What are the ultimate grounds of that assent to the truth
which is of the essence of faith ?
In general, the ultimate ground upon which our assent to the
truth of any object of knowledge: rests is the veracity of God.
The testimony of our senses, the integrity of our consciences, the
intuitions of our reasons, all rest upon his veracity as Creator.
Practically the mind is moved to this assent through our univer
sal and instinctive confidence in the constitution of our own
natures. Religious faith rests, 1st, upon the faithfulness of God as
pledged in his supernatural revelation, John iii., 33 ; 2d, upon
the evidence of spiritual illumination, personal experience of
the power of the truth, and the witness of the Holy Ghost, the
Sanctifier, and thus "not in the wisdom of man, but in the power
of God," 1 Cor. ii., 5-12.
12. What are the two kinds of evidence by which we know
that God has revealed certain truths as objects of faith ?
1st. The evidence which resides in the truth itself. Moral,
spiritual, experimental, rational, John vi., 63 ; xiv, 17, 26 ;
Jer. xxiii., 29.
2d. The accrediting evidence of the presence and power of God
accompanying the promulgation of the truth, and proving that it
is from him. These are miracles, providential dispensations, the
the fulfillment of prophecy, etc., John v., 36 ; Heb. ii., 4 — See
above, Chapter III.
13. How can it be shown that the authority of the church is
not a ground of faith ?
See above, Chapter V., question 18.
14 What is the nature of historical faith, and upon what
evidence does it rest?
That mode of purely rational faith called historical is that
apprehension of and assent to the truth which regards it in its
purely rational aspects as mere facts of history, or as mere parts
of a logical system of opinion. Its appropriate evidence is purely
rational, e. g., the solution afforded by the Scriptures of the

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 359
facts of history and experience, and the evidence of .history,
prophecy, miracles, etc.
15. What-is the nature of temporary faith, and of the evidence
upon which it is founded ?
Temporary faith is that state of mind often experienced in this
world by impenitent hearers of the gospel induced by the moral
evidence of the truth, the common influences of the Holy Ghost,
and the power of religious sympathy. Sometimes the excited
imagination joyfully appropriates the promises of the gospel,
Matt, xiii., 20. Sometimes, like Felix, the man believes and
trembles. Oftentimes it is at first impossible to distinguish this
state of mind from genuine saving faith. But not springing from
a divine work of recreation it has no root in the permanent prin
ciples of the heart. It is always, therefore, 1st, inefficient,
neither purifying the heart nor overcoming the world ; 2d,
temporary. 16. What is the specific evidence upon which saving faith is
founded ?
This is the light let into the soul by the Holy Ghost in his
work of spiritual illumination. Thus is the beauty, and excel
lence, and the suitableness of the truth to the practical wants of
the subject apprehended. With this the witness of the Holy
Ghost with and by the truth cooperates, 1 Cor. ii., 4, 5 ; Rom.
viii., 16 ; 2 Cor. iv.. 6 ; Eph. ii., 8.
17. How may it be proved from Scripture and experience that
spiritual illumination is the ground of saving faith ?
1st. The Scriptures, wherever they come, make a demand un
conditional, immediate, and universal upon the most intelligent
and the most ignorant alike, that they should be received and
believed, and unbelief is always charged as sin, and not as mere
ignorance or mental incapacity. The faith which they demand
must, therefore, be a moral act, and must depend upon the spirit
ual congeniality of the believer with the truth.
2d. By nature men are spiritually blind, and subjects Pf an
" evil heart of unbelief," 2 Cor. iii., 14; iv., 4
3d. Believers are said to be enlightened, and to discern the

360 FAITH.
things of the Spirit, Acts xiii., 48 ; 2 Cor. iv., 6 ; Eph. L, 17, 18 ;
1 John ii., 20, 27 ; v., 9, 10.
4th. Men believe because they are taught of God, John vi.,
44, 45.
5th. Every Christian is conscious of believing, because he
sees the truth believed to be true, lovely, powerful, and satisfy- •
ing. 6th. This is proved by the effects of faith. " We are said to
live by faith, to be sanctified by faith, to overcome by faith, to
be saved by faith. Blind consent to authority, or rational con
viction, produce no such effects ; if the effects are spiritual, the
source must be also spiritual."
18. What are the different opinions as to the relation between
faith and trust ?
In consequence of their doctrine of implicit faith, that nothing
is required beyond blind assent to the teachings of the church,
Romanists necessarily deny that trust enters into the essence of
saving faith.
The Sandemanians, as the Campbellites, holding that faith
is a mere affirmative judgment of the understanding passed upon
the truth pn the ground of evidence, also deny that trust is an
element of saving faith.
, Some orthodox theologians have held that trust is rather to
be regarded as an immediate and invariable consequent of saving
faith, than an element of that faith itself.
Religious faith, resulting from spiritual illumination, re
spects the entire word of God and his testimony, and, as such,
is a complex state of mind, varying with the nature of the par
ticular portion of revealed truth regarded in any particular act.
Many of the propositions of Scripture are not the proper objects
of trust, and then the faith which embraces them is only a rever
ent and complacent assent to them as true and good. But the
specific act of saving faith which unites to Christ, and is the com
mencement, root and organ of our whole spiritual, life, terminates
upon Christ's person and work as mediator, as presented in the
offers and promises of the gospel. This assuredly includes trust
in its very essence, and this is called " saving faith" by way of
eminence, since it is the faith that saves, and since only through

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 361
this as their principle, are any other more general exercises of
saving faith possible.
19. Ho jo may the fact that saving faith includes trust be
proved from the language of Scripture ?
The uniform and single condition of salvation presented in the
Scriptures is expressed in the words believe in or on Christ, elg
or Inl rbv xpioTov, John vii., 38 ; Acts ix., 42 ; xvi., 31 ; Gal. ii.,
16. JTo believe in or on a person necessarUy implies trust as well
as credit. The same is abundantly proved by the usage with respect to
the phrases " by faith in or on Christ," 2 Tim. iii., 15 ; Acts
xxvi., 18 ; Gal. iii., 26 ; Heb. xi., 1. Faith is the substance of
things hoped for, but the foundation of hope is trust. „
20. How may the same be proved from those expressions
which are used in Scripture as equivalent to the phrase " be
lieving in Christ ?"
" Receiving Christ," John i., 12 ; Col. ii., 6. " Looking to
Christ," Is. xiv, 22 ; compare Num. xxi., 9, with John iii.,. 14, 15.
" Flying to Christ for refuge," Heb. vi., 18. " Coming to Christ,"
John vi., 35 ; Matt, xi., 28. " Committing," 2 Tim. L, 12. All
these illustrate as weU as designate the act of saving faith, and
all equally imply trust as an essential element, for we can " re
ceive," or " come to," or " look to" Christ only in that charac
ter of a propitiation, an advocate and a deliverer, in which he
offers himself to us.
21. How may the same be proved from the effects which the
Scriptures ascribe to faith ?
The Scriptures declare that by faith the Christian " embraces
the promises," " is persuaded of the promises," " out of weakness
is made strong," " waxes valiant in fight," " confesses himself a
stranger and pilgrim seeking a better country." As faith in a
threatening necessarily involves fear, so faith in a promise neces
sarily involves trust.
Besides, faith rests upon the trustworthiness of God, and
therefore necessarily involves trust, Heb. x., 23, and the whole of
th3 11th chapter.

362 FAITH.
22. How .may it be shown that this view of faith does not
confound faith and hope ?
To our doctrine' that saving faith involves trust, the Romanist
objects that this confounds faith and hope, which the Scriptures
distinguish (1 Cor. xiii., 13), since hope is only strong trust. But
hope is not merely strong trust. Trust rests upon the grounds
jf assurance, while hope reaches forward to the object of which
assurance is given. Trust is the foundation of hope. Hope is
the fruit of trust. The more confiding the trust, the more assured
the hope.
23. What are the different opinions as to the relation between
faith and love ?
1st. The Romanists, in order to maintain their doctrine that
faith alone is not saving, distinguish between a formed, or perfect,
and an unformed faith. They acknowledge that faith is distinct
from love, but maintain that love is essential to render faith meri
torious and effectual as the instrument of our salvation.
2d. Some have regarded love as the root out of which faith
springs. 3d. The true view is that love is the immediate and necessary
effect of faith. Faith includes the spiritual apprehension of the
beauty and excellence of the truth, find an act of the will embrac
ing it and relying upon it. Yet these graces can not be analyti
cally separated, since they mutually involve one another. There
can be no love without faith, nor any faith without love. Faith
apprehends the loveliness of the object, the heart spontaneously
loves it. Thus " faith works by love," since these affections are
the source-of those motives that control the will.
The Romish doctrine is inconsistent with the essential prin
ciples of the gospel. Faith is not a work, nor can it have, when
formed or unformed, any merit, it is essentially a self-emptying
act, which saves by laying hold of the merits of Christ. It leads
to works, and proves itself by its fruits, but in its relation to jus
tification it Is in its very nature a strong protest against the
merits of all human works, Gal. iii., 10, 11 ; Eph. ii., 8, 9.
The Protestant doctrine that love is the fruit of faith is estab
hshed by what the Scriptures declare concerning faith, that it
" sanctifies," " works by love," " overcomes the world," Gal. v.,

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 363
6 ; Acts xxvi., 18 ; 1 John v., 4 This is accomplished thus —
by faith we /are united to Christ, Eph. iii., 17, and so become
partakers of his Spirit, 1 John iii., 24, one of the fruits of the
Spirit is love, Gal. v., 22, and love is the principle of aU obe
dience, Rom. xiii., 10.
24 What is the object of saving faith ?
The spiritual illumination of the understanding and renewal
of the affections, which lays the foundation for the souls acting
faith in any one portion of the testimony of God1, lays the foun
dation for its acting faith in aU that testimony. The whole re
vealed word of God, then, as far as known to the individual, to
the exclusion of all traditions, doctrines of men, and pretended
private revelations, is the object of saving faith. That particular
act of faith, however, which unites to, Christ, called, by way of
distinction, justifying faith, has for its object the person and
work of Christ as Mediator, John vii., 38 ; Acts xvi., 31.
25. What is meant by an article of faith as distinguished
from a matter of opinion ?
The Romanists hold that every dogma decided by the church
to be true, whether derived from Scripture or tradition, is, upon
pain of damnation, to be believed by every Christian as an article
of faith, if known to him by an explicit, if not known by an im
plicit faith. On the other hand, with respect to all subjects not
decided by the church, every man is left free to believe or not as
a matter of opinion.
26. What is the Anglican or Puseyite criterion for distin
guishing those doctrines which must be known and believed in
order to salvation ?
They agree with the Romanists (see above, question 6) that
knowledge is not essential to faith. As to the rule of faith, how
ever, they differ. The Romanist makes that rule the teaching of
the Papal church. The Puseyites, on the other hand, make it
the uniform testimony of tradition running in the line of the suc
cession of apostolic bishops.
27. What is the common Protestant doctrine as tofundamen-

364 FAITH.
tals in religion, and by what evidence can such fundamentals be
ascertained ?
Every doctrine taught in the Bible is the object of an enlight
ened spiritual faith. No revealed principle, however compara
tively subordinate, can be regarded as indifferent, nor may be
adopted or rejected at wul. Every man is bound to credit the
whole testimony of God.- Yet the gospel is a logically consistent
system of truth, some of whose principles are essential to its in
tegrity, while others are essential only to its symmetry and perfec
tion, and ignorance, feebleness of logical comprehension and preju
dice may, and constantly do, lead good men to apprehend this
system of truth imperfectly.
A fundamental doctrine, then,' is either one which every soul
must apprehend more or less clearly in order to be saved, or one
which, when known, is so clearly involved with those the knowl
edge and belief of which is essential to salvation, that the one
can not be rejected while the other is really believed.
A fundamental doctrine is ascertained —
1st. In the same way that the essential principles of any
other system are determined by their bearing upon the system as
a whole. 2d. Every fundamental doctrine is clearly revealed.
3d. These doctrines are in Scripture itself declared to be essen
tial, John iii., 18 ; Acts xvi., 31 ; 2 Cor. v., 17 ; Gal. ii. 21 ; 1
John L, 8.
28. What is the object of that specific act of faith whereby we
are justified ?
The person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as Mediator.
This is proved —
1st. The Scriptures expressly declare that we are justified by
that faith of which Christ is the object, Rom. iii., 22, 25 ; Gal.
ii., 16 ; Phil, iii., 9.
2d. We are said to be saved by faith in Christ, John iii., 16,
36 ; Acts x., 43 ; xvi.;" 31.
3d. Justifying faith is designated as a "looking to Christ," a
"coming to Christ," etc., John i., 12 ; vi., 35, 37 ; Isa. xiv, 22.
4th. Rejection of Christ ; a refusal to submit to the righteous-

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 365
ness of God is declared to ba the ground of reprobation, John
viii., 24 ; iii., 18, 19.
29; How is the Romish doctrine on this point opposed to the
Protestant ?
The Romanists, confounding justification and sanctification,
hold that faith justifies through the sanctifying power of the
truth. As aU revealed truth has this sanctifying virtue, it fol
lows that the whole revelation of God as ascertained by the de
cisions of the church, is the object of justifying faith. This is
refuted by all we have established from Scripture concerning jus
tification, sanctification, and faith.
30. Is Christ in all his offices, or only as priest, the immedi
ate object of justifying faith ?
In this act the believer appropriates and rests upon Christ as
Mediator, which includes at once all his functions as such. These
may be analytically distinguished, but in fact they are always in
separably united in him. When he acts as prophet he teaches
as king and priest. When he reigns he sits as prophet and priest
upon his throne, Besides this, his prophetical and kingly work
are consciously needed by the awakened soul, and are necessarily
apprehended as inseparable from his priestly work in the one act
of faith. It is true, however, that as the substitutionary work which
Christ accomplished as priest is the meritorious ground of our
salvation, so his priestly character is made the more prominent,
both in the teachings of Scripture and in the experience of his
people. 31. How far is peace of conscience and peace with God a
necessary consequence of faith t
Peace with God is reconciliation with him. Peace of con
science may either mean consciousness of that reconcifiation, or
the appeasement of our own consciences which condemn us.
Faith in every instance seoures our peace with God, since it unites
us to Christ, Rom. v., 1 ; and in the proportion in which faith in
the merits of Christ is clear and constant wiU be our consciousness

366 FAITH.
of reconciliation with God, and the satisfaction of our own moral
sense that righteousness is fulfilled, while we are forgiven. . Yet
as faith may be obscured by sin, so the true believer may tempo
rarily fall under his Father's displeasure, and lose his sense of
forgiveness and his moral satisfaction in the perfection of the
atonement. 32. What are the three views entertained as to the relation
between faith and assurance?
1st. The Reformers generally maintained that justifying faith
consisted in appropriating the promise of salvation through
Christ made in the gospel, i. e., in regarding God as propitious
to us for Christ's sake. Thus the very act of faith involves
assurance. 2d. Some have held that assurance in this life is unattainable.
3d. The true view is that " although this infallible assurance
does not belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer
may wait long and conflict with many difficulties before he par
take of it, yet being enabled by the Spirit to know the things
which are freely given him by God, he may, without extraordi
nary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means attain there
unto. And, therefore, it is the duty of each one to give diligence
to make his calling and election sure." It is agreed by all that a
true faith can not admit of any doubt as to its object. What is
believed is assuredly believed. But the object of saving faith is
Christ and his work as Mediator guaranteed to us in the promises
of the gospel on the condition of faith. True faith does, there
fore, essentially include the assurance, 1st, that Christ is able to
save us. 2d. That he is faithful and will save us if we believe.
It is meant that this is of the essence of faith, not that every true
believer always enjoys a state of mind which excludes all doubt
as to Christ's power or love ; because the spiritual illumination
upon which faith rests is often imperfect in degree and variable
in exercise. Faith may be weak, or it may be limited by doubt,
or it may alternate with doubt. Yet all such doubt is of sin, and
is alien to the essential nature of faith. But the condition, if we
believe, upon which all assurance of our own salvation is sus
pended, is a matter not of revelation, but of experience, not of
faith, but of consciousness.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. ' 367
Theologians have, therefore, made a distinction between the
assurance of faith, Heb. x., 22, and the assurance of hope, Heb.
vi. 11. The first is of the -essence of saving faith, and is the as
surance that Christ is all that he professes to be, and will do all
that he promises. The second is the assurance of our own per
sonal salvation, is a fruit of faith, and one of the higher attain
ments of the Christian life.
33. How may it be proved that assurance of our own personal
salvation is not essential to saving faith ?
1st. From the true object of saving faith as given above. 2d.
From the examples given in the Scriptures of eminent saints who
doubted with regard to themselves, 1 Cor. ix., 27. 3d. From the
exhortations addressed to those who were already believers to at
tain to assurance as a degree of faith beyond that which they al
ready enjoyed. 4th. From the experience of God's people in aU
ages. 34. How may it be proved that assurance is attainable in this
life ?
1st. This is directly asserted, Rom. viii., 16 ; 2 Pet. L, 10 ;
1 John ii., 3 ; iii., 14 ; v., 13. 2d. Scriptural examples are given
of its attainment, 2 Tim. L, 12 ; iv., 7, 8. 3d. Many eminent
Christians have enjoyed an abiding assurance, of the genuineness
of which their holy walk and conversation was an indubitable seal.
35. On what grounds may a man he assured of his salvation ?
" It is an infallible assurance of faith, founded, 1st, upon the
divine truth of the promises of salvation ; 2d, the.inward evidence
of those graces unto which those promises are made, and, 3d, the
testimony of the spirit of adoption, Rom. viii., 15, 16, witnessing
with our spirits that we are the children of God. Which Spirit,
Eph. L, 13, 14 ; 2 Cor. L, 21, 22, is the earnest of our inheri
tance whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption." — Con. of
Faith, Chap. XVIII.
This genuine assurance may be distinguished from that pre
sumptuous confidence which is a delusion of Satan, chiefly by
these riiarks. True assurance, 1st, begets unfeigned humility, 1
Cor. xv., 10 ; Gal. vi., 14 ; 2d, leads to ever-increasing diligence

368 FAITH.
in practical religion, Ps. fi., 12, 13, 19 ; 3d, to candid self-exami
nation, and a desire to be searched and corrected by God, Ps,
cxxxix., 23, 24; 4th,, to constant aspirations after nearer con
formity, and more intimate communion with God, 1 John iii., 2,. 3.
36. How may it be shown that a living faith necessarily leads
to good works ?
1st. From the nature of faith. It is the spiritual apprehen
sion and the voluntary embrace of the whole truth of God, the
promises, the commands, the threatenings of the Scripture viewed
as true and as good. This faith occasions, of course, the exercise
of the renewed affections, and love acted out is obedience. Each
separate truth thus apprehended produces its appropriate effect
upon the heart, and consequently upon the life.
2. The testimony of Scripture, Acts xv., 9 ; xxvi., 18 ; Gal.
v., 6 ; James ii. 18 ; 1 John v., 4
3. The experience of the universal church.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
UNION OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST.
1. To whom are all men united in their natural estate ?
To Adam. Our union with him includes, 1st, his federal
headship under the covenant of works, Rom. v., 12-19. 2d. His
natural headship, as per force of ordinary generation, the source
of our nature, and of its moral corruptions, Gen. v., 3 ; 1 Cor.
xv, 49.
But the law upon which rested the covenant of works, whereby
we were held'in union with Adam, having been slain by Christ,
" that being dead wherein we were held," we were " married to
another," that is, to Christ, Rom. vii., 1-4.
2. What is the general nature of our union with Christ ?
It is a single, ineffable, and most intimate union, presenting
to our view two different aspects, and giving rise to two different
classes of consequents.
1st. The first aspect of this union is its federal and represent
ative character, whereby Christ, as the second Adam, (1 Cor. xv.,
22,) assumes in the covenant of grace those broken obligations of
the covenant of works which the first Adam failed to discharge,
and fulfills them all in behalf of all his " sheep," " they whom the
Father has given him." The consequences which arise from our
union with Christ under this aspect of it are such as the imputa
tion of our sins to him, and of his righteousness to us, and aU of
the forensic benefits of justification and adoption, etc. — See
Chaps. XXX., XXXI.
2d. The second aspect of this union is its spiritual and vital
character, the nature and consequences of which it is our business
to discuss under the present head. 24

370 UlftON WITH CHRIST.
3. What is the foundation of this union ?
The eternal purpose of the triune God, expressed in the decree
of election (we were chosen in him before the foundation of the
world, Eph. i.,'4), providing for its own fulfilment in the covenant
of grace between the Father as God absolute, and the Son as Me
diator, John xvii., 2-6 ; Gal. ii., 20 ; in the incarnation of the
Son, whereby he assumed fellowship with us in community of
nature, and became our brother, Heb. ii., 16, 17 ; and in the
mission and official work of the Spirit of Christ (1 John iv., 13),
through the powerful operation of whom in the bodies and souls
of his people the last Adam is made a quickening spirit (1 Cor.
xv., 45), and they are all constituted the body of Christ and
members in particular, 1 Cor. xii., 27.
4. By what analogies drawn from earthly relations is this
union of believers with Christ illustrated in Scripture ?
The technical designation of this union in theological lan
guage is "mystical," because it so far transcends all the analogies
of earthly relationships, in the intimacy of its communion, in
the transforming power of its influence, and in the excellence
of its consequences. Yet Holy Scripture illustrates different
aspects of this fountain of graces by many apt though partial
analogies. As, 1st, foundation of a building and its superstructure, 1
Pet. ii., 4, 6. 2d. Tree and its branches, John xv., 5. 3d. Head
and members of the body, Eph. iv., 15, 16. 4th. Htfsband and
wife, Eph. v., 31, 32 ; Rev. xix , 7-9. 5th. Adam and his de
scendants, in both their federal and natural relations, Rom. v.,
12-19 ; 1 Cor. xv., 21-49
5. What is the essential nature of this union ?
On the one hand, this union does not involve any mysterious
confusion of the person of Christ with the persons of his people ;
and on the other hand, it is not such a mere association of sepa
rate persons as exists in human societies. But it is a union
which, 1st, determines our legal status on the same basis with
his. 2d. Which revives and sustains, by the influence of his in-

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 371
dwelling Spirit, our spiritual life, from the fountain of Ids life,
and which transforms our bodies and souls into the likeness of his
glorified humanity.
It is, therefore —
1st. A spiritual union. Its actuating source and bond is the
Spirit of the head, who dwells and works in the members, 1 Cor.
vi., 17 ; xii., 13 ; 1 John iii., 24 ; iv, 13.
2d. A vital union, i. e., our spiritual life is sustained
and determined in its nature and movement by the life of
Christ, through the indwelling of his Spirit, John xiv., 19 ;
Gal. ii., 20.
3d. It, embraces our entire persons, our bodies through our
spirits, 1 Cor. vi., 15, 19.
4th. It is a legal or federal union, so that aU of our legal or
covenant responsibUities rest upon Christ, and aU of his legal or
covenant merits accrue to us.
5th. It is an indisoluble union, John x., 28 ; Rom. viii., 35,
37 ; 1 Thes. iv., 14, 17.
6th. This union is between the believer and the person of the
God-man in his office as Mediator. Its immediate organ is the
Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, and through him we are virtuaUy
united to and commune with the whole Godhead, since he is the
Spirit of the Father as weU as of the Son, John xiv., 23 ; xvii.,
2i, 2a
6. How is this union between Christ and the Christian estab
lished ?
It was established in the purpose and decree of God, and in
the covenant of the Father with the Son from eternity, Eph. i.,
4 ; John xvii., 2, 6. Nevertheless, the elect, as to personal char
acter and present relations, before their effectual calling by the
Spirit, are born and continued " by nature children of wrath even
as others," and " strangers to the covenants of promise," Eph. ii.,
3, 12. In God's appointed time with each individual of his
chosen, this union is established mutually, 1st. ' By the com
mencement of the effectual and permanent workings of the Holy
Spirit within them, (they are quickened together with Christ) ;
in the act of the new birth opening the eyes and renewing
the will, and thus laying in their natures the foundation of

372 UNION WITH CHRIST.
the exercise of saving faith. 2d. Which faith is the second
bond by which this mutual union is established, by the con
tinued actings of which their feUowship with Christ is sustained,
and its blessed consequences developed, Eph. iii., 17. Thus we
"come to him,"/ " receive him," "eat of his flesh and drink of
his blood," etc.
7. What are the consequences of this union to the believer ?
1st. They have a community with him in his covenant stand
ing, and rights. Forensically they are rendered "complete in
him." His righteousness and his Father is theirs. They receive
the adoption in him, and are accepted as to both their persons and
services in the beloved. They are sealed by his Holy Spirit of
promise ; in him obtain an inheritance ; sit with him on his
throne and behold his glory, Rom. viii., 1 ; Col. ii., 10 ; Eph. i.,
6, 11, 13 ; Phil, iii., 8, 9.
As Mediator, Jesus is " the Christ" anointed one, and the
believer is the Christian or receiver of "the unction," Acts xi., 26;
1 John ii., 20. His mediatorial office embraces three principal
functions, (1.) That of prophet, and in fellowship with him the
believer is a prophet, John xvi., 13 ; 1 John ii., 27. (2.) That
of priest, and the believer also is a priest in him, Isa. lxi. 6 ; 1,
Pet. ii., 5 ; Rev. xx., 6. (3.) That of king, and in him the be
liever is a king, 1 Pet. ii., 9 ; Rev. iii., 21 ; v., 10.
2d. They have feUowship with him in the transforming, as
similating power of his life, making them like him ; every grace
qf Jesus reproducing itself in them ; " of his fulness we have aU
received, and grace for grace." This holds true, (1.) with regard
to our souls, Rom. viii., 9 ; Phil, ii., 5 ; 1 John iii., 2 ; (2.) with
regard to our bodies, causing them to be now the temples of
the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. vi., 17, 19 ; and his resurrection to be
the cause of ours, and his glorified body to be the type of
ours, Rom. vi., 5 ; 1 Cor. xv., 47, 49 ; Phil, iii., 21. And thus
believers are made to bear fruit in Christ, both in their bodies
and spirits, which are his, John xv., 5 ; 2 Cor. xii., 9 ; 1
John L, 6.
,3d. This leads to their fellowship with Christ in their ex
perience, in their labors, sufferings, temptations, and death, Gal.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 373
vi., 17 ; Phil, iii., 10 ; Heb. xii., 3 ; 1 Pet. iv., 13. Thus ren
dering sacred and glorious even our earthly life.
4th. Also to Christ's rightful fellowship with them in
all they possess, Prov. xix., 17 ; Rom. xiv., 8 ; 1 Cor., vi.,
19, 20.
5th. Also to the consequence that, in the spiritual reception
of the holy sacraments, they do really hold fellowship with him;
They are '< baptized into Christ," Gal. iii., 27. "The bread
which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ;
the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the blood of Christ," 1 Cor. x., 16 ; xi., 26 ; John vi.,
51-56. 6th. This leads also to the feUowship of believers with one
another through him, that is, to the communion of saints.
8. What is the nature of that " communion of saints" which
springs from the union of each saint with the Lord ?
See Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVI. Believers being
aU united to one head are, of course, through him mutually re
lated in the same community of spirit, life, status, and cove
nanted privileges with one another.
This involves upon the part of all believers —
1st. Reciprocal obligations and offices according to the special
grace vouchsafed to each. Like the several organs of the body
all have part in the same general life, yet each has his own indi
vidual difference of qualification, and consequently of duty ; "for
the body is not one member but many," 1 Cor. xii., 4-21 ; Eph.
iv, 11-13.
2d. They have feUowship in each others gifts and complemen
tary graces, each contributing his special loveliness to the beauty
of the whole, Eph. iv, 15, 16.
3d. These -reciprocal duties have respect to the bodies and
temporal interests of the brethren as weU-as to those which con
cern the soul, GaL ii., 10 ; 1 John iii., 16-18.
4th. They have fellowship in faith and doctrine, Acts, ii., 42 ;
Gal.fi., 9. '
5th. In mutual respect and subordination, Rom. xii., 10; Eph.
v., 21 ; Heb. xiii., 17.

374 UNION WITH CHRIST.
6th. In mutual love and sympathy, Rom. xii., 10 ; 1 Cor.
xii., 26.
7th. This feUowship exists unbroken between believers on
earth and in heaven. There is one "whole family in heayen and
on earth," Eph. iii., 15.
8th. In glory this communion of saints shall be perfected,
when there is " one fold and one shepherd," when all saints shall
be one as Father and Son are one, John x., 16 ; xvii., 22.

CHAPTER XXIX.
REPENTANCE.
1. What are the words used in the original to express this
change of mind and feeling ?
1st. fieTafieXeadai, from fieXofiai, to care for ; combined with
uerd, to change ones care. This is used only five times in the New
Testament. 2d. fieravoeiv, from voeu, to perceive, understand, consider ;
combined with uerd, to change ones mind or purpose. This is the
verb constantly used in the New Testament to designate this change.
3d. From the same source comes the noun \ierdvom, repent
ance, change of mind or purpose. In the New Testament usage
of these words the idea of sorrow and contrition is included.
2. What is saving repentance ?
See Con. Faith, Chap. XV. Larger Cat., Q. 76. Shorter
Cat, Q. 87.
It includes, 1st, a sense of personal guUt, pollution and help
lessness. 2d. An apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ.
3d. Grief and hatred of sin, a resolute turning from it unto God,
and a persistent endeavor after a new life of holy obedience.
«3. Prove that repentance is a grace or gift of God.
1st. This is evident from the nature of repentance itself. It
includes (1.) sense of the hatefulness of sin, (2.) sense of the
beauty of holiness, (3.) apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ.
It, therefore, presupposes faith, which is God's gift, Gal. v., 22 ;
Eph. ii., 8.
2. The Scriptures expressly affirm it, Zech. xii., 10 ; Acts v.,
31 ; xi., 18 ; 2 Tim. ii., 25.

376 REPENTANCE.
4. What is the nature of that sense of sin which is an essential
element of repentance ?
That spiritual iUumination and renewal of the affections which
is effected in regeneration, brings the believer to see and appreci
ate the holiness of God as revealed alike in the law and the gospel,
Rom. iii., 20 ; Job xlii., 6, and in that light to see and feel also the
exceeding sinfulness of all sin, and the utter sinfulness of his own
nature just as it is in truth. This sense of sin, thus correspond
ing t» the facts of the case, includes, 1st, consciousness of guilt;
i. e., exposure to righteous punishment, as opposed to the justice
of God, Ps. IL, 4, 9. 2d. Consciousness of pollution as opposed to
the holiness of God, Ps. IL, 5, 7, 10 ; and, 3d, consciousness of
helplessness, Ps. IL, 11 ; cix., 22'. See Way of Life.
5. What are the fruits and evidences of this sense of sin ?
A sense of guilt, especially when coupled with a sense of help-*
lessness, will naturally excite apprehension of danger. This pain
ful feeling is experienced in infinitely various degrees and modifi
cations, as determined by natural temperament, education, and
the special dealings of the Holy Spirit. These legal fears, how
ever, are common both to false and to true repentance, and possess
ho sanctifying influence.
A sense of pollution leads to shame when we think of God,
and to self-loathing when we think of ourselves.
Confession of sin, both in private to God and before men, is a
natural and indispensible mode in which this sense of sin will give
genuine expression to itself, Ps. xxxii., 5, 6 ; Prov. xxviii., 13 ;
James v., 16 ; 1 John 1., 9.
Th^e only indubitable test of the genuineness of such a sense
of sin, however, is an earnest and abiding desire and endeavor to
be delivered from it.
8. Show that an apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ
is essential to repentance.
1st. The awakened conscience echoes God's law, and can be
appeased by no less a propitiation than that demanded by divine
justice itself, and until this is realized in a believing application
to Christ, either indifference must stupify, or remorse must tor
ment the soul.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 377
2d. Out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and an inextin
guishable dread drives the soul away, Deut. iv., 24 ; Heb. xii., 29.
3d. A sense of the amazing goodness of God to us in the gift
of his Son, and of our ungrateful requital of it, is necessary to ex
cite in the repentant soul the proper shame and sorrow for sin as
committed against God, Ps. fi., 4
4th. This is proved by the teachings and examples furnished
in Scripture, Ps. Ii., 1 ; cxxx., 4.
7. What is the nature of that " turning unto God" ivhich
constitutes the essence of genuine repentance .?
It is a voluntary forsaking of sin as evil and hateful, with sin
cere, sorrow, humiliation, and confession ; and a returning unto
God, because he has a right to us, and because he is merciful and
willing to forgive, together with a determination to five, by the
help of his grace, in obedience to his commandments.
8. What are the evidences of genuine repentance ?
1st. The agreement of our own internal experience with the
teachings of the word of God on this subject. This is to be de
termined by the prayerful study of the Scriptures in connection
with self-examination. 2d. The permanent effects realized in the
life. These are the hatred and forsaking of secret as well as of
open sins, the choice of God's service as both right and desirable,
public confession,, and entire practical consecration. " These
things must be in us and abound," 2 Cor. vii., 11.
9. What are the relations which the ideas represented by the
terms "faith," "repentance," "regeneration" and "conversion"
mutually sustain to one another ?
Regeneration is the ineffable act of God implanting a new na
ture. The term conversion is used generally to express the first
exercises of that new nature in ceasing from the old life and com
mencing the new. Faith designates the primary act of the new
nature, and also that permanent state or habit of mind which con
tinues the essential condition of all other graces. It is the spiritual
apprehension of the truth by the mind, and the loyal embrace of the
truth by the will, without which there can be neither love, hope,
peace, joy, nor repentance. The common sense attached to the

378 REDEMPTION.
word repentance is very similar to that attached to the word core*
version, but it differs from it as to its usage in two particulars.
1st". Conversion is the more general term, and is used to include
the first exercises of faith, as well as all those experiences of love
of holiness and hatred of sin, etc., which are consequent upon it.
Repentance is more specific, and expresses that hatred and renun
ciation of sin, and that turning unto God which accompanies
faith as its consequent. 2d. Conversion is generally used'to desig
nate only the first actings of the new nature at the commencement
of a religious life, or at most the first steps of a return to God
after a notable backsliding, Luke xxii., 32. WhUe repentance is
applied to that constant bearing of the cross which is one main
characteristic of the believer's life on earth, Ps. xix., 12, 13 ; Luke
ix., 23 ; GaL, vi., 14 ; v., 24.
10. What doctrine concerning repentance was taught by many
of the Reformers ?
Some of them defined repentance as consisting, 1st, of mortifi
cation, or dying unto sin ; and, 2d, of vivification, or living unto
God. This corresponds to our view of sanctification. The Lu
therans make repentance to consist in, 1st, contrition, or sorrow
for sin ; and, 2d, in faith in the gospel, or absolution. — Augsburg
Conf., Art. 12. This, although a peculiar phraseology, is the
true view.
11. What in general terms is the Romish doctrine of penance ?
They distinguish penance, 1st, as a virtue, equivalent to the
Protestant doctrine of the grace of repentance. 2d. As a sacra
ment. Penance, as a virtue, is internal, or a change of mind,
including sorrow for sin and turning unto God. External pen
ance, or the outward expression of the internal state, is that
which constitutes the sacrament of penance. The matter of this
sacrament is constituted by the acts of the penitent in the way
of contrition, of confession, and of satisfaction. Contrition is sor
row and detestation of past sins, with a purpose of sinning no
more. Confession is self-accusation to a priest having jurisdic
tion and the power of the keys. Satisfaction is some painful
work imposed by the priest, and performed by the penitent to
satisfy justice for sins committed. The form of the sacrament is

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 379
the absolution pronounced judiciaUy, and not merely declara-
tively, by the priest. They hold " that it is only by means of
this, sacrament that sins committed after baptism can be for
given."— Cat. Rom., Part IL, Chap. V., Qu. 12 and 13.
12. How may it be proved that it is not a sacrament ?
1st. It was not instituted by Christ. The Scriptures teach
nothing concerning it. 2d. It is an essential consequent of the
false theory of baptismal regeneration. 3d. It does not either
signify, seal, or convey the benefits of Christ and the new cove ¦
nant. — See below, Chap. XXXVIIL, questions 2-5.
13. What is their doctrine concerning confession ?
Confession is self-accusation to a priest having jurisdiction
and the power of the keys. All sins must be confessed without
reserve, and in all their details and qualifying circumstances.
If any mortal sin is not confessed, it is not pardoned, and
if the omission is wUlf ul, it is sacrilege, and greater guilt is
incurred. Cat. Rom., Pt. IL, Chap. V., Qu. 33, 34 and 42.
14. What are the Protestant arguments against auricular
confession ?
1st. It has no warrant in Scripture. The command is tc
" confess one to another."
2d. It perverts the whole plan of salvation, by making neces
sary the mediation of the priest between the Christian and
Christ, which has been refuted above, Chap. XXL, questions
8 and 21.
3d. We are commanded! to confess to God immediately, Matt.
xi., 28 ; 1 Tim. iL, 5 ; 1 John L, 9.
4th. The practical results of this system have always been
evil, and this gross invasion of all the sacred rights of personality
is revolting to every refined soul.
15. What is the nature of that absolution which the Romish
priests claim the power to grant ?
It absolves judiciaUy, not merely declaratively, from aU the
penal consequences of the sins confessed by the authority of Jesus

380 REPENTANCE.
Christ. They appeal to Matt: xvi., 19 ; xviii., 18 ; John xx.,
22, 23.— Cat. Rom., Part IL, Chap. V., Qu. 13 and 17. CouncU
of Trent, Sess. XIV., De Pcenitentia Can. IX.
16. What are the arguments against the possession upon the
part of the Christian ministry of such a power to absolve?
1st. The Christian ministry is not a priesthood. — See above,
Chap. XXL, question 21.
2d. But even if it were, the conclusion which the Papists draw
from it would not follow. Absolution is a sovereign, not a priestly
act. This is plain, from the definition of the priesthood given,
(Heb. v., 1-6,) from the Levitical practice, and from the very
nature of the act itself.
3d. The grant of the power of the keys, whatever it was, was
not made to the ministry as such, for in Matt, xviii., 1-18, Christ
was addressing the body of the disciples, and the primitive min
isters never either claimed" or exercised the power in question.
4th. Tfie power of absolute forgiveness is incommunicable in,
itself, and was not granted as a matter of fact ; the words in ques
tion wiU not bear that sense, and were not so understood. The
practice of the apostles shows that their understanding of the
words was that they conveyed merely the power of declaring the
conditions on which God would pardon sin, and in accordance
with that declaration, of admitting or excluding men from seal
ing ordinances.
5th. This one false principle makes Christ of none effeet, and
perverts the whole gospel. — Bib. Rep., Jan. 1845.
17. What is the Romish doctrine concerning satisfaction as a
part of penance ?
By satisfaction is meant such works as are enjoined by the .
priest upon confession, which being set over against the sins con
fessed, for which contrition has been professed, are supposed to
constitute a compensation for the breach of God's law, and in
consideration of which the sins are forgiven. — Cat. Rom., Part
IL, Chap. V., Qu. 52 and 53. CouncU of Trent, Sess. XIV., De
Pcenitentia Cans. XII.-XIV.
18. What are the objections to that doctrine ?

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 381
This doctrine logically involves two great errors.
1st. That Christ's atonement does not render perfect satisfac
tion for aU sins, original and actual, those committed as well
after as before baptism.
2d. That any thing we can do or suffer temporarily can satisfy
for sin. Every sin incurs the penalty of the law, which is eter
nal death. These works of satisfaction are, moreover, com
manded duties, or they are not. If they are, then the perform
ance of' one duty can never satisfy for the neglect of another, nor
for the transgression of the law. If they are not, then they are
only a form of will-worship, which God abhors, Col. ii., 20-23.

CHAPTER XXX

1. What is the sense in which the word diuaiog, just, is used
in the New Testament ?
Its fundamental idea is that of perfect conformity to aU the
requirements of the moral law.
1st. Spoken of things or actions, Matt, xx., 4 ; Col. iv., 1.
2d. Spoken of persons (1.) as personally holy, conformed to
the law in character, Matt, v., 45 ; ix., 13. (2.) In respect to
their possessing eminently some one quality demanded by the law,
Matt. L, 19 ; Luke xxiii., 50. (3.) As forensically just, i. e, as
conformed to the requirements of the law as the condition of the
covenant of life, Rom. L, 17. (4.) Spoken of God in respect to
his possession of the attribute of distributive justice in adminis
tering the provisions of the law and the covenants, Rom. iii., 26 ;
1 John L, 9. (5.) Spoken of Christ in respect to his character as
the only perfect man, and to his representative position in satis
fying all the demands of the law in behalf of his people, Acts iii.,
14 ; vii., 52 ; xxii., 14.
2. What is the usage of the verb 8iitai6u, to justify, in the New
Testament ? l
It means to declare a person to be just.
1st. Personally conformed to the law as to moral character,
Luke vii., 29 ; Rom. iii., 4
2d. Forensically, that is, that the demands of the law as a
condition of life are fully satisfied with regard to him, Acts xiii.,
39; Rom. v., 1, 9; viii., 30-33; 1 Cor. vi., 11; Gal. ii. 16; iii., 11.
3. How can it be proved that the word dutaioa is used in a

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 383
forensic sense when the Scriptures, use it with reference to the
justification of sinners under the gospel ?
1st. In many instances it can bear no other sense. The un
godly are said to be justified without the deeds of the law, by the
blood of Christ, by faith, freely, and of grace, through the agency
of an advocate, by means of a satisfaction and of imputed right
eousness, Rom. iii., 20-28 ; iv., 5-7 ; v., 1 ; Gal. ii., 16 ; iii., 11 ;
v, 4 ; 1 John ii., 2.
2d. It is used as the contrary of condemnation, Rom, viii.,
33, .34 3d. The same idea is conveyed in many equivalent and inter
changeable expressions, John iii., 18 ; v., 24 ; Rom. iv., 6, 7 ; 2
Cor. v., 19.
4th. If it does not bear this meaning, there is no distinction
between justification and sanctification.' — Turrettin, L. XVI.,
Quaestio 1.
4. What is the usage of the term ducawavvn, righteousness,
and of the phrase " righteousness of God," in the New Testa
ment ?
The term "just" is concrete, designating the person who is
perfectly conformed to the law, or in respect to whom all the de
mands of the law are completely satisfied. The term " righteous
ness," on the other hand, is abstract, designating that quality or
that obedience or suffering which satisfies the demands of the
law, and which constitutes the ground upon which justification
proceeds. Consequently, it sometimes signifies, 1st, holiness of charac
ter, Matt, v., 6 ; Rom vi, 13 ; 2d, that perfect conformity to the
law in person and life' which was the original ground of justifica
tion under the covenant of works, Rom. x., 3, 5 ; Phil, iii., 9 ;
Titus iii., 5; 3d, the vicarious obedience and sufferings of Christ our
substitute, which he wrought in our behalf, and which, when im
puted to us, becomes our righteousness, or the ground of our justi
fication, Rom. iv., 6 ; x., 4 ; 1 Cor. L, 30 ; which is received and
appropriated by us through faith, Rom. iii., 22; iv., 11; x, 5-10;
Gal. ii., 21 ; Heb. xi., 7.
The phrase, "righteousness of God," occurs in Matt, vi., 33 ;

384 JUSTIFICATION.
Rom. L, 17 ; . iii., 5, 21, 22, 25, 26 ; x., 3 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Phil
iii., 9 ; James L, 20 ; 2 Pet. L, 1. It evidently means that per
fect righteousness or satisfaction to the whole law, precept, anrV
penalty alike, which God provides, and which God will accept,
in contrast to our own imperfect services or self-inflicted pen
ances, which God will reject, if offered as a ground of justifi
cation.
> '5. What is the usage of the term duca'tuoig, justification, in the
New Testament ?
It occurs only in Rom. iv, 25 ; v., 16, 18. It signifies that
relation to the law into which we are brought in consequence of
the righteousness of Christ being made legally ours. We are
absolved from all liability to the penalty, and the rewards prom
ised to obedience are declared to belong to us.
6. Define justification in its gospel sense.
God, as sovereign, elected his chosen people, and gave them to
his Son in the covenant of grace, and as sovereign he executes
that covenant when he makes the righteousness of Christ theirs
by imputation. Justification, on the other hand, is a judicial
act of God proceeding upon that sovereign imputation, declaring
the law to be perfectly satisfied in respect to us. This involves,
1st, pardon ; 2d, restoration to divine favor, as those with regard
to whom aU the promises conditioned upon obedience to the conr-
mands of the law accrue. It is most strictly legal, although he
sovereignly admits and credits to us a vicarious righteousness,
since this vicarious righteousness is precisely in all respects what
the law demands, and that by which the law is fulfiUed. — See
below, question 29.
7. What does the law require in order to the justification of a
sinner ?
The law consists essentially of a rule of duty, and of a
penalty attached to take effect in case of disobedience. In the
case of the sinner, therefore, who has already incurred the pen
alty, the law demands that, besides the rendering of perfect
obedience, the penalty also should be suffered, Rom. x., 5 ; GaL
iii., 10-13.

•;-. APPLICATION OF REDEMPT. ON. 385
8. Prove that works can not be the ground of a sinner's justi
fication. Paul repeatedly asserts this, (Gal. ii., 16,) and declares that wo
are not justified by our own righteousness, which comes by obedi
ence to the law, Phil, iii., 9. He also proves the same by several
arguments —
1st. The law demands perfect obedience. All works not per
fect, therefore, lead to condemnation, and no act of obedience
at one time can atone for disobedience at another, Gal. iii., 10,
21 ; v, 3.
2d. If we are justified by works, then Christ is dead in vain,
Gal. ii., 21 ; v., 4
3d. If it were of works it would not be of grace. Rom. xi., 6 ;
Eph. ii., 8, 9.
4th. It would afford cause for boasting, Rom. iii., 27 ; iv., 2.
5th. He also quotes the Old Testament to prove that all men
are sinners, Rom. ii., 10 ; that consequently they can not be jus
tified by works, Ps. cxliii., 2 ; Rom. iv., 7, 8. He ' quotes Hab.
ii., 4, to prove that " the just by faith shall live ;" and he cites
the example of Abraham, Gal. iii., 6.
9. What are the different opinions as to the kind of works
which the Scriptures teach are not sufficient for justification ?
The Pelagians admit that works of obedience to the ceremonial
law are of this nature, but affirm that works of obedience to the
moral law are the proper and only ground of justification. The
Romanists admit that works wrought in the natural strength,
previous to regeneration, are destitute of merit, and unavailable
for justification, but they maintain that original sin and previous
actual transgressions having been forgiven in baptism for Christ's
sake, good works afterwards performed through grace have, in
consequence of the merits of Christ, the virtue, 1st, of meriting
heaven ;, 2d, of making satisfaction for sins. We are justified,
then, by evangelical obedience. — Cat. Rom., Part IL, Chapter V.
Council of Trent, Sess. VI., Can. XXIV. and XXXII. Protest
ants deny the justifying efficiency of all classes of works equally.
10. How may it be shown that no class of works, whether
ceremonial' moral, or spiritual, can justify ?
25

386 JUSTIFICATION.
1st. When the Scriptures deny that justification can be by
works, the term " works" is always used generally as obedience to
the whole revealed will of God, however made known. Works
of obedience rendered to one law, as a ground of justification, are
never contrasted with works wrought in obedience to another law,
but with grace, Rom. xi., 6 ; iv., 4. God demands perfect obedi
ence to his whole will as revealed to any individual man. But
since every man is a sinner, justification by the law is equally im
possible for all, Rom. ii., 14, 15 ; iii., 9", 10.
\, 2d. The believer is justified without the deeds of the' law,
Rom. iii., 28, and God justifies the ungodly in Christ, Rom. iv., 5.
3d. Justification is asserted to rest altogether upon a different
foundation. It is " in the name of Christ," 1 Cor. vi., 11 ; " by
his blood," Rom. v., 9 ; "freely," "by his grace," "by faith,"
Rom. iii., 24, 28.
4th. Paul proves that instead of our being justified by good
works, such works are rendered possible to us only in that new
relation to God into which we are introduced by justification,
Eph. ii., 8-10 ; Rom. 6th and 7th chapters.
11. How can James ii., 14-26, be reconciled with this doc
trine ?
James is not speaking of the meritorious ground of justifica
tion, but of the relation which good works sustain to a genuine
faith as its fruit and evidence. The meritorious ground of justi-
fication is the righteousness of Christ, Rom. x., 4 ; 1 Cor. L, 30.
Faith is the essential prerequisite and instrument of receiving
that righteousness, Eph. ii., 8. James, in the passage cited, sim
ply declares and argues the truth that the faith which is thus the
instrumental cause of justification, is never a dead, but always a
living and fruitful principle. Paul teaches the same truth often,
"Faith works by love," Gal. v., 6, and "love is the fulfilling of
the law," Rom. xiii., 10.
12. What do the Scriptures declare to be the true and only
ground of justification ?
Justification is a declaration on the part of the infinitely wise
and holy God that the law is satisfied. The law is, like its Au
thor, absolutely unchangeable, and can be satisfied by nothing

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 387
else than an absolutely perfect righteousness, at once fulfilling
the precept, and suffering the penalty. This was rendered by
Christ as our representative, and his perfect righteousness, as im
puted to us, is the sole and strictly legal ground of our justifica
tion. Thus he is made for us the end of the law for righteous
ness, and we are made the righteousness of God in him, Rom. iii.,
24 ; v., 9, 19 ; viii., 1 ; x., 4 ; 1 Cor. L, 30 ; vi., 11 ; 2 Cor. v.,
21 ; Acts iii., 39.
13. How can it be proved that Christ's active obedience to the
precepts of the law is included in that righteousness by which we
are justified ?
1st. The condition of the covenant of works was perfect obe
dience. This covenant having failed in the hands of the first
Adam, it must be fulfilled in the hands of the second Adam, since
in the covenant of grace Christ assumed aU of the undischarged
obligations of his people under the covenant of works. His suf
fering discharges the penalty, but only his active obedience ful
fills the condition.
2d. All the promises of salvation are attached to obedience,
not to suffering, Matt, xix., 16 ; Gal. iii., 12.
3d. Christ came to fulfill the whole law, Is. xlii., 21 ; Rom.
iii. 31 ; 1 Cor. L, 30.
4th. The obedience of Christ is expressly contrasted with the
disobedience of Adam, Rom. v., 19.
14. How may it be shown that Christ's obedience was free ?
Although Christ was made under the law by being born of the
woman, and rendered obedience to that law in the exercises of his
created human nature, yet he did not owe that obedience for him
self, but rendered it freely that its merits might be imputed to
his people, because the claims of law terminate not upon nature,
but upon persons ; and he was always a divine person. As he
suffered, the just for the unjust, so he obeyed, the Lawgiver in
the place of the law-subject.
15. In what sense is Christ's righteousness imputed to be
Uevers ?
Imputation is an act of God as sovereign judge, at once judicial

388 JUSTIFICATION.
and sovereign, whereby he, 1st, makes the guilt, legal responsi*
bifity, of our sins really Christ's, and punishes them in him, Is.
liii., 6 ; John L, 29 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; and, 2d, makes the merit,
legal rights, of Christ's righteousness ours, and then treats us as
persons legally invested with all those rights, Rom. iv, 6 ; x., 4 ;
1 Cor. L, 30 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; Phil, iii., 9.
As Christ is not made a sinner by the imputation to him of
our sins, so we are not made holy by the imputation to us of his
righteousness. The transfer is only of guilt from us to him, and
of merit from him to us. He justly suffered the punishment due
to our sins, and we justly receive the rewards due to his righte
ousness, 1 John L, 9.
16. Upon what ground does this imputation proceed ?
Upon the union federal, spiritual, and vital, which subsists
between Christ and his people. Which union, in turn, rests upon
the eternal decree of election common to all the persons of the
Godhead, and upon the eternal covenant of grace formed between
the Father as God absolute and the Son as Mediator. Thus the
ultimate ground of imputation is the eternal nature and imperial
will of God, the fountain of aU law and all right.
17. How may the fact of this imputation be proved from
Scripture ?
See Rom. v., 12-21. Compare Rom. iv., 6 ; iii., 21, with
Rom. v., 19.
The doctrine of imputation is essentiaUy involved in the doc
trine of substitution. If Christ obeyed and suffered in our place
it can only be because our sins were imputed to him, which is
directly asserted in Scripture, Isa. liii., 6 ; 2 Cor. v., 21 ; 1 Pet.
ii., 24 ; and, if so, the merit of that obedience and suffering must
accrue to us, Matt, xx., 28 ; 1 Tim. ii., 6 ; 1 Pet. iii., 18. See
above, Chapter XXII., question 13.
This doctrine is also taught by those passages which affirm
that Christ fulfiUed the law, Rom. iii., 31 ; x., 4 ; and by those
which assert that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ,
1 Cor. vi., 11 ; Rom. viii., 1, etc.
This doctrine, moreover, stands or falls with the whole view wa
have presented of the priesthood of Christ, of the justice of God,

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 389
of the covenants of works and of grace, and of the nature of the
atonement ; to which subjects, under their respective heads, the
reader is referred.
18. What are the two effects ascribed to the imputation of
Christ's righteousness?
Christ's righteousness satisfies, 1st, the penalty of the law ;
2d, then the positive conditions of the covenant of works, i. e.
obedience to the precepts of the law.. The imputation of that
righteousness to the believer, therefore, secures, 1st, the remission
of the penalty, pardon of sins ; 2d, the recognition and treatment
of the believer as one with respect to whom the covenant is ful
filled, and to whom all its promises and advantages legally accrue.
See below, question 29.
19. Are the sins of believers, committed subsequently to their
justification, included in the pardon which is consequent to- the
imputation of Christ's righteousness ; and, if so, in what way ?
The elect, although embraced in the purpose of God, and in
his covenant with his Son from eternity, are not effectively united
to Christ untU the time of their regeneration, when, in conse
quence of their union with him, and the imputation of his right
eousness to them, their relation to the law is permanently changed.
Although the immutable law always continues their perfect stand
ard of experience and of action, it is no longer to them a condition
of the covenant of life, because that covenant has been fully dis
charged for them by their sponsor. God no longer imputes sin to
them to the end of judicial punishment. Every suffering which
they henceforth endure is of the nature/)f chastisement, designed
for their correction and improvement, and forms, in its relation
to them, no part of the penalty of the law.
20. What are the different opinions as to the class of sins
which are forgiven when the sinner is justified?
Romanists teach that original sin and all actual transgressions
prior to baptism are forgiven for Christ's sake, through the re
ception of that sacrament, and that after baptism, sins, as they
are committal, a '9 through the merits of Christ forgiven in the

390

JUSTIFICATION-

observance of the sacrament of penance. See above, Chaptei
XXIX., question 11.
Dr. Pusey has revived an ancient doctrine that in baptism all
past sins, original and actual, are forgiven ; but his system makes
no provision for sins subsequently committed.
Many Protestants have held that only past and present sins
are forgiven in the first act of justification, and that sins after
regeneration, as they occur, are forgiven upon renewed acts of
faith. The true view, however, is, that in consequence of the imputa
tion to him of Christ's righteousness, the believer is emancipated *
from his former federal relation to the law, and consequently
henceforth no sin is charged to him to the end of judicial condem
nation. This follows from the nature of justification, as stated
above, and it is iUustrated by the recorded experience of Paul,
who, while complaining of the law of sih, stiU waring in his mem
bers, yet never doubted of his filial relation to God, nor of the
forgiveness of his sins.
21. What are the different opinions as to the relation between
faith and justification ?
Socinians hold that faith, including pbedience, is the proper
meritorious ground of justification. — Cat. Rac, quest. 418^21,
and 453.
Arminians teach that although faith has no merit in itself,
since it is the gift of God, yet, as a living principle, including
evangelical obedience, it is graciously, for Cnrist's merits' sake,
imputed to us for righteousness, i. e., accepted as righteousness,
upon the ground of which we are declared just. — Limborch,
Theol. Christ. 6, 4, 22, and 6, 4, 46.
The orthodox view is that the active and passive obedience
of Christ satisfying both the precept and penalty of the law as a
covenant of life, and thus constituting a perfect righteousness, is,
upon being appropriated by the believer in the act of faith, actu
ally made his, in a legal sense, by imputation. Faith, therefore,
is the mere instrument whereby we partake in the righteousness
of Christ, which is the true ground of our justification.
22. Prove from Scripture that faith is only the instrumental
caus". of justification.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 391
1st. From the nature of faith itself. (I.) It is not of our
selves, it is the gift of God, Eph. ii., 8 ; Phil. L, 29. (2.) It is
one of the fruits of the Spirit, and, therefore, not the meritorious
ground of spiritual blessings, Gal. v. 22. (3.) It is an act of the
soul, and therefore a work, but though, by means of faith, justi
fication is not by works, Rom. iv., 2-5 ; xi., 6. (4.) Justifying
faith terminates on or in Christ, in his blood and sacrifice, and in
the promises of God ; in its very essence, therefore, it involves trust,
and, denying its own justifying value, affirms the sole merit of
that on which it trusts, Rom. iii., 25, 26 ; iv., 20, 22 ; Gal. iii.,
•26 ; Eph. L, 12, 13 ; 1 John v., 10. (5.) The law necessarily
demands a perfect righteousness, but faith, even when combined
with the evangelical obedience which springs from it, is not a per
fect righteousness.
2d. The Scriptures, when referring to the relation of justifica
tion to faith, use the terms in ma-eug, by faith, and did -rriareug,
by or through faith, but never 6td monv, on account of faith,
GaL ii., 16.
3d. Faith is distinguished from the righteousness which
it apprehends, Rom. L, 17 ; Phil, iii., 8-11. — Turrettin, L.
16, Q. 7.
,23. What is the specific object of justifying faith ?
The Socinians, denying the divinity of Christ, make the act
of justifying faith to terminate "in God through Christ." — Rac.
Cat, Q. 418.
The Romanists, confounding justification and sanctification,
make the whole revelation of God the object of the faith that
justifies. — Cat. Rom., Part I., Chap: 1.
The scriptural doctrine is, that while the renewed heart be
lieves equally every ascertained word of God, the specific act of
faith, whereby we are justified, terminates upon the person and
work of Christ as Mediator.
This is proved, 1st, from express declarations of Scripture,
Rom. iii., 22, 25 ; Gal. ii., 16 ; Phil, iii., 9. 2d. By the declara
tion that we are saved by believing in him, Acts x., 43 ; xvi., 31 ;
John iii., 16, 36. 3d. By those figurative expressions which illus
trate the act of saving faith as " looking to Christ," etc., Is. xiv.,
22 ; John L, 12 ; vi., 35, 37 ; Matt, xi., 28. 4th. Unbelief is

392 JUSTIFICATION.
the refusing the righteousness which God provides, i. e., Christ,
Rom. x., 3, 4
24 What is the nature of that peace which flows from justi
fication ?
1st. Peace with God, his justice being completely satisfied
through the righteousness of Christ, Rom. v., 1 ; 2 Cor. v:, 19 ;
Col. L, 21 ; Eph. ii., 14. In witness whereof his Holy Spirit is
given to us, Rom. viii., 15, 16 ; Heb. x., 1,5, 17. His love shed
abroad in our hearts, Rom, v., 5, and our habitual fellowship
with him established, 1 John L, 3. 2d. Inward peace of con
science, including consciousness of our reconciliation with God
through the operation of his Spirit, as above, and the appease
ment of our self-condemning conscience through the apprehension
of the righteousness by which we are justified, Heb. ix., 14 ; x,
2,22. -
25. What other benefits flow from justification ?
Being justified on the ground of a perfect righteousness, our
whole relation to God and the law is changed ; the gift of the
Holy Ghost, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, the working
of all things together for good in this life, deliverance in
death, the resurrection of the body, and final glorification, all
result. 26. How may it be shown that this view of justification is not
inconsistent with its free and gracious character ?
See above, Chap. XXII., question 21.
27. How does the apostle show that justification by faith does
not lead to licentiousness ?
Prop. 1st. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.
Rom. v., 20.
Prop. 2d. Shall we conclude, therefore, that we are to con
tinue in sin that grace may abound ? God forbid. Rom. vi., 1, 2.
Prop. 3d. The federal union of the believer with Christ,
which secures our justification, is the foundation of, and is insep
arable from, that vital spiritual union with him, which secures
our sanctification, Rom. vi., 2-7.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION 393
Prop. 4th. This method of justification, so far from leading to
licentiousness, secures the only conditions under which we could
be holy. (1.) This method of justification, by changing our rela
tion to God, enables us to return to him in the way of a free,
loving service, Rom. vi., 14 ; vii., 1-6. (2.) It alone delivers us
from the spirit of bondage and fear, and gives us that of adoption
and love, Rom. viii., 1-17 ; xiii., 10 ; Gal. v., 6 ; 1 John iv., 18 ;
2 John 6.
28. In what respect did the doctrine of Piscator on this sub
ject differ from that of the Reformed Churches ?
Piscator, a French Protestant divine, who flourished during
the closing years of the sixteenth century, taught, 1st, that, as
to his human nature, Christ was under the law in the same sense
as any other creature, and that, therefore, he could only obey the
law for himself ; 2d, that if Christ had obeyed the law in our
place, the law could not claim a second fulfillment of us, and,
consequently, Christians would be under no obligations to obey
the law of God ; 3d, that if Christ had both obeyed the precept
of the law and suffered its penalty, then the law would have been
doubly fulfilled, since the claims of the precept and the penalty
of the law are alternative, not coincident.
This doctrine was expressly condemned in the Reformed
churehes of Switzerland and Holland, and by the French synods
held in the years 1603, 1612, and 1614. In 1615, however, the
Synod tacitly allowed these views to pass without condemnation. —
Mosheim's Hist.
,29. How may it be shown that justification is not mere
pardon ?
Piscator erred, from failing to distinguish, 1st, that the claims
Df law terminate not upon natures, but upon persons. Christ was
a divine person, and therefore his obedience was free. 2d. That
there is an evident difference between a federal relation to the law
as a condition of salvation, and a natural relation to law as a rule
of life. Christ discharged the former as our federal representative.
The latter necessarily attaches to the befiever as to all moral
agents for ever.
Justification is more than pardon. 1st. Because the very

394 JUSTIFICATION.
word means to pronounce just, i. e., complete in the eye of law,
and the law in its federal relation " embraced a two-fold sanc
tion, viz., the penalty of death for transgressors, and the reward
of eternal life for the obedient." 2d. That righteousness which
is the ground of justification is that which satisfies law. 3d.
Because we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him.
4th. We are declared not to be any longer under the law, hut
under grace, Rom. vi., 14 ; GaL iv., 4, 5. Therefore, the whole
law must have been satisfied. 5th. Because not only pardon,,
but peace, reconciliation, adoption, coheirship with Christ, and
eternal glory, are all secured for us by the work of Christ just as
much as forgiveness of sins, but these rewards were attached to
the precept, not the penalty. See1 above, question 13. Rom. v.,
1-10 ; Acts xxvi., 18 ; Rev. L, 5, 6, etc.
30. In what respect does the governmental theory of the atone
ment modify the doctrine of justification ?
See above, Chap. XXII., question 6. -
1st. It follows, from that theory; that justification is a sove
reign, not a judicial act of God. Christ has not satisfied the law,
but merely made it consistent with the government of God to set
aside the law in the case of believing men.,
2d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, it foUows that his
righteousness is not imputed ; it is the occasion, not the ground .
of justification. 3d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, there is no strictly
federal union between Christ and his people, and faith- can not
be the instrument of salvation by being the means of uniting us
td Christ, but only the arbitrary condition of justification, or the
means of recommending us to God.
31. How does the Arminian theory as to the nature and de
sign of the satisfaction of Christ modify the doctrine of justifi
cation ?
They hold, 1st, as to the nature of Christ's satisfaction, that
although it was a real propitiation rendered to justice for sins, it
was not in the rigor of justice perfect, but was graciously accepted
and acted on as such by God.— Limborch, Apol. Theo., 3, 22, 5.
2d. That it was not strictly the substitution of Christ in place

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 395
of his elect, but rather that he suffered the wrath of God in be
half of all men, in order to make it consistent with justice for
God to offer salvation to all men upon condition of faith.
Therefore they regard justification as a sovereign, not a judi
cial act, 1st. In accepting the sufferings of Christ as sufficient to
enable God consistently to offer to men salvation on the terms of
the new covenant of grace, i. e., on the condition of faith. 2d.
In imputing to the believer his faith for righteousness for Christ's
sake. This faith they make, 1st. To include evangelical obedience,
i. e., the whole principle of religion in heart and life. 2d. They
regard it as the graciously admitted ground, rather than the
mere instrument of justification ; faith being counted for right
eousness, because Christ died. — Liinborch, Theo. Christ., 6, 4,
22, and 6, 4, 46.
This theory, besides being opposed by all the arguments we
have above presented in establishing the orthodox doctrine, labors
under the further objections —
1st. It faUs to render a clear account as to how the satisfac
tion of Christ makes it consistent with divine justice to save men
upon the condition of faith. If Christ did not obey and suffer.
strictly as the substitute of his people, it is difficult to see how the
justice of God, as it respects them, could have been appeased ;
and if he did so fulfil the demands of justice in their place, then
the orthodox view, as above stated, is admitted.
2d. It fails to render a clear account of the relation of faith to
justification, (1.) Because faith in Christ, including trust, neces
sarily implies that the merits of Christ upon which the trust ter
minates is the ground of justification. (2.) Faith must be either
the ground or the mere instrument of justification. If it be the
latter then the righteousness of Christ, which is the object of
faith, is that ground. If it be the former, then what is made of
the merits of Christ upon which faith rests ?
32. How do the Romanists define justification ?
They confound justification with sanctification. It is, 1st, the
forgiveness of sins ; 2d, the removal of inherent sin for Christ's
sake ; 3d, the positive infusion of grace.
Of this justification they teach that the final cause is the glory

396

JUSTIFICATION.

of God and e ernal life. The efficient cause is the power of the
Holj Ghost. The meritorious cause the work of Christ. The
instrumental cause baptism. The formal cause the influence of
grace, whereby we are made not merely forensicaUy but inherently
righteous.— Council of Trent, Sess. VI., Chapter VII.
They define faith in its relation to justification to be the
beginning of human salvation, the fountain and root of all justi
fication, i. e., of spiritual life. They consequently hold that jus
tification is progressive, and that when a man receives a new na
ture in baptism, and the work of justification is commenced in
him with the forgiveness and the removal of sin, the work is to he
carried on by the exercise of the grace implanted, i. e., by good
works. Since they confound justification with sanctification, they
necessarily deny, that men are justified by the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, or by mere faith without works. — Canon
9th and 11th de Justificatione.
They admit that justification is entirely gracious, i. e., of the
mere mercy of God, and for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ/
as neither the spiritual exercises nor the works of men previous
to justification have any merit whatsoever. — Council of Trent,
Sess. VI., Chapter VIII.'
33. What are the points of difference between Protestants and
Bomanists on this whole subject ?
1st. As to the nature of justification. We regard, it as a
judicial act of God, declaring the believer to be forensicaUy just,
on the ground of the righteousness of Christ made his by impu
tation. They regard it as thf infusion, of inherent grace.
2d., As to its meritorious ground. Both say the merits of
Christ. But they say these merits are made ours by sancti
fication. We, by imputation, through the instrumentality of
faith. 3d. As to the nature and office of faith. We say that it is
the instrument ; they the beginning and root of justification.
4th. They say that justification is progressive.
5th. That it may be lost by mortal sin, and regained through
the sacrament of penance.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTIC PT. 397
34 What are the leading arguments against the Romanisl
view on fhis subject ?
1st. This whole doctrine is confused and unintelligible. (1;)
It confounds under one definition two matters entirely distinct,
namely, the forensic remission of the condemnation due to sin with
the washing away of inherent sin, and the introduction to a state
of covenant favor with God with the infusion of inherent grace.
(2.) It renders no sensible account as to the manner in which
the merit of Christ propitiates divine justice. '
2d. Their definition is refuted by aU the evidence above ex
hibited, that the terms "justification" and " righteousness" are
used in Soripture in a forensic sense.
3d. Their view, by making our inherent grace wrought in us
by the- Holy Ghost for Christ's sake the ground of our accept
ance with God, subverts the whole gospel. It is of the very essence
of the gospel that the ground of our acceptance with the Father
is the mediatorial work of the Son, who is for us the end of the
law for righteousness, and not our own graces.
4th. The Scriptures declare that on the ground of the pro
pitiation of Christ God justifies the believer as ungodly, not as
sanctified. It certainly could not require an atonement to render
God both just and the sanctifier of the ungodly, Rom. iv., 5.
5th. The phrases to impute, reckon, count sin or righteous
ness are absolutely consistent only with a forensic interpretation.
To impute righteousness without works in the forensic sense, in
the 4th chapter of Romans, is reasonable. To impute inherent
grace without works is nonsense.
6th. Their definition is refuted by all those arguments which
establish the true view with respect to the nature and office of
justifying faith. See abc ve, qu astions ,21-23.

CHAPTER XXXI.
ADOPTION.
1. To what classes of creatures is the term " sons," or ^ chil
dren of God," applied in the Scriptures, and on what grounds is
that application made ?
1st. In the singular it is applied, in a supreme and incom
municable sense, to the Second- Person of the Trinity alone.
2d. To angels (1.) because they are God's favored creatures, (2.)
because as holy intelligences they are like him, Job L, 6 ;
xxxviii., 7.
3d. To human magistrates, because they possess authority
delegated from God, and in that respect resemble him, Pst.
lxxxii., 6.
4th. To good men as the subjects of a divine adoption.
This adoption, and the consequent sonship it confers is two
fold, (1.) general and external, Ex. iv., 22 ; Rom. ix, 4 ; (2.)
special, spiritual and immortal, Gal, iv., 4, 5 ; Eph. L, 4-6.
2. What is the Adoption of which believers are the subjects in
Christ ; and what relation does the conception which this word
represents in Scripture sustain to those represented by the terms
justification, regeneration, and sanctification ?
Turrettin makes adoption a constituent part of justification.
He says that in execution of the covenant of grace God sove
reignly imputes to the elect, upon their exercise of faith, the
righteousness of Christ, which was the fulfilling of the whole law,
precept as well as penalty, and therefore the legal ground, under
the covenant of works, for securing to his people both remission
of the penalty and a legal right to all the promises conditioned
upon obedience. Upon tie ground of this sovereign imputation

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 399
God judicially pronounces the law, in its federal relations, to be
perfectly satisfied with regard to them, i. e., he justifies them,
which involves two things, 1st, the remission of the penalty due
to their sins, 2d, the endowing them with all the rights and rela
tions which accrue from the positive fulfillment of the covenant
of works by Christ in their behalf. This second constituent of
justification he calls adoption, which essentially agrees with the
definition of adoption given in our Con. Faith, Chapter XII., L.
Cat., Q. 74 ; S. Cat., Q. 34.— Turrettin, L. 16, Q. 4 and 6.
The definition we have given of justification, under' the pre
ceding chapter, agrees precisely with that of Turrettin, only we
have not made the same application of the word adoption, be
cause this word, as used in the Scriptures, does not appear to
convey the idea of a mere forensic act of God, changing the rela
tions of his adopted children, hut rather a most excellent com
plex view of the believer as at once the subject of regeneration
and justification together. That is, of the new creature in his
new relations.
The instant a sinner is united to Christ in the exercise of
faith, there is accomplished in him simultaneously and insepara
bly, 1st, a total change' of relation to God, and to the law as a
covenant ; and, 2d, a change of inward condition or nature. The
change of relation is represented by justification ; the change of
nature is represented by the term regeneration. Regeneration
is an act of God originating by a new creation a new spiritual life
in the heart of the subject. The first and instant act of that new
creature, consequent upon his regeneration, is faith, or a believing,
trusting embrace of the person and work of Christ. Upon the
exercise of faith by the regenerated subject, justification is the
instant act of God, on the ground of that perfect righteousness
which the sinner's faith has apprehended, declaring him to be free
from all condemnation, and to have a legal right to the relations
and benefits secured by the covenant which Christ has fulfilled in
his behalf. Sanctification is the progressive growth toward the
perfected maturity of that new life which was implanted in re
generation. Adoption presents the new creature in his new rela
tion ; his new relations entered upon with a congenial heart, and
his new life developing in a congenial home, and surrounded with
those relations which foster its growth, and crown it with bless-

400 adoption.
edness. Justification is wholly forensic, and concerns only rda-
tions, immunities, and rights. Regeneration and sanctification are
wholly spiritual and moral, and concern only inherent qualities
and states. Adoption comprehends the complex condition of
the believer as at once the subject of both. ,
3. What is represented in Scripture as involved in being a
child of God by this adoption ?
1st. Derivation of nature from God, John L, 13 ; James L,
18 ; 1 John v., 18.
2d. Being bom again in the image of God, bearing his like
ness, Rom. viii., 29 ; 2 Cor. iii., 18 ; Col. iiL, 10 ; 2 Pet. L, 4
3d. Bearing his name, 1 John iii., 1 ; Rev. ii. 17 ; iii., 12.
4th. Being the objects of his peculiar love, John xvii., 23 ;
Rom. v., 5-8 ; Titus iii., 4 ; 1 John iv., 7-11.
5th. The indwelling of the Spirit of his Son, (Gal. iv., 5, 6,)
who forms in us a filial spirit, or a spirit becoming the children
of God, obedient, 1 Pet. L, 14 ; 2 John 6 ; free from sense of
guilt, legal bondage, fear of death, Rom. viii., 15, 21 ; 2 Cor. iii.,
17 ; Gal. v., 1 ; Heb. ii., 15 ; 1 John v., 14 ; and elevated with
a holy boldness and royal dignity, Heb. x., 19, 22 ; 1 Pet. ii.,
9 ; iv., 14.
6th. Present protection, consolations, and abundant provisions,
Ps. cxxv., 2 ; Isa. IxvL, 13 ; Luke xii., 27-32 ; John xiv., 18 ; 1
Cor. iii., 21,23; 2 Cor. L, 4
7th. Present fatherly chastisements for our good, including
both spiritual and temporal afflictions, Ps. fi., 11, 12 ; Heb.
xii., 5-11.
8th. The certain inheritance of the riches of our Father's
glory, as heirs with God and joint heirs with Christ, (Rom.
viii., 17 ; James ii., 5 ; 1 Pet. L, 4 ; iii., 7 ; including the exalta
tion of our bodies to feUowship with him, Rom. viii., 23 ; Phil.
iii., 21.
4. What relation do the three Persons of the Trinity sustain
to this adoption, and into what relation does it introduce us to
each of them severally ?
This adoption proceeds according to the eternal pursose of the

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 401
Father, upon the merits of the Son, and by the efficient agency
of the Holy Ghost, John L, 12, 13 ; Gal. iv., 5, 6 ; Titus iii., 5,
6. By it God the Father is made our Father. The incarnate
God-man is made our elder brother, and we are made, (1.) like
him ; (2.) intimately associated with him in community of life
standing relations and privileges ; (3.) joint heirs with him of
his glory, Rom. viii., 17, 29 ; Heb. ii., 17 ; iv., 15. The Holy
Ghost is our indweller, teacher, guide, advocate, comforter, and
sanctifier. All believers, being subjects of the same adoption, are
brethren, Eph. iii., 6 ; 1 John iii., 14 ; v., 1.
26

CHAPTER XXXII.
SANCTIFICATION.
1. What sense do the words ayiog, holy, and dyid^eiv, to sanc
tify, bear in the Scriptures ?
The verb dyid^ew is used in two distinct senses in the New
Testament :
1st. To make clean physically, or morally. (1.) Ceremonial
purification, Heb. ix., 13. (2.) To render clean in a moral sense,
1 Cor. vi., 11 ; Heb. xiii., 12. Hence the phrase " them that are
sanctified" is convertible with believers, 1 Cor. L, 2.
2d. To set apart from a common to a sacred use, to devote,
(1.) spoken of things, Matt, xxiii., 17 ; (2.) spoken of persons,
John x., 36 ; (3.) to regard and venerate as holy, Matt, vi., 9 ;
1 Pet. iii., 15.
"Ayiog, as an adjective, pure, holy, as a noun, saint, is also used
in two distinct senses, corresponding to those of the verb.
1st. Pure, clean ; (1.) ceremonially, (2.) morally, Eph. L, 4,
(3.) as a noun, saints, sanctified ones, Rom. i. 7 ; viii., 27.
2d. Consecrated, devoted, Matt, iv., 5 ; Acts vi., 13 ; xxi.,
28 ; Heb. ix., 3. This word is also used in ascriptions of
praise to God, John xvii., 11 ; Rev. iv., 8.
2. What are the different views entertained as to the nature
of sanctification ?
Pelagians denying original sin and the moral inability of man,
and holding that sin can be predicated only of acts of the will,
and not of inherent states or dispositions, consequently regard
sanctification as nothing more than a moral reformation of life
and habits, wrought under the influence of the truth in the natu
ral strength of the sinner himself.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 403
The advocates of the "exercise scheme" hold that we can find
nothing in the soul than the agent and his exercises. Regenera
tion, therefore, is nothing more than the cessation from a series
of unholy, and the inauguration of a series of holy exercises ;
and sanctification the maintenance of those holy exercises. One
party, represented by Dr. Emmons, say that God immediately
effects these holy exercises. Another party, represented by Dr.
Taylor, of New Haven, held that the man himself determines
the character of his own exercises by choosing God as his chief
good ; the Holy Spirit in some unexplained way assisting. See
above, Chap. XXVL, questions 5 and 6.
3d. Many members of the Church of England, as distinguished
from the evangelical party in that church, hold that a man con
forming to the church, which is 'the condition of the Gospel cove
nant, is introduced to all the benefits of that covenant, and in
the decent performance of relative duties and observance of the
sacraments, is enabled to do all that is now required of him, and
to attain to all the moralgood now possible or desirable.
4th. The orthodox doctrine is that the Holy Ghost, by his
constant influences upon the whole soul in all its faculties,
through the instrumentality of the truth, nourishes, exercises,
and develops those holy principles and dispositions which he im
planted in the new birth, until by a constant progress, all sinful
dispositions being mortified and extirpated, and all holy disposi
tions being fully matured, the subject of this grace is brought
immediately upon death to the measure of the stature of perfect
manhood in Christ.
Con. Faith, Chap. XIII.; L. Cat., question 75; S. Cat.,
question 35.
3. How can it be shown that sanctification involves more than
mere reformation ?
See above, Chap. XXVL, question 12.
4 How may it be shown that it involves more than the pro
duction of holy exercises ?
See above, Chap. XXVL, questions 7-10.
Besides the arguments presented in the chaptex above referred

404 SANCTIFICATION.
to, this truth is established by the evidence of those passages of
Scripture which distinguish between the change wrought in the
heart and the effects of that change in the actions, Matt, xii.,
33-35 ; Luke vi., 43-45.
5. What relation does sanctification sustain to regeneration?
Regeneration is the creative act of the Holy Spirit, implant
ing a new principle of spiritual life in the soul. Conversion is
the first exercise of that new gracious principle, in the spontane
ous turning of the new born sinner to God. Sanctification is the
sustaining and developing work of the Holy. Ghost, bringing all
the faculties of the soul more and more perfectly under the puri
fying and regulating influence of the implanted princinle of spir
itual life.
6. What is the relation which justification and sanctification
sustain to each other ?
In the order of nature, regeneration precedes justification, al
though as to time they are always necessarily cotempora$teous.
The instant God regenerates a sinner he acts faith in Christ.
The instant he acts faith in Christ he is justified, and sanctifica-
tion, which is the work of carrying on and perfecting that which
is begun in regeneration, is accomplished under the conditions of
those new relations into which he is introduced by justification.
In justification We are delivered from all the penal consequences
of sin, and brought into such a state of reconciliation with God,
and communion of the Holy Ghost, that we are emancipated from
the bondage of legal fear, and endued with that spirit of filial con
fidence and love which is the essential principle of all acceptable
obedience. Our justification, moreover, proceeds on the ground
of our federal union with Christ by faith, which is the basis of
that vital and spiritual union of the soul with him from whom
our sanctification flows. See above, Chap. XXXI., question 2.
7. How can it be shown that this work extends to the whole
man, the understanding, will, and affections ?
The soul is a unit, the same single agent alike, thinking,
feeling, and willing. A man can not love that loveliness which

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 405
he does not perceive, nor can he perceive that beauty, whether
moral or natural, which is uncongenial to his own heart. His
whole nature is morally depraved, 1st, blind or insensible to spir
itual beauty ; 2d, averse, in the reigning dispositions of the will,
to moral right, and therefore disobedient. The order in which
the faculties act is as follows : The intellect perceives the quali
ties of the object concerning which the mind is engaged ; the
heart loves those qualities which are congenial to it ; the will
chooses that which is loved.
This is proved, 1st, by experience. As the heart .becomes
more depraved the mind becomes more insensible to spiritual
light. On the other hand, as the eyes behold more and more
clearly the beauty of the truth, the more lively become the affec
tions, and the more obedient the wUl. 2d. From the testimony
of Scripture. By nature the whole man is depraved. The un
derstanding darkened, as well as the affections and wiU perverted,
Eph. iv., 18.
If this be so, it is evident th^t sanctification must also be
effected throughout the entire nature. 1st. From the necessity
of the* case. 2d. From the testimony of Scripture, Rom. vi., 13 ;
2 Cor. iv., 6 ; Eph. L, 18 ; Col. iii., 10; 1 Thess. v., 23 ; 1 John
iv, 7.
8. In what sense is the body sanctified ?
1st. As consecrated, (1.) as being the temple of the Holy
Ghost, 1 Cor. vi., 19 ; (2.) hence as being a member of Christ, 1
Cor. vi., 15. 2d. As sanctified, since they are integral parts of
our persons, their instincts and appetites act. immediately upon
the passions of our souls, and consequently these must be brought
subject to the control of the sanctified soul, and all its members,
as organs of the soul, made instruments of righteousness unto
God, Rom., vi., 13 ; 1 Thess. iv., 4. 3d. It will be made like
Christ's glorified body, 1 Cor. xv, 44 ; Phil, iii., 21.
9. To whom is the work of sanctification referred in Scrip
ture ? -jp
1st. To the Father, 1 Thess. y&, 23 ; Heb. xiii., 21. 2d. To
the Son, Eph. v., 25, 26 ; Titus ii., 14 3d. To the Holy Ghost,
1 Cor. vi., 11 ; 2 Thess. ii., 13.

406 SANCTIFICATION.
In all external actions the three1 Persons of the trinity are al
ways represented as concurring, the Father working through tha
Son and Spirit, and the Son through the Spirit. Hence the work
of sanctification is with special prominence attributed to the
Holy Spirit, since he is the immediate agent therein, and since
this is his special office work in the plan of redemption.
-10. What do the Scriptures teach as to the agency of the
truth in the work of sanctification /
The whole process of sanctification consists in the develop
ment and confirmation of the new principle of spiritual life im
planted in the soul in regeneration, conducted by the Holy Ghost
in perfect conformity to, and through the operation of the laws
and habits of action natural to the soul as an intelligent, morai
and free agent. Like the natural faculties both of body and mind,
and the natural habits which modify the actions of those facul
ties, so Christian graces, or spiritual habits, are developed by ex
ercise ; the truths of the gospel being the objects upon which
these graces act, and by which they are both excited and directed.
Thus the divine loveliness of God presented in the truth, which is
his image, is the object of our complacent love ; his goodness of
our gratitude ; his promises of our trust ; his judgments of our
wholesome awe, and his commandments variously exercise us in
the thousand forms of filial obedience, John xvii., 19 ; 1 Pet. L,
22 ; ii., 2 ; 2 Pet. L, 4 ; James L, 18.
11. What efficiency do the Scriptures ascribe in this work.to
the sacraments ?
There are three views entertained on this subject by theo
logians —
1st. The lowest view is, that the sacraments simply, as sym
bols, present the truth in a lively manner to the eye, and are
effective thus only as a form of presenting the gospel objectively.
2d. The opinion occupying the opposite extreme is, that they,
of their own proper efficiency, convey sanctifying grace ex opere
operate, "because they convey grace by the virtue of the sacra
mental action itself, instituted by God for this very end, and not
through the merit either of the agent (priest) or the receiver."—
Bellarmine de sac, 2, 1.

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 407
3d. The true view is, " that the sacraments are efficacious
means of grace, not merely exoibiting but actually conferring
upon* those who worthily receive them the benefits which they
represent ;" yet this efficacy does not reside properly in them,
but accompanies their proper use in virtue of the divine institu
tion and promise, through the accompaning agency of the Holy
Ghost, and as suspended upon the exercise of faith upon the part
of the recipient, which faith is at once the condition and the in
strument of the reception of the benefit, Matt, iii., 11 ; Acts ii.,
41 ; x., 47 ; Rom. vi., 3 ; 1 Cor. xii., 13 ; Titus iii., 5 ; 1 Pet.,
iii., 21.
12. What office do the Scriptures ascribe to faith in sancti
fication ?
Faith is the first grace in order exercised by the soul conse
quent upon regeneration, and the root of all other graces in prin-
cip]e)#Acts xv., 9 ; xxvi., 18. It is instrumental in securing
sanctification, therefore —
1st. By securing the change of the believer's relation to God
and to the law, as a condition of life and favor. See above, ques
tion 6.
2d. By securing his union with Christ, 1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. ii.,
20 ; Col. iii., 3.
3d. It is sanctifying in its own nature, since, in its widest
sense, faith is that spiritual state of the soul in which it holds
living active communion with spiritual truth.
13. What, according to Scripture, is necessary to constitute
a good work ?
1st. That it should spring from a right motive, i. e., love
for God's character, regard for his authority, and zeal for his
glory, reigning as a permanent and- controlling principle in the
soul. 2d. That it be in accordance with his revealed law, Deut. xii.,
32 ; Isa. L, 11, 12 ; Col. ii., 16-23.
14 What is the Popish doctrine as to "the counsels" of Christ,
which are not included in the positive precepts of the law ?
The positive commands of Christ are represented as binding

408 SANCTIFICATION.
on all classes of Christians alike, and their observance necessary
in order to salvation. His counsels, on the other hand, are bind
ing only upon those who, seeking a higher degree of perfection
and a more excellent reward, voluntarily assume them. These
are such as celibacy", voluntary poverty, etc., and obedience to
rule, (monastic.) — Bellarmine de Monarchis, Cap. VII.
The wickedness of this distinction is evident —
1st. Because Christ demands the entire consecration of every
Christian : after we have done all we are only unprofitable ser
vants. Works of supererogation, therefore, are impossible.
2d. All such will worship is declared abhorent to God, Col.
ii., 18-23 ; 1 Tim. iv, 3.
15. What judgment is to be formed of the good works of un
renewed men ?
Unrenewed men retain some dispositions and affections in
themselves relatively good, and they do many things in themselves
right, and according to the letter of God's law. Yet —
1st. As to his person, every unrenewed man is under God's
wrath and curse, and consequently can do nothing pleasing, to
him. The rebel in arms is in everything' a rebel until he submits
and returns to his allegiance.
2d. Love for God and regard to his authority are never his
supreme motive in(any of his acts. Thus while many of his ac
tions are civilly good as respects his fellow-men, none of them can
be spirituaUy good as it respects God. There is an obvious dis
tinction between an act viewed in itself, and viewed in connection
with its agent. The sinner, previous to justification and renewal,
is a rebel ; each one of his acts is the act of a rebel, though as
considered in itself any single act may be either good, bad, or
indifferent. 16. In what sense are good works necessary for salvation ?
As the necessary and invariable fruits of both the change of
relation accomplished in justification, and of the change of nature
accomplished in regeneration, though never as the meritorious
grounds or conditions of our salvation.
This necessity results, 1st, from the holiness of God ; 2d, from
his eternal purpose, Eph. i., 4 ; ii., 10 ; 3d, from the design and

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 409
redemptive efficacy of Christ's death, Eph. v., 25-27 ; 1th, from
the union of the believer with Christ, and the energy of his in
dwelling Spirit, John xv., 5 ; Gal. v., 22 ; 5th, from the very
nature of faith, which first leads to and then works by love, Gal.
v., 6 ; 6th, from the command of God, 1 Thes. iv., 6 ; 1 Pet. L,
15 ; 7th, from the nature of heaven, Rev. xxi., 27.
17. What is the theory of the Antinomians upon this subject ?
Antinomians are, as their name signifies, those who deny that
Christians are bound to obey the law. They argue that, as Christ
has in our place fulfilled both the preceptive and the penal de
partments of God's law, his people must be delivered from all
obligation to observe it, either as a rule of duty or as a condition
of salvation. Paul, in the 6th chapter of Romans, declares that this damna
ble heresy was charged as a legitimate consequent upon his doc
trine in that day. He not only repudiates the charge, but, on
the contrary, affirms that free justification through an imputed
righteousness, without the merit of works, is the only possible
condition in which the sinner can learn to bring forth holy works
as the fruits of filial love. The very purpose of Christ was to re
deem to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and this
he accomplished by delivering them from the federal bondage of
the law, in order to render them capable as the Lord's freedmen
of moral conformity to it.
18. What are the different senses which have been applied to
the term " merit ?"
It has been technically used in two different senses. 1st.
Strictly, to designate the common quality of all services to which
a reward is due, ex justicid, on account of their intrinsic value
and dignity. 2d. Improperly, it was used by the fathers as
equivalent to that which results in or attains to a reward or
consequent, without specifying the ground or virtue on account of
which it is secured. — Turrettin, L. XVII., Quaastio 5.
19. What distinction does the Romish Church design to sig
nalize by the terms " merit of condignity" and the "merit of con
gruity ?"

410 SANCTIFICATION.
The " merit of condignity" they teach attaches only to works
wrought subsequently to regeneration by the aid of divine grace,
and is that degree of merit that intrinsically, and in the way of
equal right, not by mere promise or covenant, deserves the reward
it attains at "God's hands. The " merit of congruity" they teach
attaches to those good dispositions or works which a man may,
previously to regeneration, realize without the aid of divine grace,
and which makes it congruous or specially fitting for God to re
ward the agent by infusing grace into his heart.
It is extremely difficult to determine the exact position of
the Romish Church on this subject, since different schools of the
ologians in her midst differ widely, and the decisions of the Coun
cil of Trent are studiously ambiguous. The general belief ap
pears to be that abUity to perform good works springs from grace
infused into the sinner's heart for Christ's sake, through the in
strumentality of the sacraments, but that afterwards these good
works merit, that is, lay for us the foundation of a just claim to-
salvation and glory. Some say, like Bellarmine de justific, 5, 1,
and 4, 7, that this merit attaches to the good works of Christians
intrinsically, as well as in consequence of God's promise ; others
that these works deserve the reward only because God has prom
ised the reward on the condition of the work. — Coun. Trent, Sess.
VI., Cap. XVI., and canons 24 and 32.
20. What is necessary that a work should be in the proper
sense of the$erm meritorious ?
Turrettin makes five conditions necessary to that end. 1st.
That the work be not of debt, or which the worker was under
obligation to render, Luke xvii., 10. 2d. That it is our own,
i. e., effected by our own natural energy. 3d. That it be perfect.
4th. That it be equal to the reward merited. 5th. That the
reward be . of justice due to such an act. — Turrettin, L. XVII.,
Quaestio 5.
According to this definition, it is evident, from the absolute
dependence and obligation of the creature, that he can never merit
any reward for whatever obedience he may render to the commands
of his Creator. 1st Because all the strength he works with is
freely given by God. ' 2d. All the service he can render is owed

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 411
to God. 3d. Nothing he can do can equal the reward of God's
favor and eternal blessedness.
Under the covenant of works, God graciously promised to re
ward the obedience of Adam with eternal life. This was a reward,
however, not of merit, but of free grace and promise. Every
thing under that constitution depended upon the standing of the
person before God. As long as Adam continued without sin, his
services were accepted and rewarded according to promise. But
from the moment he forfeited the promise, and lost his standing
before God, no work of his, no matter of what character, could
merit any thing at the hand of God.
21. How can it be proved that our good works, even after the
restoration of our person to God's favor by justification, do not
merit heaven ? s
1st. Justification proceeds upon the infinite merits of Christ,
and on that foundation rests our title to the favor of God and
all the infinite consequences thereof. Christ's merit, lying at the
foundation and embracing all, excludes the possibility of our
meriting any thing. 2d. The law demands perfect Obedience,
Rom. iii., 23 ; Gal. v., 3. 3d. We are saved by grace, not by
works, Eph. ii., 8, 9. 4th. All good dispositions are graces
or gifts of God, 1 Cor. xv., 10; Phil, ii., 13 ; 1 Thess. ii., 13.
5th. Eternal life itself is declared to be the gift of God, 1 John
v, 11. 22. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the good works
of believers, and the rewards promised to them ?
Both the work and its reward are branches from the same gra
cious root. The covenant of grace provides alike for the infusion
of grace in the heart, the exercise of this grace in the life, and the
rewards of that grace so exercised. It is all of grace, grace for
grace, grace added to grace, presented to us in this form of a re
ward : — 1st. That it may act upon us as a rational motive to dili
gent obedience. 2d. To mark that the gift of heaven and eternal
blessedness is an act of strict legal justice (1.) in respect to the
perfect merits of Christ, (2.) in respect to God's faithful adherence
to his own free promise, 1 John L, 9. 3d. To indicate that the
heavenly reward stands in a certain gracious proportion to the

412 PERFECTIONISM. ,
grace given in the obedience on earth ; (1.) because God so wills
it, Matt, xvi., 27 ; 1 Cor. iii., 8 ; (2.) because the grace given on
earth prepares the soul to receive the grace given in heaven, 2
Cor. iv., 17.
is perfect sanctification attainable bt believers in
Christ in this life ?
23. What, in general terms, is perfectionism ?
The various theories of perfectionism all agree in maintain
ing that it is possible for a child of God in this world to be
come, 1st, perfectly free from sin, 2d, conformed to the law under
which they now live. They differ very variously among them
selves, however, 1st, as to what sin is ; 2d, as to what law we are
now obliged to fulfill ; 3d, as to the means whereby this perfec
tion may be attained, whether by nature or by grace.
24. How does the Pelagian theory of the nature of man and
of grace lead to perfectionism ?
Pelagians maintain, 1st, as to man's nature, that it was not
radically corrupted by the fall, and that every man possesses suf
ficient power to fulfill all the duties required of him, since God
can not in justice demand that which man has not fuU power to
do. 2d. As to God's grace, that it is nothing more than the fav
orable constitution of our own minds, and the influence exerted
on them by the truth he has revealed to us, and the propi
tious circumstances in which he has placed us. Thus, .in the
Christian church, and with the Christian revelation, men are, in
fact, placed in the most propitious circumstances possible to per
suade them to perform their duties. It foUows from this system
directly that every one who wishes may certainly attain perfec
tion by using his natural powers and advantages of position with
sufficient care. — Wigger's Historical view of Augustinianism and
Pelagianism, quoted by Dr. G. Peck.
25. What, according to the Pelagian theory, is the nature of
the sin from which man may be perfectly free ; what the law which
he may perfectly fulfill, and what are the means by which this
perfection may be attained ?
They deny original and inherent corruption of nature, and

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 413
hold that sin is only voluntary transgression of known law, from
which any man may abstain if he wiU.
As to the law which man in his present state may perfectly
fulfill, they hold that it is the single and original law of God, the
requirements of which, however, in the case of every individual
subject, are measured by the individual's ability, and opportuni
ties of knowledge. As to the means whereby this perfection may
be attained, they maintain the plenary ability of man's natural
will to discharge aU the obligations resting upon him, and they
admit the assistance of God's grace only in the sense of the influ
ence of the truth, and other propitious circumstances in persuad
ing man to use his own power. Thus the means of perfect sanc
tification are, 1st, man's own volition, 2d, as helped by the study
of the Bible, prudent avoidance of temptation, etc.
26. In what sense do Romanists hold the doctrine of per
fection ?
The decisions of the Council of Trent upon this subject, as
upon aU critical points, are studiously ambiguous. They lay
down the principle that the law must be possible to them upon
whom it is "binding, since God does not command impossibilities.
Men justified (sanctified) may by the grace of God dwelling in
them satisfy the divine law, pro hujus vitce statu, i. e., as graci
ously for Christ's sake adjusted to our present capacities. They
confess, nevertheless, that the just may fall into venial sins every
day, and that while in the flesh no man can live entirely without
sin, (unless by a special privilege of God) ; yet that in this life
the renewed can fully keep the divine law ; and even by the ob
servance of the evangelical counsels do more than is commanded ;
and thus, as many saints have actually done, lay up a fund of
supererogatory merit. — Council of Trent, Session VI. Compare
Chapters XI. and XVI., and canons 18, 23, and 32. See above,
question 14 ,
27. In what sense do they hold that the renewed may, in this
life live without sin ; in what sense fully satisfy the law ; and
by the use of what means do they teach that this perfection may be
attained ?
As to sin, they hold the distinction between mortal and venial

414 PERFECTIONISM.
sins, and that the concupiscence that remains in the bosom of tho
renewed, as the result of original and the fuel of actual sin, is not
itself sin, since sin consists only in the consent of the will to the
impulse of concupiscence. In accordance with these views they hold
that a Christian in this life may live without committing mortal
sins, but that he never can be free from the inward movements
of concupiscence, nor from liability to fall through ignorance, in
attention, or passion into venial sins.
As to the law, which a believer in this life may fully satisfy,
they hold that as God is just and can not demand of us what is
impossible, his law is graciously adjusted to our present ca
pacities, as assisted by grace, and that it is this law pro hujus
vitos statu, which we may fulfill.
As to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, they
hold that divine grace precedes, accompanies, and follows all of
Qur good works, which divine grace is to be sought through those
sacramental and priestly channels which Christ has institued in
his church, and especially in the observance of works of prayer,
fasting, and alms deeds, and the acquisition of supererogatory
merit by the fulfillment of the counsels of Christ to chastity,
obedience, and voluntary poverty. — Council of Trent, Sess. XIV.,
Chapter V., Sess. VI., Chapters XI. and XII., Sess. V., canon
5 ; Cat. Rom., Part IL, Chapter IL, question 32, and Part
IL, Chapter V., question 59, and Part IIL, Chapter X., ques
tions 5-10.
28. In what form was the doctrine taught by the early Ar
minians ?
Arminius declared that his mind was in suspense upon this
subject, (Writings of Arminius, translated by Nichols, Vol. I., p.
256.) His immediate successors in the theological leadership of
the remonstrant party, developed a theory of perfectionism ap
parently identical with that taught by Wesley^ and professed by
his disciples. "A man can, with the assistance of divine grace,
keep all the commandments of God perfectly, according to the
gospel or covenant of grace. The highest evangelical perfection,
(for we are not teaching a legal perfection, which includes sin
lessness entire in all respects and in the highest degree, and ex
cludes aU imperfection and infirmity, for this we believe to be

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 415
impossible,) embraces two things, ,1st, a perfection proportioned
to the powers of each individual ; 2d, a desire of making continual
progress and increasing one's strength more and more." — Epis-
copius, quoted by Dr. G. Peck, " Christian Perfection," pp. 135
and 136.
29. What is the Wesleyan doctrine on this subject ?
1st. That although every believer as soon as he is justified is
regenerated, and commences the incipient stages of sanctification,
yet this does not exclude the remains of much inherent sin, nor the
warfare of the flesh against the Spirit, which may continue for a
long time, but which must cease at some time before the subject
can be fit for heaven.
2d. This state of progressive sanctification is not itself per
fection, which is properly designated by the phrases " entire," or
" perfect sanctification." This, sooner or later, every heir of glory
must experience ; although the majority do not reach it long be
fore death, it is the attainment of some in the midst of life, and
consequently it is the duty and privilege of all to desire, strive
for and expect its attainment now.
3d. This state of evangelical perfection does not consist in an
ability to fulfiU perfectly the original and absolute law of holi
ness under which Adam was created, nor does it exclude all li-
abfiity to mistake, or to. the infirmities of the flesh, and of natural
temperament, but it does exclude all inward disposition to sin as
well as all outward commission of it, since it consists in a state
in which perfect faith in Christ and perfect love for God fills the
whole soul and governs the entire life, and thus fulfills all the re
quirements of the " law of Christ," under which alone the Chris
tian's probation is now held.
30. In what sense do they teach that men may live without
s\n? Mr. Wesley did not himself use, though he did not object to
the phrase " sinless perfection." He distinguished between " sin,
properly so called, i. e., a voluntary transgression of a known law,
and sin, improperly so called, i. e., an involuntary transgression
of a divine law, known or unknown," and declared " I believe
there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involun-

416 PERFECTIONISM.
tary transgressions, which I apprehend to be naturally consequent
on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality." He
also declares that the obedience of the perfect Christian " can not
bear the rigor of God's justice, but needs atoning blood," and
consequently the most perfect " must continually say, ' forgive us
our trespasses/ " and Dr. Peck says that the holier men are here
" the more they loathe and abhor themselves." On the other
hand they hold that a Christian may in this life attain to a state
of perfect and constant love, which fulfills perfectly all the require
ments of the gospel covenant. Violations of the original and ab
solute law of God are not counted to the believer for sin, since
for him Christ has been made the end of that law for righteous
ness, and for Christ's sake he has been delivered from that law
and been made subject to the " law of Christ," and that only is
sin to the Christian which is a violation of this law of love. See
Mr. Wesley's " Tract on Christian Perfection" in the volume of
"Methodist Doctrinal Tracts," pp. 294, 310, 312, and Dr. Peck's
" Christian Doc. of Perfection," p. 204.
31. What law do they say the Christian can in this life per
fectly obey ?
Dr. Peck says, p. 244, " To fallen humanity, though renewed
by grace, perfect obedience to the moral law is impracticable dur
ing the present probationary state. And consequently Christian
perfection does not imply perfect obedience to the moral law." —
Peck, p. 244.
This moral law they hold, to be universal and unchangeable,
all moral agents are under perpetual obligations to fulfill it, and
they are in no degree released therefrom by their loss of ability
through sin.— Peck, p. 271. This law sustains, however, a two
fold relation to the creature. 1st. It is a rule of being and act- .
ing. 2d. It is a condition of acceptance. In consequence of sin,
it became impossible for men to obtain salvation by the law, and
therefore Christ appeared and rendered to this law perfect satis
faction in our stead, and thus is for us the end of the law for righte
ousness. This law, therefore, remaining for ever as a rule of duty,
is abrogated by Christ as a condition of our acceptance. " Nor
is any man living bound to observe the Adamic more than the
Mosaic law (I mean it is not the condition either of present oi

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 417
future salvation.)" — Doctrinal Tracts, p. 332. " The gospel,
which is the law of love, the ' law of liberty,' offers salvation upon
other terms, and yet provides the vindication of the broken law.
The condition of justification at first is faith alone, and the con
dition of continued acceptance is faith working by love.- There
are degrees of faith, and degrees of love. . . . Perfect faith
and perfect love is Christian perfection." " Christian character
is estimated by the conditions of the gospel ; Christian perfection
implies the perfect performance of these conditions and nothing
more." 32. By what means do they teach this perfection is to be at
tained ?
Wesley says, " I believe this perfection is always wrought in
the soul by a simple act of faith, consequently in an instant. But
I believe there is a gradual work, both preceding and following
that instant." — Quoted by Dr. Peck, pp. 47, 48.
They hold that this entire sanctification is not to be effected
through either the strength or the merit of man, but entirely of
grace, for Christ's sake, by the Holy Ghost, through the instru
mentality of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which faith involves
our believing, 1st, " in the sufficiency of the provisions of the
gospel for the complete deliverance of the soul from sin." 2d.
" That these provisions are made for us." 3d. " That this bless
ing is for us now."— Peck, " Ch. Doc. Sane," pp. 405-407.
33. What is the Oberlin doctrine of perfection ?
" It is a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty, of all
existing obligations to God, and all other beings. It is perfect
obedience to the moral law." This is God's original and univer
sal law, which, however, always, not because of grace, but of
sheer justice, adjusts its demands to the measure of the present
ability of the subject. The law of God can not now justly de
mand that we should love him as we might have done if we had
always improved our time, etc. Yet a Christian may now attain
to a state of " perfect and disinterested benevolence," may be,
"according to his knowledge, as upright as God is," and as "per
fectly conformed to the will of God as is the will of the inhabit
ants of heaven." And this, Mr. Finney appears to teach, is
27

418 PERFECTIONISM.
essential for even the lowest stage of genuine Christian experi
ence. The amount of the matter appears to be, God has a right
to demand only that which we have the power to render ; there
fore, it follows that we have full power to render all that God
demands, and, therefore, we may be as perfectly conformed to his
wiU as it regards us, as the inhabitants of heaven are to his will
as it regards them.
Pres. Mahan, " Scripture Doctrines of Christian Perfection,"
and Prof. Finney, Oberlin Evangelist, Vol. IV, No. 19, and Vol.
IV., No. 15, as quoted by Dr. Peck.
34. State the points of agreement and disagreement between
these several theories, Pelagian, Romish, Arminian, and
Oberlin ?
1st. They all agree in maintaining that it is possible for men
in this life to attain a state in which they may habitually and
perfectly fulfill all their obligations, i. e., to be and do perfectly
all that God requires them to be or do at present.
2d. The Pelagian theory differs from all the rest, in denying
the deterioration of our natural and moral powers, and conse
quently, in denying the necessity of the intervention of super
natural grace to the end of making men perfect.
3d. The Pelagian and Oberlin theories agree in making the
original moral law of God the standard of perfection. The Ober
lin theologians, however, admitting that our powers are deterio
rated by sin, hold that God's law, as a matter of sheer justice,
adjusts its demands to the present ability of the subject. The
Romish theory regards the same law as the standard of perfec
tion, but differs from the Pelagian theory in maintaining that
the demands of this law are adjusted to man's deteriorated pow
ers ; and on the other hand, it differs from the Oberlin theory,
by holding that the lowering of the demands of this law in adjust-,
ment to the enfeebled powers of man, instead of being of sheer
justice, is of grace for the merits of Christ. The Arminian the
ory differs from all the rest in denying that the original law is the
standard of evangelical perfection ; in holding that that law hav
ing been fulfilled by Christ, the Christian is now required only to
fulfill the requirements of the gospel covenant of grace. This,

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 419
however, appears to differ more in form than essence from the
Romish position in this regard.
4th. The Romish and Arminian theories agree, 1st, in admit
ting that the perfect Christian is still liable to transgress the pro
visions of the original moral law, and that he is subject to mis
takes and infirmities. The Romanist calls them venial sins ; the
Arminian, mistakes or infirmities. 2d. In referring all the work
of making man perfect to the efficiency of the Holy Ghost, who
is given for Christ's sake. But they differ, on the other hand,
1st, as to the nature of that faith by which sanctification is ef
fected, and, 2d, as to the merit of good works.
35. What are the arguments upon which perfectionists sus
tain their theory, and how may they be answered ?
1st. They argue that this perfection is attainable in this life,
(1.) From the commands of God, who never will command im
possibilities, Matt, v., 48. (2.) From the fact that abundant
provision has already been made in the gospel for securing the
perfect sanctification of God's people ; in fact, all the provision
that ever will be made. (3) From the promises of God to
redeem Israel from all fiis iniquities, etc., Ps. cxxx., 8 ; Ezek.
xxxvi., 25-29 ; 1 John L, 7, 9. (4.) From the prayers of saints
recorded in Scripture with implied approval, Ps. Ii., 2 ; Heb.
xiii., 21.
2d. They argue that this perfection has in fact been attained,
(1.) From biblical examples, as David, Acts xiii., 22. See also
Gen. vi., 9 ; Job L, 1 ; Luke L, 6. (2.) Modern examples —
Peck's " Christian Perfection," pp. 365-396.
We answer — -
1st. The Scriptures never assert that a Christian may in this
life attain to a state in which he may live without sin.
. 2d. The meaning of special passages must be interpreted in
consistency with the entire testimony of Scripture.
3d. The language of Scripture never implies that man may
here* live without sin. The commands of God are adjusted to
man's responsibility, and the aspirations and prayers of the saints
to their duties and ultimate privileges, and not to their present
ability. Perfection is the true aim of the Christian's effort in
every period of growth and in every act. The terms "perfect"'

420 PERFECTIONISM.
and " blameless" are often relative, or used to signify simple gen
uineness or sincerity. This is evident from the recorded fact : —
4th. That all the perfect men of the Scriptures sometimes
sinned ; witness the histories of Noah, Job, David, Paul, and
compare Gen. vi., 9, with Gen. ix., 21, and Job L, 1, with Job iii.,
1, and ix., 20 ; also see Gal. ii., 11. 14 ; Ps. xix., 12 ; Rom. vii.;
GaL v., 17 ; PhiL iii., 12-14.
36. What special objections bear against the Pelagian theory
of perfection ?
This is a part of a wholly Anti-Christian system. Its con
stituent elements are a denial of the Scripture testimony with
regard to original sin, and the work of the Spirit of grace in
effectual calling, and an assertion of man's ability to save him
self. It involves low views of the guilt and turpitude of sin,
and of the extent, spirituality, and unchangeableness of God's
holy law. This is the only perfectly consistent theory of perfec
tion ever ventilated, and in the same proportion it is the most
thoroughly unchristian.
37. What special objections bear against the Romish theory ?
This theory is inconsistent —
1st. With the true nature of sin. It denies that concupis
cence is sin, and admits as such only those deliberate acts of the
wiU which assent to the impulse of concupiscence. It distin
guishes between mortal and venial sins. The truth is that every
sin is mortal, and concupiscence, " sin dwelling in me," " law in
my members," is of the very essence of sin, Rom. vii., 8-23.
2d. It is inconsistent with the nature of God's holy law,
which is essentially immutable, and the demands of which have
never been lowered in accommodation to the weakened faculties
of men. 3d. It is essentially connected with their theory of the merit
of good works, and of the higher merit of works of superenoga-
tion which is radically subversive of the essentials of the gospel.
38. What special objections bear against the Oberlin theory ?
This theory1 appears to assimilate more nearly than the others

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 421
with the terrible self-consistency and the Anti-Christian spirit of
the Pelagian view. It differs from that heresy, however, in hold
ing, 1st. That the law of God is, as a matter of sheer justice,
accommodated to the weakened faculties of men. 2d. That the
shortcomings of men in the present life, as measured by the
original law of God, are not sin, since a man's duty is measured
only by his abUity. 3d. In making the principle of this perfec-.
tion to consist in " perfect and disinterested benevolence." In all
these respects, also, this theory is inconsistent with the true nature
of God's law, the true nature of sin, and the true nature of virtue.
39. What special objections bear against the Arminian
theory ?
This view, as presented by the Wesleyan standard writers, is
far less inconsistent with the principles and spirit of Christianity
than either of the others, and consequently it is precisely in the
same proportion less self-consistent as a theory, and less accurate
in its use of technical language. These Christian brethren are to
be honored for their exalted views, and earnest advocacy of the duty
of pressing forward to the highest measures of Christian attain
ment, while it is to be for ever lamented that their great founder
was so far misled by the prejudices of system as to bind in un
natural alliance so much precious truth with a theory, and termi
nology proper only to radical error. I will make here, once for
aU, the general explanation, that when stating the Arminian doc
trine on any point, I have generally preferred to refer to the form
in which the doctrine was explicitly defined by the Dutch Re
monstrants, rather than to the modified, and, as it seems to me,
far less logically definite form in which it is set forth by the au
thorities of the Wesleyan churches, who properly style themselves
"Evangelical Arminians." I attribute the peculiar theoretical
indefiniteness which appears to render their definitions obscure,
especiaUy on the subjects of justification and of perfection, to the
spirit of a warm, loving, working Christianity struggling with the
false premises of an Arminian philosophy.
1st. While over and over insisting upon the distinction as to
the two-fold relation sustained by the original law of God to man
(1.) as a rule of being and acting, (2.) as a condition of divine
favor, their whole, theory is based upon a logical confusion of these

422 PERFECTIONISM.
two things so distinct. Dr. Peck teaches earnestly, and confirms
by many Wesleyan testimonies, excellent Calvinistic doctrine
upon the follewing points : The original law of God is universal and
unchangeable, its demands never can be changed nor compromised.
Obedience to this law was the condition of the original covenant
of works. This condition was broken by Adam, but, in our be
half, perfectly fulfilled by Christ, and thus the integrity of God's
changeless law was preserved. Therefore, he goes on to argue, the
believer is no longer under the law, but under the covenant of
grace, i. e., to use Wesley's own qualifying parenthesis, " as the
condition of either present or future salvation." Certainly, we
answer, Christ is the end of the law for us for righteousness, in
its forensic sense, that is, to secure our justification, but surely
Christ did not satisfy that changeless law, in our place, in such a
sense that it does not remain our rule of action, to which it is our
duty to be personally conformed. The question' of perfection is
one which relates to our personal character, not to our relations ;
it is moral and inherent, and not forensic. To prove, therefore,
what we also rejoice to believe, that the original law of God, un
der the gospel covenant, is no longer our condition of salvation,
does not avail one iota towards proving that God, under the
gospel, demands an obedience adjusted to any easier standard than
was required before.
2d. This theory is part of the Arminian view of the covenant
of grace, which we regard so inconsistent with the gospel, and
which Mr. Watson (see Institutes, Part IL, Chap. XXIII.) ap
pears to attempt to avoid while refusing to admit the imputation
to the believer of Christ's righteousness. This view is, that
by Christ's propitiation, he having fulfilled the original law of
God, it is made consistent with divine justice to present salvation
upon easier conditions, i. e., faith and evangelical obedience;
Christian perfection requiring nothing more than the perfect ful
fillment of these new gracious conditions. Now this view, besides
confounding the ideas of law, and of covenant, of a rule, and of a
condition^ of a ground of justification, and of a standard of sanc
tification, is inconsistent with the broad teachings of the gospel
concerning the righteousness of Christ, and the office of faith in
justification. It makes the merit of Christ only in some uncer
tain and distant way the occasion of our salvation, and faith, and

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 423
evangelical obedience, in the place of perfect obedience under the
old covenant, the ground instead of the mere instrument and fruit
of our justification. Logically developed, this theory must lead
to the Romish doctrine as to the merit of good works.
3d. This theory denies that mistakes and infirmities resulting
from the effects of original sin, are themselves sin, yet admits
that they are to be confessed, forgiveness implored for them,
and the atonement of Christ's blood applied to them, and that
the more perfect a man becomes the more he abhors his own in
ternal state. Surely this is a confusion of language, and abuse
of the word sin. What is sin but (1.) that which transgresses
God's original law, (2.) which needs Christ's atonement, (3.)
which should be confessed, and must be forgiven, (4.) which lavs
a proper foundation for self-abhorrence.
40. What express declarations of Scripture are contradicted by
every possible modification of the theory of Christian perfection ?
1 Kings viii., 46 ; Prov. xx., 9 ; Eccle. vii., 20 ; James iii.,
2 ; 1 John L, 8.
41. How may it be shown to be in opposition to the experience
of saints, as recorded in the Scriptures ?
See Paul's account of himself, Rom. vii.-, 14-25 ; Phil. iiL,
12-14 See case of David, Ps. xix., 12 ; Ps. Ii. ; of Moses, Ps.
xc, 8 ; of Job, Job xlii., 5, 6 ; of Daniel, ix., 20. See Luke
xviii., 13 ; Gal. ii., 11-13 ; vi., 1 ; James v., 16.
42. How does it conflict with the ordinary experience of God's
people ?
The more holy a man is, the more humble, self-renouncing,
self-abhorring, and the more sensitive to every sin he becomes,
and the more closely he clings to Christ. The moral imperfec
tions which cling to him he feels to be sins, laments and strives
to overcome them. Believers find that their life is a constant
warfare, and they need to take the kingdom of heaven by storm,
and watch while they pray. They are always subject to the con
stant chastisement of their Father's lovjgg hand, which can only
be designed to correct their imperfections, and to confirm their
graces. And it has been notoriously the fact that the best Chris-

424 PERFECTIONISM.
tians have been those who have been the least prone to claim the
attainment of perfection for themselves.
43. What are the legitimate practical effects of perjec-
tionism ?
The tendency of every such doctrine must be evil, except in
so far as it is modified or counteracted by limiting or inconsistent
truths held in connection, which is preeminently the case with
respect to the Wesleyan view, from the amount of pure gospel
which in that instance the figment of perfectionism alloys. But
perfectionism, by itself, must tend, 1st, to low views of God's
law ; 2d, to inadequate views of the heinousness of sin ; 3d, to a
low standard of moral exceUence ; 4th, to spiritual pride and
fanaticism. ,

CHAPTER XXXIII.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE- SAINTS.
1. What is the Scriptural doctrine as to the perseverance of
the scints ?
" They whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectively
called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally
fall away from the state of grace ; but shall certainly persevere
therein to the end, and be eternally saved." — Con. Faith, Chap.
XVII. ; L. Cat., question 79.
2. By what arguments may the certainty of the final perse
verance of the saints be established ?
1st. The direct assertions of Scripture, John x., 28, 29 ; Rom,
xi., 29 ; PhU. L, 6 ; 1 Pet. L, 5.
2d. This certainty is a necessary inference, from the Scrip
tural doctrine (1.) of election, Jer. xxxi., 3 ; Matt, xxiv., 22-24
Acts xiii., 48 ; Rom. viii., 30 ; (2.) of the covenant of grace,
wherein the Father gave his people to his Son as the reward of
his obedience and suffering, Jer. xxxii., 40 ; John xvii., 2-6
(3.) of the union of Christians with Christ, in the federal aspect
of which Christ is their surety, and they can not fail, (Rom. viii.,
1,) and in the spiritual and vital aspect of which they abide in
him, and because he lives they must five also, John xiv., 19 ;
Rom. viii., 38, 39 ; Gal. ii., 20 ; (4) of the atonement, wherein
Christ discharged all the obligations of his people to the law as a
covenant of life, and purchased for them aU covenanted blessings ;
if one of them should fail, therefore, the sure foundation of all
would be shaken, Is. liii., 6, 11 ; Matt, xx., 28 ; 1 Pet. ii., 24 ;
(5.) of justification, which declares all the conditions of the cove-

426 PERSEVERANCE.
nant of life satisfied, and sets its subject into a new relation to
God for all future time, so that he can not fall under condemna
tion, since he is not under the law, but under grace, Rom. vi., 14 ;
(6.) of the indweUing of the Holy Ghost, a as a seal by which we
are marked as belonging to God, b as an earnest, or first install
ment of the promised redemption, in pledge of complete fulfill
ment, John xiv., 16 ; 2 Cor. L, 21, 22 ; v., 5 ; Eph. L, 14 ; (7.)
of the prevalency of Christ's intercession, John xi., 42 ; xvii., 11,
15, 20 ; Rom. viii., 34
3. What is the doctrine of the Romish Church on this subject ?
Council of Trent, Sess. VI., canon 23. " If any one main
tain that a man once justified can not lose grace, and, therefore,
that he who falls and sins never was truly justified, let him be
accursed." 4 What is the Arminian doctrine on this point ?
It is an inseparable part of the Arminian system, flowing
necessarily from their views of election, of the design and effect
of Christ's death, and of sufficient grace and free wiU, that those
who were once justified and regenerated may, by neglecting grace
and grieving the Holy Spirit, fall into such sins as are incon
sistent with true justifying faith, and continuing and\dying in the
same, may consequently finally fall into perdition. — " Confession
of the Remonstrants," xi., 7.
5. What objection is urged against the orthodox doctrine on
the ground of the free agency of man ?
Those who deny the certainty of the final perseverance of the
saints hold the false theory that liberty of the will consists in in
difference, or the power of contrary choice, and consequently that
certainty is inconsistent with liberty. This fallacy is disproved
above, Chapter XVIII, see especially question 9.
That God does govern the free acts of his creatures, as a mat
ter of fact, is clear from history and prophecy, from universal
Christian consciousness and experience, and from Scripture, Acts
ii., 23 ; Eph. L, 11 ; Phil, ii., 13 ; Prov. xxi., 1.
That he does secure the final perseverance of his people in a

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 427
manner perfectly consistent with their free agency is also clear.
He changes their affections and thus determines the will by its
own free spontaniety. He brings them into the position of children
by adoption, surrounding them with all of the sources and instru
ments of sanctifying influence, and when they sin he carefully
chastises and restores them. Hence the doctrine of Scripture is
not that a man who has once truly believed is secure of ultimate-
salvation, subsequently feel and act as he may ; but, on the
contrary, that God secures the ultimate salvation of every one who
is once truly united to his Son by faith, by securing, through the
power of the Holy Ghost, his most free perseverance in Christian
feeling and obedience to the end.
6. What objection is urged against the orthodox doctrine
upon the ground of its supposed unfavorable influence upon
morality ?
The objection charged is, that this doctrine, " once in grace
always in grace," must naturally lead to carelessness, through a
false sense of security in our present position, and of confidence
that God will secure our final salvation independently of our
own agency.
Although it is certain, on the part of God, that if we are
elected and called, we shall be saved ; yet it requires constant
watchfulness, and diligence, and prayer to make that calling and
election sure to us, 2 Pet. L, 10. That God powerfully works
with us, and therefore secures for us success in our contest with
sin, is in Scripture urged as a powerful reason not for sloth, but
for diligence, PhU. ii., 13. The orthodox doctrine does not affirm
certainty of salvation because we have once believed, but cer
tainty of perseverance in holiness if we have truly believed, which
perseverance in holiness, therefore, in opposition to all weaknesses
¦and temptations, is the only sure evidence of the genuineness of
past experience, or of the validity of confidence respecting future
salvation, and surely such an assurance of certainty can not en
courage either carelessness or immorality.
7. What objection to this doctrine is founded on the exhorta
tions to diligence ; and on the warnings of danger .in case of
carelessness addressed to believers in the Scriptures ?

428 PERSEVERANCE. v
The objection alleged is, that these exhortations and warn
ings necessarily imply the contingency of the believer's salvation,
as conditioned upon the believer's continued faithfulness, and
consequently involving liability to apostasy.
We answer —
1st. The outward word necessarily comes to all men alike,
addressing them in the classes in which they regard themselves as
standing ; and as professors, or " those who think they stand," are
many of them self-deceived, this outward word truly implies the
uncertainty of their position, (as far as man's knowledge goes,)
and their liability to fall.
2d. That God secures the perseverance in holiness of all his
' true people by the use of means adapted to their nature as rational
moral and free agents. Viewed in themselves they are always, as
God warns them, unstable, and therefore, as he exhorts them, they
must diligently cleave to his grace. It is always true, also, that
if they apostatize they shall be lost ; but by means of these very
threatenings his Spirit graciously secures them from apostasy.
8. What special texts are relied upon to rebut the arguments ,
of the orthodox upon this subject ?
Ezek. xviii., 24 ; Matt, xiii., 20, 21 ; 2 Pet. ii., 20, 21, and
especially Heb. vi., 4-6 ; x., 26.
All of these passages may be naturally explained in perfect
consistency with the orthodox doctrine which is supported upon
that wide range of Scripture evidence we have set forth above,
question 2. They present either, 1st, hypothetical warnings of
the consequences of apostasy with the design of preventing it,
by showing the natural consequences of indifference and bf sin,
and the necessity for earnest care and effort ; or, 2d, they indicate
the dreadful consequences of misimproving or of abusing the in
fluences of common grace, which, although involving great respon
sibility, nevertheless come short of a radical change of nature oi
genuine conversion.
9. What argument do the opponents of this doctrine urge
from Bible examples and from our own daily experience of
apostates ?
They cite from the Scriptures such instances as that of David

APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. 429 ,
and Peter, and they refer to the many examples of the apostasy
of well-acredited professors, with which, alas ! we are all familiar.
All these examples, however, fall evidently under one of two
classes, either, 1st, they were from the beginning without the real
power of godliness, although bearing so fair an appearance of fife
in the sight of their fellow-men, Rom. ii., 28 ; ix., 6 ; 1 John ii.,
19 ; Rev. iii., 1 ; or, 2d, they are true believers who, because of
the temporary withdrawal of restraining grace, have been allowed
to backslide for a time, while in every such case they are gra
ciously restored, and that generally by chastisement, Rev. iii., 19.
Of this class were David and Peter. No teue Christian is capable
of deliberate apostasy ; his furthest departure from righteousness
being occasioned by the, sudden impulse of passion or fear, Matt.
xxiv., 24 ; Luke xxii., 31.

CHAPTER XXXIV.
DEATH AND THE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH.
1. By what form# of expression is death described in the
Bible? A departure out of this world, 2 T$'m. iv., 6. A going the
way of all the earth, Josh, xxiii., 14 A being gathered to one's
fathers, Judges ii., 10 ; and to one's people, Deut. xxxii., 50. A
dissolving the earthly house of this tabernacle, 2 Cor. v., 1. A
returning to the dust, Eccle. xii., 7. A sleep, John xi., 11. A
giving up the ghost, Acts, v., 10. A being absent from the body
and present with the Lord, 2 Cor. v., 8. Sleeping in Jesus, 1
Thess. iv., 14.
2. What is death ?
The suspension of the personal union between the body and
the soul, followed by the resolution of the body into its chemical
elements, and the introduction of the soul into that separate state
of existence which may be assigned to it by its Creator and Judge,
Eccle. xii., 7.
3. How does death stand related to sin ?
The entire penalty of the law, including all the spiritual,
physical and eternal penal consequences of sin, is called death in
Scripture. The sentence was, " The day thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die," Gen. ii., 17 ; Rom. v., 12. That this included
natural death is proved by Rom. v., 13, 14 ; and from the fact
that when Christ bore the penalty of the law it was necessary for
him to die, Heb. ix., 22.
4 Why do the justified die ? '
Justification changes the entire federal relation of its subject

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 431
to the law, and raises him for ever above all the penal conse
quences of sin. Death, therefore, while remaining a part of the
penalty of the unsatisfied law in relation to the unjust, is like aU
other afflictions changed, in relation to the justified, into an ele
ment of improving discipline. It is made necessary for them from
the present constitution of the body, while it is to both body and
soul the gateway of heaven. They are made free from its sting
and fear, 1 Cor. xv, 55, 57 ; Heb. ii., 15. They are now " blessed"
in death because they die " in the Lord," Rev. xiv., 13, and they
shall at last be completely delivered from its power when the last
' enemy shall be destroyed, 1 Cor. xv, 26.
5. What evidence have we of the immateriality of the soul,
and what argument may be derived from that source in proof of
its continued existence after death ?
For the evidence establishing the immateriality of the soul see
Chap. I., question 32.
Now although the continued existence of any creature must
depend simply upon the will of its Creator, that will may either
be made Imown by direct-revelation, or inferred in any particular
instance by analogical reasoning from what is known of his doings
in other cases. As far as this argument from analogy goes it de
cidedly confirms the belief that a spiritual substance is, as such,
immortal. The entire range of human experience fails to make
us acquainted with a single instance of the annihilation of an
atom of matter, i. e., of matter as such. Material bodies, organ
ized or chemically compounded, or mere mechanical aggregations,
we observe constantly coming into existence, and in turn passing
away, yet never through the annihilation of their elementary con
stituents or component parts, but simply from the dissolution of
that relation which these parts had temporarily sustained to each
other. Spirit, however, is essentially simple and single, and there
fore incapable of that dissolution of parts to which material
bodies are subject. We infer, therefore, that spirits are immortal
since they can not be subject to that only form of death of which
we have any knowledge.
6. What argument in favor of the immortality of the soul
may be derived from its imperfect development in this world ?

432 STATE OF THE. SOUL AFTER DEATH.
In every department of organized life every individual crea
ture, in its normal state, tends to grow toward a condition of
complete development, which is the perfection of .its kind. The
acorn both prophesies and grows toward the oak. Every human
being, however, is conscious that in this life he never attains that
completeness which the Creator contemplated in the ideal of his
type ; he has faculties undeveloped, capacities unfulfilled, natural
desires unsatisfied ; he knows he was designed to be much more
than he is, and to fill a much higher sphere. As the prophetic
reason of the Creator makes provision for the butterfly through
the instinct of the caterpillar, so the same Creator reveals
the immortal existence of the soul in a higher sphere by
means of its conscious limitations and instinctive movements
in this. 7. What argument on this subject may be derived from the
distributive justice of God ?
It is an invariable judgment of natural reason, and a funda
mental doctrine of the Bible, that moral good is associated with
happiness, and moral evil with misery, by the unchangeable na
ture and purpose of God. But the history of all individuals and
communities alike establishes the fact that this life is not a state
of retribution ; that here wickedness is often associated with
prosperity, and moral excellence with sorrow ; we must hence
conclude that there is a future state in which aU that appears at
present inconsistent with the justice of God shall be adjusted.
See Ps. lxxiii.
8. How do the operations of conscience point to a future
state ?
Conscience is the voice of God in the soul,, which witnesses to
our sinfulness and ill-desert, and to his essential justice. Ex
cept in the case of those who have found refuge in the righteous
ness of Christ, every man feels that his moral relations to God
are never settled in this life, and hence the characteristic testi
mony of the human conscience, in spite of great individual dif
ferences as to light, sensibUity, etc., has always been coinci
dent with the word of God, that " after death comes the judg
ment."

immortality of the soul. 433
9. How is this doctrine established by the general consent of
mankind ?
This has been the universal faith of aU men, of all races, and
in all ages. Universal consent, like every universal effect,
must be referred to an equally universal cause, and this consent,
uniform among men differing in every other possible respect, can
be referred to no common origin other than the constitution of
man's common nature, which is the testimony of his Maker.
10. -Show that the Old Testament teaches the same distinction
between soul and body that is taught in the New Testament.
1st. In the account of the creation. The body was formed
of the dust of the earth, and the soul in the image of the Al
mighty, Gen. L, 26 ; ii., 7.
2d. In the definition of death, Eccle. xii., 7. " Then shall the
dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to
God who gave it." See also Eccle. iii., 21.
11. What does the Old Testament teach concerning Sheol ?
and how is it shown, from the usage of that word, that the im
mortality of the soul was a doctrine of the ancient covenant ?
Sheol is derived from the verb fese, to ask, expressing the sense
of our English proverb, that the " grave crieth give, give." It is
used in the Old Testament to signify, in a vague and general
sense, the state of the departed, both the good and bad, interme
diate between death and the resurrection of the righteous, (Hosea
xiii., 14,) generally invested with gloomy associations, and indefi
nitely referred to the lower parts of the earth, Deut. xxxii., 22 ;
Amos ix, 2. Thus it is used for grave as the receptacle of the
body after death, (Gen. xxxviL, 35 ; Job xiv., 13,) but principally
to designate the receptacle of departed spirits, without explicit
reference to any division between the stations allotted to the
righteous and the wicked. That they were active and conscious
in this state appears to be indicated by what is revealed of Sam
uel, 1 Sam. xxviii., 7-20 ; Is. xiv., 15-17. With regard to the
good, however, the residence in Sheol was looked upon only as
intermediate between death and a happy resurrection, Ps. xlix.,
15. In their treatment of this whole subject, the Old Testament
28

434 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH.
Scriptures rather take the continued existence of the soul for
granted, than explicitly assert it. — Fairbairn's Herm. Manual ;
Josephus' Ant, XVIII., 1.
12. What is the purport of our Saviour's argument on this
subject against the Sadducees ?
Luke xx., 37, 38. Long after the death of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, Jehovah designated himself to Moses as their God, Ex.
iii., 6. Rut, argues Christ against the Sadducee who denied the
resurrection of the dead, " he is the God, not of the dead, but of
the living." This more immediately prPves the immortality of
their souls, but as God is the covenant God of persons, and as
the persons of these patriarchs included alike body and soul, this
argument likewise establishes the ultimate immortality of the
body also, i. e., of the entire person.
13. What passages of the Old Testament assert or imply the
hope of a state of blessedness after death ?
Num. xxiii., 10 ; Job xix., 26, 27 ; Ps. xvi., 9-11 ; xvii., 15 ;
xlix., 14, 15 ; lxxiii., 24-26 ; Is. xxv, 8 ; xxvi., 19 ; Hosea xiii.,
14 ; Dan. xii., 2, 3, 13.
14. What other evidence does the Old Testament afford of the
continued existence of the soul ?
1st. The translations of'Enoch and Elijah, and the temporary
reappearance of Samuel, Gen. v., 24 ; Heb. xi., 5 ; 2 Kings ii.,
11 ; 1 Sam. xxviii., 7-20.
2d. The command to abstain from the arts of necromancy
implies the prevalent existence of a belief that the dead still
continue in being in another state, Deut. xviii., 11, 12.
3d. In their symbolical system Canaan represents the perma
nent inheritance of Christ's people, and the entire purpose of the
whole Old Testament revelation, as apprehended by Old Testa
ment believers, had respect to a future existence and inheritance
after death. This is directly asserted in the New Testament, Acts
xxvi., -6-8 ; Heb. xi., 10-16 ; Eph. L, 14
15. What does' the New Testament teach of the state of tht
soul immediately after death, ?

STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 435
"The souls of the righteous, being made perfect in holiness,
are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face
of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their
bodies," Luke xxiii., 43 ; 2 Cor. v., 6, 8 ; PhiL L, 23, 24 " And
the souls of unbelievers are cast into hell, where they remain in
torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the last
day," Luke xvi., 23, 24 ; Jude v., 6, 7
16. What is the signification and usage of the word aidrjg,
Hades, in Scripture ?
"Aidrjg, from a primitive, and ISeiv, designates generally the in
visible world inhabited by the spirits of dead men. Among the
ancient classical heathen, this invisible world was regarded as con
sisting of two contrasted regions, the one called Elysium, the
abode of the blessed good, and the other Tartarus, the abode of
the vicious and miserable.
It was used by the authors of the Septuagint to translate the
Hebrew word Sheol, compare Acts iL, 27, and Ps. xvi., 10. In
the New Testament this word occurs only eleven times, Matt, xi.,
23 ; xvi., 18 ; Luke x., 15 ; xvi., 23 ; Acts, ii., 27, 31 ; 1 Cor.
xv, 55 ; Rev. L, 18 ; vi., 8 ; xx., 13, 14 In every case, except
1 Cor. xv., 55, where the more critical editions of the original
substitute the word Odvare in the place of fid-n, hades is trans
lated hell, and certainly always represents the invisible world as
under the dominion of Satan, as opposed to the kingdom of Christ,
and as finally subdued under his victorious power. See Fair
bairn's Herm. Manuel.
17. What is the signification and usage of the words napd-
deiaog and ytevva ?
Hapddeiaog, Paradise, derived from some oriental language,
and adopted into both the Hebrew and Greek languages, signifies
parks, pleasure gardens, Neh. ii., 8 ; Eccle. ii., 5. The Septu-
gint translators use this word to represent the garden of Eden,
Gen. ii., 8, etc. It occurs only three times in the New Testa
ment, Luke xxiii., 43 '; 2 Cor. xii., 4 ; Rev. ii., 7 ; where the
context proves that it refers to the " third heavens," the garden
of the Lord, in which grows the " tree of fife," which is by the
river which flows out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, Rev,
xxii., 1, 2.

436 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH.
Teevva is a compound Hebrew, word, expressed in Greek letters,
signifying " Valley of Hinnom, Josh. xv.s 8, skirting Jerusalem
on the , south, running westward from the vaUey of Jehosaphat,
under Mount Zion. Here was established the idolatrous worship
of Moloch, to whom infants were burned in sacrifice, 1 Kings xi.,
7. , This worship was broken up and the place desecrated by Jo-
siah, 2 Kings xxiii., 10-14, after which it appears to have be
come the receptacle for all the filth of the city, and of the dead
bodies of animals, and of malefactors, to consume which fires
would appear to have been from time to time kept up, hence
called Tophet, an abomination, a vomit, Jer. vii., 31." — Robin
son's Greek Lex. By a natural figure, therefore, this word was
used to designate the place ;of final punishment, forcibly carrying
with it the idea of pollution and misery. It occurs twelve times
in the New Testament, and always to signify the place of final
torment, Matt, v., 22, 29, 30 ; x., 28 ; xviii., 9 ; xxiii., 15, 33 ;
Mark ix., 43, 47 ; Luke xii., 5 ; James iii., 6.
18. What various views are maintained as to the intermedi
ate state of the souls of men between death and the judgment ?
1st. Many Protestants, especially of the Church of England,
retaining the classical sense of the word Hades, as equivalent to
the Jewish Sheol, (as given above, question 11), hold that there is
an intermediate region, consisting of two distinct departments, in
which the disembodied souls, both of the lost and of the redeemed,
respectively await the resurrection of their bodies, the award of
judgment, and their translation to their final abodes of bliss or
misery. 2d. The Romanists hold the atyoye view, modified by their
doctrine of purgatory. See below, question 20.
3d. Materialists and some Socinians hold that the souls of
men remain in a state of unconsciousness from death untU the
moment of the resurrection. The only positive argument they
are able to advance in favor of this view is, that we know nothing
by experience, and hence are utterly unable to conceive of a state
of conscious intelligent activity, when the soul is separated from
the body. Archbishop Whately, on most subjects so judicious,
has advocated this view in his " View of Sc. Rev. concerning a
Future State."

STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 437
19. How may it be proved that the souls of beUevers do im
mediately pass into glory ?
The view held by the great majority of evangelical Christians,
(see above, question 15,) includes these two points—
1st. The souls both of believers and of the reprobate continue
after death both conscious and active, though until the resurrec
tion separated from their bodies.
2d. The souls of believers are present with the person of
Christ, and enjoy bright revelations of God and the society of
holy angels ; the souls of the reprobate being in the place as
signed to'the devil and his angels. Nevertheless it is also held
that, as the complete man consists both of soul and body, the
souls of the blessed during the interval between their death and
the resurrection, although with Christ, and inconceivably happy,
have not attained to the perfection of either the glory or blessed
ness which is designed for them in Christ. This highest state of
all must await the redemption of their bodies, and of their pur
chased possession, and the restitution of all things.
This hope of Christians in both of the above points appears
to be abundantly established by the following Scriptures: The
reappearance of Samuel, 1 Sam. xxviii., 7-20. The appearance
of Moses and Elias at the transfiguration of Christ, Matt, xvii., 3.
Christ's address to the thief upon the cross, Luke xxiii., 43. The
parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi., 23, 24 The
prayer of dying Stephen, Acts vii., 59. Paul's dUemma, 2 Cor.
v. 1-8 ; Phil. L, 23, 24 ; 1 Thes. v., 10. See also Eph. iii., 15 ;
Heb. vi.,,12, 20 ; Rev. v., 9 ; vi., 9-11 ; vii., 9 ; xiv., 1, 3.
20. What do Romanists teach with regard to the souls of
men after death ?
1st. That the souls of unbaptized infants go to a place pre
pared expressly for them, caUed the " limbus infantum," where
they endure no positive suffering, although they do not enjoy the
vision of God.
2d. That all unbaptized adults, and all those who subsequently
have lost the grace of baptism by mortal sin, and die unreconciled
to the church, go immediately to hell.
3d. That those believers who have attained to a state of Chris
tian perfection go immediately to heaven.

438 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH.
4th. That the great mass of partially sanctified Christians dying
in fellowship with the church, yet still encumbered with imper
fections, go to purgatory, where they suffer, more or less intensely,
for a longer or shorter period, until their sins are both atoned for .
and purged out, when they are translated to heaven, during which
intermediate period they may be efficiently assisted by the prayers
and lafiors of their friends on earth.
5th. That Old Testament believers were gathered into a region
called " limbus patrum," where they remained without the bea
tific vision of God,, yet without suffering, until Christ, during
the three days in which his body lay in the grave, came and
released them,vl ,Pet. iii., 19, 20. — Cat. Rom., Part I., Chapter
VI., question 3 ; Council of Trent, Sess. XXV de Purgatorio.
The Council of Trent settled only two points, 1st, that there
is a purgatory ; 2d, that souls therein may be benefited by the
prayers and mass of the church on earth.
It is generally held, however, that its pains are both negative
and positive. That the instrument of its sufferings is material
fire. That these are dreadful and indefinite in extent. That
satisfaction may be rendered in this world on much easier terms.
That while their souls can neither incur guilt nor merit any thing
they can alone render satisfaction for their sins by means of pas
sive sufferings.
They confess that this doctrine is not taught directly in Scrip
ture, but maintain, 1st, that it follows necessarily from their gen
eral doctrine of the satisfaction for sins ; 2d, that Christ and the
apostles taught it incidentally as they did infant baptism, etc.
They refer to Matt, xii., 32 ; 1 Cor. iii., 15.
21. How may the Anti-Christian character of this doctrine
be shown ?
1st. It confessedly has no direct, and obviously has true foun
dation in Scripture. This consideration alone suffices.
2d. It proceeds upon an entirely unchristian view of the
method of satisfying divine justice for sins. (1.) That while
Christ's merits are infinite, they atone only for original sins. (2.)
That each befiever must make satisfaction in his own person for
sins, which he commits after baptism, either in the pains of pen
ance or of purgatory. This is contrary to aU the Scriptures teach,

STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH.

439

as we have above shown under their respective heads, (1.) as to
the satisfaction rendered to justice by Christ ; (2.) the nature of
justification ; (3.) nature of sin ; (4.) relation of the sufferings
and good works of the justified man to the law ; (5.) state of the
souls of believers after death, etc., etc.
3d. It is a. heathen doctrine derived from the Egyptians
through the Greeks and Romans, and currently received through
the Roman empire. — Virgil's Eneid, vi., 739, 43.
4th. Its practical effects have always been, 1st, the abject sub
jection of the people to the priesthood; 2d, the gross demoralization
of the people. The church is the self-appointed depository and
dispenser of the superabundant merits of Christ, and the super
erogatory merits of her eminent saints. On this foundation she
dispenses the pains of purgatory to those who pay for past sins,
or seUs indulgences to those who pay for the liberty to sin in the
future. Thus the people sin and pay, and the priest takes the
money and remits the, penalty. The figment of a purgatory un
der the control of the priest is the main source of his hold upon
the fears of the people.

CHAPTER XXXV.
THE RESURRECTION.
1. What is the meaning of the phrase, " resurrection of the
dead," and "from the dead," as used in Scripture ?
'Avdaraaig signifies etymologicaUy "a rising or raising up."
It is used in Scripture to designate the future general raising, by
the power of God, of the bodies of all men from the sleep of
death. ,
2. What Old Testament passages bear upon this subject ?
Job xix., 25-27 ; Ps. xlix., 15 ; Is. xxvi., 19 ; Dan. xii., 1-3.
3. What are the principal passages bearing upon this subject
m the New Testament ?
Matt, v., 29 ;,x, 28 ; xxvii., 52, 53 ; John v., 28, 29 ;. vi.,
39" ; Acts iL, 25-34 ; xiii., 34 ; Rom. viii., 11, 22, 23 ; PhU. iii.,
20, 21 ; 1 Thess. iv., 13-17, and 15th chap, of 1 Cor.
4. What is the meaning of the phrases, ou/ia tpvxmbv, natural
body, and a&ua -KvevfianKov, spiritual body, as used by Paul, 1
Cor. xv., 44 ?
The word V'OTj when contrasted with irvevua, always desig
nates the principle of animal life, as distinguished from the prin
ciple of intelligence and moral agency, which is the nvevfia. A
ofi[j,a \jjvxinbv, translated natural body, evidently means a body
endowed with animal life, and adapted to the present condition
of the soul, and to the present physical constitution of the world
it inhabits. A awpz livevfiarMov, translated spiritual body, is a
body adapted to the use of the soul in its future glorified estate,
and to the moral and physical conditions of the heavenly world,

LITERAL RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 441
and to this end assimilated by the Holy Ghost, who dwells in it,.
to the glorified body of Christ, 1 Cor. xv, 45-48.
5. How does it appear that the same body is to rise that ie
deposited in the grave ?
The passages of Scripture which treat of this subject make it
plain that the same bodies are to be raised that are deposited in
the grave, by the phrases by which they designate the bodies
raised : 1st, " our bodies," PhU. iii., 21 ; 2d, " this corruptible,"
1 Cor. xv, 53, 54 ; 3d, " aU who are in their graves," John v.,
28; 4th, "they who are asleep," 1 Thess. iv., 13-17; 5th, "our
bodies are the members of Christ," 1 Cor. vi., 15 ; 6th, our
resurrection is to be because of and like that of Christ, which was
of his identical body, John xx., 27.
6. How does it appear that the final resurrection is to be
simultaneous and general ?
See below, Chap. XXXVI., questions 9 and 10.
7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the nature of the
resurrection body ?
1st. . It is to be spiritual, 1 Cor. xv, 44. See above, question
4 2d. It is to be like Christ's body, Phil, iii., 21. 3d. Glori
ous, incorruptible and powerful, 1 Cor. xv., 54 4th. It shall
never die, Rev. xxi., 4 5th Never be given in marriage, Matt
xxii., 30.
8. How may it be proved that the material body of Christ
rose from the dead ?
1st. Christ predicted it, John ii., 19-21. 2d. His resurrection
is referred to as a miraculous attestation of the truth of his mis
sion, but unless his body rose literally there was nothing. miracu
lous in his continued life. 3d. The whole language of the in
spired narratives necessarily implies this, the rolling aWay of the
stone, the folding up of the garments, etc. 4th. He did not rise
until the third day, which proves that it was a physical change,
and not a mere continuance of spiritual existence, 1 Cor. xv, 4.
5th. His body was seen, handled and examined, for the space of

442

THE RESURRECTION.

forty days, in order to establish this very fact, Luke xxiv., 39.—
Dr. Hodge. •
9. How can the materiality of Chrisfs resurrection body be
reconciled with what is said as to the modes of its manifestation,
and of its ascension into heaven ?
The events of his suddenly appearing and vanishing from
sight, recorded in Luke xxiv., 31 ; John xx., 19 ; Acts L, 9, were
accomplished through a miraculous interference with the ordinary
laws regulating material bodies, of the same kind precisely with
many miracles which Jesus wrought in his body before his death,
e. g., his walking on the sea, Matt, xiv., 25 ; John vi., 9-14
10. How does the resurrection of Christ secure and illustrate
that of his people ?
Body and soul together constitute the one person, and man
m his entire person, and not his soul separately, is embraced in
both the covenants of works and of grace, and in federal and vital
union with both the first and tfie second Adam. Christ's resur
rection secures ours, 1st, because his resurrection seals and con
summates his redemptive power ; and the redemption of our per
sons involves the redemption of our bodies, Rom. viii., 23. 2d.
Because of our federal and vital union with Christ, 1 Cor. xv.,
21, 22 ; 1 Thess. iv., 14 3d. Because of his Spirit, which dwells
in us, (Rom. viii., 11,) making our bodies his members, 1 Oor. vi.,
15. 4th. Because Christ by covenant is Lord both of the living
.and the dead, Rom. xiv., 9. This same federal and vital union
of the Christian with Christ (see above, Chap. XXVIII.) like
wise causes the resurrection of the believer to be similar to, as
well as consequent upon that of Christ, 1 Cor. xv, 49 ; Phil, iii.,
21; 1 John iii., 2.
11. How far are objections of a scientific character against
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body entitled to weight ?
All truth is one, and of God, and necessarily consistent,
whether revealed by means of the phenomena of nature or 6f the
words of inspiration On the other hand, it follows from our par
tial knowledge and often erroneous interpretation of the data both
of science and revelation, that we often are unable to discern the

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIONS. 443
harmonies of truths in reality intimately related, ft othing can
be believed to be true which is clearly seen to be inconsistent with
truth already certainly established. But, on the other hand, in
the present stage of our development, the largest proportion of
the materials of our knowledge rests upon independent evidence,
and are received by us all as certain on their own respective
grounds, although we fail as yet to reconcile each fact with every
other in the harmonies of their higher laws. The principles of
physical science are to be taken as true upon their own ground,
i. e., so far as they are matured, and the testimony of revelation
is to be taken as infallible truth on its own ground. The one
may modify our interpretation of the other, but the most certain
of all principles is that a matured science wUl always corroborate
rightly interpreted revelation.
12. How may the identity of our future with our present
bodies be reconciled with 1 Cor. xv, 42-50 ?
In verses 42-44 this identity is expressly asserted. The body
is to be the same, though changed in these several particulars.
1st. It is now subject to corruption, then incorruptible. 2d. It
is now dishonored, it will then be glorified. 3d. It is now weak,
it wiU then be powerful. 4th. It is now natural, i. e., adapted
to the present condition of the soul and constitution of the world.
It will then be spiritual, i. e., adapted to the glorified condition
of the soul, and constitution of the " new heavens and new earth."
Verse 50 declares simply that " flesh and blood," that is, the
present corruptible, weak, and depraved constitution of the body
can not inherit heaven. Yet the passage as a whole clearly teaches
not the substitution of a new body but the transformation of
the old.
13. What facts does physiological science establish with re
spect to the perpetual changes that are going on in our present
bodies, and what relation do these facts sustain to this doctrine ?
By a ceaseless process of the assimilation of new material and
excretion of the old, the particles composing our bodies are cease
lessly ckanging from birth to death, effecting, as it is computed,
a change in every atom of the entire structure every seven years.

444 THE RESURRECTION.
Thus there wiU not be' a particle in the organism of an adult
which constituted part of his person when a boy, nor in that of
the old man of that which belonged to him when of middle age.
The body from youth to age is universally subject to vast changes
in size, form, expression, condition, 'and many times to total
change of constituent particles. All this is certain ; but it is
¦*none the less certain that through all these changes the man pos
sesses identically the same person from youth to age. This
proves that neither the identity of the body of the same man from
youth to age, nor the identity of our present with our resurrection
bodies consist in sameness of particles. If we are sure of our
identity in the one case, we need not stumble at the difficulties
attending the other.
14. What objection to this doctrine is derived from the known
fact of the dispersion and assimilation into other organisms of
the particles of our bodies after death ?
The instant the vital principle surrenders the elements of the
body to the unmodified control of the laws of chemical affinity,
their present combinations are dissolved and distributed through
out space, and they are taken up and assimilated by other animal
,and vegetable organisms. Thus the same particles have formed,
at different times, part of the bodies of myriads of men, in the
successive periods of the growth of individuals, and in successive
generations. Hence it has been objected to the scriptural doe-
trine of the resurrection of the body, that it will be impossible
to decide to which of the thousand bodies which these particles
have formed part in turn, they should be assigned in the resur
rection ; or to reinvest each soul with its own body, when aU the
constituent elements of every body have been shared in common
by many. We answer that bodily identity does not consist in
sameness of constituent particles. See above, question 13. Just
as God has revealed to us through consciousness that our bodies
are identical from infancy to age, although their constituent ele
ments often change, he has, with equal certainty and reasonable
ness, revealed to us in his inspired word that our bodies, raised in
glory, are identical with our bodies sown in dishonor, although
their constituent particles may have been scattered to the ends
of the earth.

PERSONAL IDENTITY. 445
15. What is essential to identity ?
1st. " It is evident that identity depends upon different condi
tions in different cases. The identity of a stone or any other por
tion of unorganized matter consists in its substance and form. On
the other hand, the identity of a plant from the seed to its maturity
is, in a great measure, independent of sameness of substance or of
form. Their identity appears to consist in each plant's being one
organized whole, and in the continuity of the succession of its
elements and parts. The identity of a picture does not depend
upon the sameness of the particles of coloring matter of which it
is composed, for these we may conceive to be continually chang
ing, but upon the drawing, the tints, the light and shade, the
expression, the idea which it embodies," etc.
2d. BodUy identity is not a conclusion drawn from the com
parison, or combination of other facts, but it is itself a single irre
solvable fact of consciousness. The child, the savage, the philo
sopher, are alike certain of the sameness of their bodies at different
periods of their lives, and on the same grounds. This intuitive
conviction, as it is not the result of science, so it is no more bound
to give an account of itself to science, i. e., we are no more called
upon to explain it before we believe it than we are to explain any
other of the simple data of consciousness.
3d. The resurrection of our bodies, although a certain fact of
revelation, is to us, as yet, an unrealized experience, an unob
served phenomenon. The physical conditions, therefore, of the
identity of our " spiritual bodies" with our " natural bodies," we
can not now possibly comprehend, since we have neither the ex
perience, the observation, nor the revelation of the facts involved
in such knowledge. This much, however, is certain as to the re
sult, 1st. The body of the resurrection will be as strictly identical
with the body of death, as the body of death is with the body of
birth. 2d. Each soul will have an indubitable intuitive con
sciousness that its new body is identical with the old. 3d. Each
friend shall recognize the individual characteristics of the soul in
the perfectly transparent expression of the new body. — Dr. Hodge.
16. How far was the doctrine of the resurrection of the body
\eld by the Jews ?
With the exception of some heretical sects, as the Sadducees,

446 THE RESURRECTION.
the Jews held this doctrine in the same sense in which we hold it
now. This is evident, 1st, Because it was clearly revealed in their
inspired writings, see above, question 2. 2d. It is affirmed in
their uninspired writings, Wisdom, iii., 6, 13 ; iv., 15 ; 2 Mac
cabees vii., 9, 14, 23, 29. 3d. Christ in his discources, instead of
proving this doctrine, assumes it as recognized, Luke xiv., 14 ;
John v., 28, 29. 4th. Paul asserts that both the ancient Jews,
(Heb. xi., 35,) and his own cotemporaries, (Acts xxiv., 15,) be-:
lieved this doctrine.
17. What early heretical sects in the Christian church re
jected this doctrine ?
All the sects bearing the generic designation of gnostic, and un
der various specific names embodying the leaven of oriental phil
osophy, which infested the church of Christ from the beginning
for many centuries, believed, 1st, that matter is essentially vile,
and the source of all sin and misery to the soul ; 2d, that com
plete sanctification is consummated only in the dissolution of the
body and the emancipation of the soul ; 3d, that consequently any
literal resurrection of the body is repugnant to the spirit, and
would be destructive to the purpose of the whole gospel.
18. What is the doctrine taught by Swedenborg on this subject ?
It is substantially the same with that set forth by Professor
Bush in his once famous book, " Anastasia." They teach that
the literal body is dissolved, and finally perishes in death. But
by a subtle law of our nature an etherial, luminous body is elim
inated out of the ^>v%r\ (the seat of the nervous sensibility, oc
cupying the middle link between matter and spirit), so that the
soul does not go forth from its tabernacle of flesh a bare power of
thought, but is clothed upon at once by this psychical body.
This resurrection of the body, they pretend, takes place in every
case immediately at death, and accompanies the outgoing soul.
19. How do modern rationalists explain the passages of
Scripture which relate to this subject ?
They explain them away, denying their plain sense, either, 1st,
as purely allegorical modes of inculcating the truth of the con
tinued existence of the soul after death ; or, 2d, as concessions to
the prejudices and superstitions of the Jews.

CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE SECOND ADVENT AND GENERAL JUDGMENT.
1. What it the meaning of the expressions " the coming," or
"the day of the Lord," as used in both the Old and New Testa
ments ?
1st. For any special manifestation of God's presence and
power, John xiv., 18, 23 ; Is. xiii., 6 ; Jer. xlvi., 10. 2d. By
way of eminence. (1.) In the Old Testament, for the coming
of Christ in the flesh, and the abrogation of the Jewish economy,
Malachi iii., 2 ; iv., 5. (2.) In the New Testament, for the
second and final coming of Christ.
The several terms referring to this last great event are, 1st,
dnoicdXvifiig, revelation, 1 Cor. L, 7 ; 2 Thess. L, 7 ; 1 Pet. L,
7, 13 ; iv., 13. 2d. irapovoia, presence, advent, Matt, xxiv., 3, 27,
37, 39 ; 1 Cor. xv., 23 ; 1 Thess. ii., 19 ; iii., 13 ; iv, 15 ; v., 23 ; 2
Thess. ii., 1-9 ; James v., 7, 8 ; 2 Pet. L, 16 ; iii., 4, 12 ; 1 John
ii., 28. 3d. £m<f>dveia„- appearance, manifestation, 2 Thess. ii.,
8 ; 1 Tim. vi., 14 ; 2 Tim. iv., 1, 8 ; Titus ii., 13.
The time of that coming is designated as " the day of God,"
2 Pet. iii., 12. " The day of the Lord/ 1 Thess. v., 2. " The
day of the Lord Jesus, and of Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. L, 8 ; Phil.
L, 6, 10 ; 2 Pet. iii., 10. " That day," 2 Thess. L, 10 ; 2 Tim.
1, 12, 18. " The last day," John vi., 39-54 " The great day,"
" the day of wrath," and " of judgment," and " of revelation,"
Jude 6 ; Rev. vi., 17 ; Rom. ii., 5 ; 2 Pet. ii., 9.
Christ is called 6 lp%6\ievog, the coming one, with reference to
both advents, Matt, xxi., 9 ; Luke vii., 19, 20; xix., 38 ; John
iii., 31 ; Rev. L, 4 ; iv. 8 ; xi., 17.
2. Present the evidence that a literal personal advent of Christ
fttill future is taught in the Bible.

448 SECOND ADVENT.
1st. The anology of the first advent. The prophecies relating
to the one having been literally fulfilled by a personal coming,
we may be certain that the perfectly similar prophecies relating
to the other will be fulfilled in the same sense.
2d. The language of Christ predicting such advent admits of
,no other rational interpretation. The coming itself, its manner
and purpose, are alike defined. He is to be attended with the
hosts of heaven, in power and great glory. He is to come upon
the occasion of the general resurrection and judgment, and for
the purpose of consummating his mediatorial work, by the final
condemnation and perdition of all his enemies, and by the acknowl
edgment and completed glorification of all his friends, Matt.
xvi., 27 ; xxiv., 30 ; xxv., 31 ; xxvi., 64 ; Mark viii., 38 ; Luke
xxi., 27.
3d. The apostles understood these predictions to relate to a
literal advent of Christ in person. They teach their disciples
to form the habit of constantly looking forward to it, as a solem
nizing motive to- fidelity, and to encouragement and resignation
under present trials. They teach that his coming will be visible
and glorious, accompanied with the abrogation of the present
gospel dispensation, the destruction of his enemies, the glorifica
tion of his friends, the conflagration of the world, and'the appear
ance of the " new heaven and new earth." See the passages quoted
under the preceding chapter, and Acts. L, 11 ; iii., 19-21 ; 1 Cor.
iv., 5 ; xi., 26 ; xv., 23 ; Heb. ix, 28 ; x., 37.— Dr. Hodge's
Lecture. 3. What three modes of interpretation have been adopted in
reference to Matt, xxiv and xxv. ?
" It is to be remarked that these chapters contain an answer
to three distinct questions. 1st. When the temple and city were
to be destroyed. 2d. What were to be the signs of Christ's com
ing ? 3d. The third question related to the end of the world.
The difficulty consists in separating the portions relating to these
several questions. There are three methods adopted in the ex
planation of these chapters. 1st. The first assumes that they
refer exclusively to the overthrow of the Jewish polity, and the
establishment and progress of the gospel. 2d. The second assumes
that what is here said has been fulfilled in one sense in the des»-

FACT CLEARLY REVEALED. 449
traction of Jerusalem, and is to be fulfilled in a higher sense at
the last day. 3d. The third supposes that some portions refer
exclusively to the former event and others exclusively to the lat
ter. It is pla^n that the first view is untenable, and whether the
second or third view be adopted, the obscurity resting upon this
passage can not properly be allowed to lead us to reject the clear.
and constant teaching of the New Testament with regard to the
second personal and visible advent of the Son of God." — Dr.
Hodge. 4. In what passages is the time of Christ s second advent de
clared to be unknown ?
Matt, xxiv, 36 ; Mark xiii., 32 ; Luke xii., 40 ; Acts L, 6, 7 ;
1 Thess. v., 1-3 ; 2 Pet. iii., 3, 4, 10 ; Rev. xvi., 15.
5. What passages are commonly cited in proof that the apos
tles expected the second advent during their lives ?
Phil. L, 6 ; 1 Thess. iv., 15 ; Heb. x, 25 ; 1 Pet. L, 5 ;
James v., 8.
6. How may it be shown that they did not entertain such an
expectation ?
1st. The apostles, as individuals, apart from their public
capacity as inspired teachers, were subject to the common preju
dices of their age and nation, and only gradually were brought
to the full knowledge of the truth. During Christ's life they ex
pected that he would establish his kingdom in its glory at that
time, Luke xxiv., 21 ; and after his resurrection the first question
they asked him was, " Wilt thou at this time restore the king
dom to Israel ?"
2d. In their inspired writings they haye never taught that the
second coming of their Lord was to occur in their life-time, or at
any fixed time whatever. They only taught (1.) that it ought to
be habitually desired, and (2.) since it is uncertain as to time,
that it should always be regarded as imminent.
3d. As further revelations were vouchsafed to them, they
learned, and explicitly taught, that the time of the second advent
was not only uncertain, but that many events, still future, must
29

450 SECOND ADVENT.
previously occur, e. g., the anti-Christian apostasy, the preaching
of the gospel to every nation, the fullness of the Gentiles, the con
version of the Jews, the millenial prosperity of the church, and
the final defection, Rom. xi., 15-32 ; 2 Cor. iiL, 1$, 16 ; 2 Thess.
ii., 3. This is clear, because the coming of Christ is declared to
be attended with the resurrection of the dead, the general judg
ment, the general conflagration, and-the restitution of all things.
See below, question 9.
7. What is the Scriptural doctrine concerning the millenium ?
1st. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament,
clearly- reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over all
branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive and
more thoroughly transforming than any it has ever realized in
time past. This end is to be gradually attained through the spir
itual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of Providence,
and ministrations of his church, Matt, xiii., 31, 32 ; xxviii., 19,,,
20 ; Ps. ii., 7, 8 ; xxii., 27, 29 ; lxxii., 8-11 ; Is. ii., 2, 3 ; xi., 6-9 ;
lx., 12 ; lxvi., 23 ; Dan. ii., 35, 44 ; Zech. ix., 10 ; xiv., 9 ; Rev.
xi., 15.
2d. The period of this general prevalency of the gospel will
continue a thousand years, and is hence designated the millenium,
Rev. xx., 2-7.
3d. The Jews are to be converted to Christianity either at the
commencement or during the continuance of this period, Zech.
xii., 10 ; xiii., 1 ; Rom. xi., 26-29 ; 2 Cor. iii., 15, 16.
4th. At the end of these thousand years, and before the com
ing of Christ, there will be a comparatively short season of apos
tasy and violent conflict between the kingdoms of- light and dark
ness, Luke xvii., 26-30 ; 2 Pet. iii., 3, 4 ; Rev. xx., 7-9.
5th. Christ's advent, the general resurrection and judgment,
will be simultaneous, and immediately succeeded by the burning
of the old, and the revelation of the new earth and heavens.
Confession of Faith Chapts. XXXII and XXXIII.
8. What is the view of those who maintain that Christ's com
ing will be " premillenial," and that he will reign personally
upon. the earth a thousand years before the judgment ?
1st. Many of the Jews, mistaking altogether the spiritual char
acter of the Messiah's kingdom, entertained the opinion that as

PREMILLENIAL THEORY, 451
the church had continued two thousand years before the giving
of the law, so it would continue two thousand years under 'the
law, when the Messiah would commence his personal reign, which
should, in turn, continue two thousand years to the commence
ment of the eternal Sabbath. They expected that the Messiah
would reign visibly and gloriously in Jerusalem, as his capital,
over all the nations of the earth, the Jews, as his especial people,
being exalted to preeminent dignity and privilege.
2d. The majority of the early fathers of the Christian church
adopted this view in its essential elements, adapting it to the
literal interpretation of Rev. xx., 1-10. They held, 1st. That
after the development ( of the Anti-Christian apostasy, at some
time very variously estimated, Christ was suddenly to appear and
commence his personal reign of a thousand years in Jerusalem.
The dead in Christ (some say only the martyrs) were then to rise
and reign with him in the world, the majority of whose inhabitants
shall be converted, and live during this period in great prosperity
and happiness, the Jews in the mean time being converted, and
restored to their own land. (2.) That after the thousand years
there shall come the final apostasy for a little season, and then
the resurrection of the rest of the dead, i. e., the wicked and their
judgment1 and condemnation at the last day, the final conflagra
tion, and new heavens and earth.
3d. Modern premillenarians, while differing among themselves
as to the details of their interpretations, agree substantially with
the view just stated. Hence they are called PremiUenarians, be
cause they believe the advent of Christ wiU occur before the
Millenium. 9. What are the principal Scriptural arguments against this
view ?
1st. The theory is evidently Jewish in its origin and Jew-
daizing in its tendency.
2d. It is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach. (1.)
As to the nature of Christ's kingdom, e. g., a that it is not of
this world but spiritual, Matt, xiii., 11-44 ; John xviii., 36 ;
Rom. xiv., 17 ; b that it was not to be confined to the Jews,
Matt, viii., 11, 12 ; c that regeneration is the condition of admis
sion to it, John iii., 3,5; d that the blessings of the kingdom are

452 SECOND ADVENT.
purely spiritual, as pardon, sanctification, etc., Matt, iii., 2, 11 ;
Col. L, 13, 14 (2.) As to the fact that the kingdom of Christ
has already come. He has sat upon the throne of his Father
David ever since his ascension, Acts ii., 29-36 ; iii., 13-15 ;
iv., 26-28 ; v., 29-31 ; Heb. x., 12, 13 ; Rev. iii., 7-12. The
Old Testament prophecies, therefore, which predict this kingdom
must refer to the present dispensation of grace, and not to a
future reign of Christ on earth in person among men in the flesh.
3d. The second advent is not to occur until the resurrection,
when all the dead, both good and bad, are to rise at once, Dan.
xii., 2 ; John v., 28, 29 ; 1 Cor. xv., 23 ; 1 Thes. iv., 16 ; Rev.
xx., 11-15. Only one passage, (Rev. XX-., 1-10,) is even appar
ently inconsistent with the fact here asserted. For the true inter
pretation of that passage see next' question.
4th. The second advent is not to occur untU the simultaneous
judgment of all men, the good and the bad together, Matt, vii.,
21, 23 ; xiii., 30-43 ; xvi., 24, 27 ; xxv., 31-46 ; Rom. ii., 5, 16;
1 Cor. iii., 12-15'; 2 Cor. v., 9-11 ; 2 Thes. L, 6-10 ; Rev. xx.„
11-15. 5th. The second advent is to be attended with the general
conflagration, and the generation of the " new heavens and the„
new earth," 2 Pet. iii., 7-13 ; Rev. xx.-, 11 ; xxi., 1.— "Brown
on the Second Advent."
10. What considerations favor the spiritual and oppose the
literal interpretation of Rev. xx., 1-10 ?
The spiritual interpretation of this difficult passage is as fol
lows : Christ has in reserve for his church a period of universal
expansion and of preeminent spiritual prosperity, when the spirit
and character of the " noble army of martyrs" shall be repro-
duced'again in the great body of God!s people in an unprece
dented measure, and when these martyrs shaU, in the general
triumph of their cause, and in the overthrow of that of their
enemies, receive judgment over their foes and reign in the earth ;
while the party of Satan, " the rest of the dead," shall not flourish
again untU the thousand years be ended, when it shall prevail
again for a little season.
The- considerations in favor of this interpretation of the
passage are —

RETURN OF THE JEWS TO PALESTINE. 453
1st. It occurs in one of the most highly figurative books of
the Bible.
2d. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with all the
other more explicit teachings of the Scriptures on the several
points involved.
3d. The same figure, viz., that of life again from the dead, is
frequently. used in Scripture to express the idea of the spiritual
revival of the church, Is. xxvi., 19 ; Ezek. xxxvii., 12-14 ; Hosea
vL, 1-3 ; Rom. xi., 15 ; Rev. xi., 11.
The considerations bearing against the literal interpretation
of this passage are —
1st. That the pretended doctrine of two resurrections, i. e.,
first of the righteous, and then, after an interval of a thousand
years, of the wicked, is taught nowhere else in the Bible, and
this single passage in which it occurs is an obscure one. This is
a strong presumption against the truth of the doctrine.
, 2d. It is inconsistent with what the Scriptures uniformly
teach as to the nature of the resurrection body, *'. e., that it is to
be "spiritual," not "natural," or "flesh and blood," 1 Cor. xv.,
44 It is, on the contrary, an essential part of the doctrine as
sociated with the literal interpretation of this passage, that the
saints, or at least the martyrs, are to rise and feign a thousand
years in the flesh, and in this world as at present constituted.
3d. The literal interpretation of this passage contradicts the
clear and uniform teaching of the Scriptures, that all the dead,
good and bad, are to rise and be judged together at the second
coming of Christ, and the entire revolution of the present order
of creation. See the Scripture testimonies collected under the
preceding question.
11. Show that the future general conversion of the Jeios is
taught in Scripture ?
This Paul, in Rom. xi., 15-29, both asserts and proves from
Old Testament prophecies, e. g., Isa. fix., 20 ; Jer. xxxi , 31.
See also Zech. xii., 10 ; 2 Cor. iii., 15, 16-
12. State the argument for and against the opinion that the
Jews are to be restored to their own land ?
The arguments in favor of that return are —

454 SECOND ADVENT.
1st. The literal sense of many old Testament prophecies, Isa.
xi., 11, 12 ; Jer. iii., 17 ; xvi., 14, 15 ; Ezek. xx., 40-44 ; xxxiv.,
11-31 ; xxxvi., 1-36 ; Hosea iii., 4, 5 ; Amos ix., 11-15 ; Zech.
x., 6-10 ; xiv., 1-20 ; Joel iii., 1-17.
2d. That the whole territory promised by God to Abraham has
never at any period been fully possessed by his descendants, Gen.
xv., 18-21 ; Num. xxxiv., 6-12, and renewed through Ezekiel,
Ezek. xlvii., 1-23.
3d. The land,, though capable of maintaining a vast popula
tion, is as preserved unoccupied, evidently waiting for inhabitants.
See Keith's " Land of Israel."
4th. The Jews, though scattered among all nations, have been
miraculously preserved a separate people, and evidently await a
destiny as signal and peculiar as has been their history. The
arguments against their return to the land of their fathers are —
1st. The New Testament is entirely silent on the subject of
any such return, which would be an inexplicable omission in the
clearer revelation, if that event is really future.
2d. The literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophe
cies concerned in this question would be most unnatural, (1.) Be
cause, if the interpretation is to be consistent, it must be literal
in all its parts. Then It would follow that David himself, in
person, must be raised to reign again in Jerusalem, Ezek. xxxviL,
24, etc. Then the Levitical priesthood must be restored, and
bloody sacrifices offered to God, Ezek. xl. to xlvi. ; Jer. xvii., 25,
26. Then must Jerusalem be the center of government, the Jews
a superior class in the Christian church, and all worshippers must
come monthly and from Sabbath to Sabbath, from the ends of
the earth to worship at the Holy City, Isa. ii., 2, 3 ;' lxvf, 20-23 ;
Zech. xiv., 16-21. (2.) Because the literal interpretation thus
leads to the revival of the entire ritual system of the Jews, and is
inconsistent with the spirituality of the kingdom of Christ. See
above, question 9. (3.) Because the literal interpretation of these
passages is inconsistent with what the New Testament plainly
teaches as to the abolition of all distinctions between the Jew and
Gentile ; the Jews, when converted, are to be grafted back into /
the same church, Rom. xi., 19-24 ; Eph. ii., 13-19. (4) Becauso
this interpretation is inconsistent with what the New Testament
teaches as to the temporary purpose, the virtual insufficiency,

GENERAL JUDGMENT. 455
and the final abolition of the Levitical priesthood and their sacri
fices, and of the infinite sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and
the eternity of his priesthood, Gal. iv., 9, 10 ; v., 4-8 Col. ii.,
16-23 ; Heb. vii., 12-18 ; viii., 7-13 ; ix., 1-14
3d. On the other hand, the spiritual interpretation of these
Old Testament prophecies — which regards them as predicting the
future purity and extension of the Christian church, and as indi
cating these spiritual subjects by means of those persons, places
and ordinances of the old economy which were typical of them —
is both natural and accordant to the analogy of Scripture. In
the New Testament, Christians are called Abram's seed, Gal. iii.,
29 ; Israelites, Gal. vi., 16, Eph. ii., 12, 19 ; comers to Mount
Zion, Heb. xii., 22 ; citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv.,
26 ; the circumcision, Phil, iii., 3, Col. ii., 11, and in Rev. ii., 9,
they are called Jews. There is also a Christian priesthood and
spiritual sacrifice, 1 Pet. ii., 5, 9 ; Heb. xiii., 15, 16 ; Rom. xii.,
1. See Fairbairn's Typology Appendix, Vol. I.
13. Who is to be the judge of the world?
Jesus Christ, in his official character as Mediator, in both na
tures, as the God-man. This is evident, 1st, because as judge he
is called the " Son of Man," Matt, xxv., 31, 32, and the " man
ordained by God," Acts xvii., 31. 2d. Because all judgment is
said to be committed to him by the Father, John v., 22, 27. 3d.
Because it pertains to him as Mediator to complete and publicly
manifest the salvation of his people, and the overthrow of his ene
mies, together with the glorious righteousness of his work in both
respects, 2 Thess. L, 7-10 ; Rev. L, 7 ; and thus accomplish the
"restitution of all things," Acts iii., 21. And this he shall do in
his own person, that his glory may be the more manifest, tho
discomfiture of his enemies the more humifiating, and the hope
and joy of his redeemed the more complete.
14 Who are to be the subjects of the judgment ?
1st. The whole-race of Adam, without exception, of every gen
eration, condition and character, each individual appearing in the
integrity of his person, " body, soul and spirit." The dead will
be raised, and the living changed simultaneously, Matt, xxv,

456 SECOND ADVENT.
31-46 ; 1 Cur. xv, 51, 52 ; 2 Cor. v., 10 ; 1 Thess. iv., 17 ; ,2
Thess. L, 6-10; Rev. xx., 11-15. 2d. All evil angels, 2 Pet. ii.,
4 ; Jude 6. Good angels appearing as attendants and minister's,"
Matt, xiii., 41, 42.
15. In what sense is it said that the saints shall judge the
world ?
See Matt, xix., 28 ; Luke xxii., 29, 30 ; 1 Cor, vi., 2, 3 ;
, Rev. xx., 4
. In virtue of the union of believers with Christ, his triumph
and dominion is theirs. They are joint heirs with him, and if
they suffer with him they shall reign with him, Rom. viii., 17 ; 2
Tim. ii., 12. He will judge and condemn his enemies as head and
champion of his church, all his members assenting to his judg
ment and glorying in his triumph, Rev. xix., 1-5. — Hodge's Com.
on 1st Cor.
16. Upon what principles will his judgment be dispensed ?
The judge is figuratively represented, (Rev. xx., 12,) after the
analogy of human tribunals, as opening "books" in judgment, ac
cording to the things written in which the dead are to be judged,
and also " another book," " which is the book of life." The books
first mentioned doubtless figuratively represent the, law or stand
ard according to which each one was to be judged, and the facts
in his case, or " the works which he had done." The " book of
life" (see also Phil, iv, 3 ; Rev. iii., 5 ; xiii., 8 ; xx., 15) is the
book of God's eternal electing love. Those whose names are
found written in the "book of life" wUl be declared righteous on
the ground of their participation in the righteousness of Christ.
Their holy characters and good deeds, -however, will be publicly
declared as the evidences of their election, of their relation to
Christ, and of the glorious work of Christ in them, Matt, xiii.,
43 ; xxv., 34-40.
Those whose names are not found written in " the book of
life" will be condemned on the ground of the evil " deeds they
have done in the body," tried by the standard of God's law, not
as that law has been ignorantly conceived of by each, but as it.
has been more or less fully and clearly revealed by the Judge
himself to each severally. The heathen who has sinned without

FINAL CONFLAGRATION. ,457
the written laW " shall be judged without the law," i. e, by the
law written upon his heart, which made him a law unto himself,
Luke xii., 47, 48 ; Rom. ii., 12-15. The Jew, who " sinned in
the law, shall be judged by the law," Rom. ii., 12. Every indi
vidual dweUing under the light of the Christian revelation shall
be judged in strict accordance with the whole will of God as made
known to him, all of the special advantages of every kind enjoyed
by him»individuaUy modifying the proportion of his responsibility,
Matt, xi., 20-24 ; John iii., 19.
The secrets of all hearts, the inward states and hidden springs
of action will be brought in as the subject matter of judgment, as
well as the actions themselves, Eccle. xii., 14 ; 1 Cor. iv., 5 ; and
publicly declared to vindicate the justice of the Judge, and to
make manifest the shame of the sinner, Luke viii., 17 ; xii., 2, 3 ;
Mark iv., 22. Whether the sins of the saints will be brought for
ward at the judgment or not is a question not settled by the Scrip
tures, though debated by theologians. If they should be, we are
sure that it will be done only with the design and effect of en-
. hancing the glory of the Saviour and the comfort of the saved.
17. What do the Scriptures reveal concerning the future con
flagration of our earth ? >
The principal passages bearing upon this point are Ps. ciL, 26,
27.; Is. IL, 6 ; Rom. viii., 19-23 ; Heb. xii., 26, 27 ; 2 Pet. iii.,
10-13 ; Rev. xx. and xxi.
Many of the older theologians thought that these passages
indicated that the whole existing physical universe was to be
destroyed. This view is now universally discarded. Some held
that this earth is to be annihilated.
The most common and probable opinion is that at " the resti
tution of all things," Acts, iii., 21, this earth, with its atmosphere,
is to be subjected to intense heat, which will radically change its
present physical condition, introducing in the place of the present
an higher order of things, which shall appear as a " new heavens and
a new earth," wherein " the creature itself, also, shall be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God," Rom. viii., 19-23, and wherein the constitution
of the new world will be adapted to the " spiritual" or resurrec
tion bodies of the saints, 1 Cor. xv., 44, to be the scene of the

458 SECOND ADVENT.
heavenly society,, and, above all, to be the palace-temple of the
God-man for ever, Eph. L, 14 ; Rev. v., 9, 10 ; xxi., 1-5. See
also Fairbairn's Typology, Vol. I., Part IL, Chap. IL, sec. 7.
18. What should be the moral effect of the Scripture doctrine
of Christ's second advent ?
Christians ought thereby to be comforted when in sorrow, and
always stimulated to duty, Phil, iii., 20 ; Col. iii., 4, 5 ; -James
v., 7 ; 1 John iii., 2, 3. It is their duty also to love, watch, wait
for, and hasten unto the coming of their Lord, Luke xii., 35, 37 ;
1 Cor. L, 7, 8 ; Phil, iii., 20 ; 1 Thess. i., 9, 10 ; 2 Tim. iv., 8 ;
2 Pet. iii., 12 ; Rev. xxii., 20.
Unbelievers should be filled with fearful apprehension,, and
with all their might they should- seek place for immediate re
pentance, Mark xiii., 35, 37 ; 2 Pet. iii., 9, 10 ; Jude 14. 15.—
Brown's Second Advent.

CHAPTER XXXVIL
HEAVEN AND HELL.
1. What is the New Testament uso.ge as to the terms bvpavog,
"heaven," and rd iirovpdvia, " heavenly places ?"
'Ovpavog is used chiefly in three senses. 1st. The upper air
where the birds fly, Matt, viii., 20 ; xxiv., 30. 2d. The region
in which the stars revolve, Acts vii., 42 ; Heb. xi., 12. 3d. The
abode of Christ's human nature, the scene of the special manifes
tation of divine glory, and of the eternal blessedness of the saints,
Heb. ix., 24 ; 1 Pet. iii., 22. This is sometimes called the
" third heaven," 2 Cor. xii., 2. The phrases " new heaven," and
" new earth," in contrast with " first heavens" and " first earth,"
2 Pet. iii., 7, 13 ; Rev. xxi., 1, refer to some unexplained change
which will take place in the final catastrophe, by which God wUl
revolutionize our portion of the physical universe, cleansing it
from the stain of sin, and qualifying it to be the abode of bless
edness. *
For the usage with regard to the phrase " kingdom of heaven,"
see above, Chap. XXIV., question 5.
The phrase rd l-rrovpdvia is translated sometimes, " heavenly
things," John iii., 12, where it signifies the mysteries of the un
seen spiritual world ; and sometimes " heavenly places," Eph. L,
3 ; and ii., 6, where it means the state into which a believer is
introduced at his regeneration ; see also Eph. L, 20, where it
means the " third heavens ;" and Eph. vi., 12, where it signifies
indefinitely the supermundane universe.
2. What are the principle terms, both literal and figurative,
which are used in Scripture to designate the future blessedness
of the saints ?
Literal terms : — "life, eternal life, and life everlasting, Matt.

460 HEAVEN.
vii., 14 ; xix., 16, 29 ; xxv., 46. Glory, the glory of God; an
eternal weight of glory, Rom. ii., 7, 10 ; v., 2 ; 2 Cor. iv., 17.
Peace, Rom. ii., 10. Salvation, and eternal salvation, Heb. v., 9."
Figurative terms : — " Paradise, Luke xxiii., 43 ; 2 Cor. xii.,
4 ; Rev. ii., 7. Heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv, 26 ; Rev. iii., 12.
Kingdom of heaven, heavenly kingdom, eternal kingdom, king
dom prepared from the foundation of the world, Matt, xxv., 34 ;
2 Tim. iv., 18 ; 2 Pet. L, 11. Eternal inheritance, 1 Pet. L, 4 ;
Heb. ix., 15, The blessed are said to sit down with Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, to be in Abraham's bosom, Luke xvi., 22 ; Matt.
viii., 11 ; to reign with Christ, 2 Tim. ii., 11, 12 ; to enjoy a Sab
bath or rest, Heb. iv, 10, 11."— Kitto's Bib. Ency.
3. What is revealed with respect to heaven as a place ?
All the Scripture representations of heaven involve the idea
of a definite place, asj well as of a state of blessedness. Of that
place, however, nothing more is revealed than that it is defined
by the local presence of Christ's finite soul and body, and that it
is the scene of the preeminent manifestation of God's glory, John
xvii., 24 ; 2 Cor. v., 9 ; Rev. v., 6.
From such passages as Rom. viii., 19-23 ; 2 Pet. iii., 5-13 ;
Rev. xxi., 1, it appears not improbable that after the general des
truction of the present form of the world by fire, which shaU ac
company the judgment, this world will be reconstituted, and glo
riously adapted to be the permanent residence of Christ and his
church. As there is to be a " spiritual body," there may be in
the same sense a spiritual world, that is, a world adapted to be
the theater of the glorified spirits of the saints made perfect. As
nature was cursed for man's sake, and the creature, through him,
made subject to vanity, it may be that they shall share in his
redemption and exaltation. See Fairbairn's Typology, Part IL,
Chap. IL, sec. 7.
4 Wherein does the blessedness of heaven consist as far as
revealed ?
1st. Negatively, in perfect deliverance from sin, and from aU
its evil consequences, physical, moral, and social, Rev. vii., 16,
17 ; xxi., 4, 27.
2d. Positively. (1.) In the perfection of pur nature, both ma-

ITS BLESSEDNESS. 461
terial and spiritual ; the full development and harmonious exer
cise of all our faculties, intellectual and moral, and in the unre
strained progress thereof to eternity, 1 Cor. xiii., 9-12 ; xv.,
45-49 ; 1 John iii., 2. (2.) In the sight pf our blessed Redeemer,
communion with his person, and fellowship in all his glory and
blessedness, and through him with saints and angels, John xvii.,
24 ; 1 John i., 3 ; Rev. iii., 21 ; xxi., 3, 4, 5. (3.) In that
" beatific vision of God," which, consisting in the ever increasingly
clear discovery of the divine excellence lovingly apprehended,
transforms the soul into the same image, from glory unto glory,
Matt, v., 8 ; 2 Cor. iii., 18.
In meditating upon what is revealed of the conditions of
heavenly existence two errors are to be avoided : 1st, the ex
treme of regarding the mode of existence experienced by the
saints in heaven as too nearly analogous to that of our earthly
life ; 2d, the opposite extreme of regarding the conditions of the
heavenly life as too widely distinguished from that of our present
experience. The evil effect of the first extreme will, of course,
be to degrade by unworthy associations our conceptions of heaven;
whUe the evil effect of the opposite extreme will be in great
measure to destroy the moral power which a hope of heaven
should naturally exert over our hearts and fives, by rendering our
conceptions of it vague, and our sympathy with its characteristics
consequently distant and feeble. To avoid both of these ex
tremes, we should fix the limits within which our conceptions of
the future existence of the saints must range, by distinguishing
between those elements of man's nature, and of his relations to
God and other men, which are • essential and unchangeable, and
those elements which must be changed in order to render his
nature in his relations perfect. 1st. The following must be
changed : (1.) all sih and its consequences must be removed ;
(2.) " spiritual bodies" must take the place of our present flesh
and blood ; (3.) the new heavens and the new earth must take
the place of the present heavens and earth, as the scene of man's
life ; (4,) the laws of social organization must be radicaUy
changed, since in heaven there will be no marriage, but a social
order analogous to that of the " angels of God" introduced.
2d. The following elements are essential, and therefore un
changeable. (1.) Man will continue ever to exist, as compounded

462 HEAVEN.
of two natures, spiritual and material. (2.) He is essentially in
tellectual, and must live by knowledge. (3.) He is essentially
active, and must have work to do. (4) Man can, as a finite
creature, know God only mediately, i. e., through his works of
creation and providence, the experience of his gracious work upon
our hearts, and through his incarnate Son, who is the image of
his person, and the fullness of the Godhead bodily. God will
therefore in heaven continue to teach man through his works,
and to act*upon him by means of motives addressed to his will
through his understanding. (5.) The memory of man never
finally loses the slightest impression, and it will belong to the
perfection of the heavenly state that every experience acquired
in the past will always be within the perfect control of the will.
(6.) Man is essentially a social being. This, taken in connection
with the preceding point, indicates the conclusion that the asso
ciations, as well as the experience of our earthly life, will carry
all of their natural consequences with them into the new mode
of existence, except as far as they are necessarily modified (not
lost) by the change. (7.) Man's life is essentially an eternal pro
gress toward infinite perfection. (8.) All the known analogies
of God's works in creati6n, in his providence in the material and
moral world, and in his dispensation of grace, (1 Cor. xii., 5-28,)
indicate that in heaven saints will differ among themselves both
as to inherent capacities and qualities, and as to relative rank and
office. These differences will doubtless be determined a by con
stitutional differences of natural capacity, b by gracious rewards
in heaven corresponding in kind and degree to the gracious fruit-
fulness of the individual on earth, c by the absolute sovereignty
of the Creator, Matt, xvi., 27 ; Rom. ii., 6 ; 1 Cor. xiL, 4-28.
5. What are the principal terms, literal and figurative, which
are applied in Scripture to the future condition of the reprobate ?
As a place, it is sometimes literally designated by d't<%, Hades,
and sometimes by yeewa, both translated hell, Matt, v., 22, 29,
30 ; Luke xvi., 23. Also by the phrase, " place of torment,"
Luke xvi., 28. As a condition of suffering, it is literally desig
nated by the phrases, " wrath of God," Rom. ii., 5, and " second
death," Rev. xxi., 8.

SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS. 463
Figurative terms. — Everlasting fire, prepared for the devil
and his angels, Matt, xxv., 41. The hell of fire, where the worm
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, Mark ix., 44. The lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone, Rev. xxi., 8. Bottomless
pit, Rev. ix., 2. The dreadful nature of this abode of the wicked
is implied in such expressions as "outer darkness," the place
" where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth," Matt, viii., 12 ;
ftIam tormented in this flame," Luke xvi., 24; "unquenchable
fire," Luke iii., 17 ; "furnace of fire," Matt, xiii., 42 ; "black
ness of darkness,"- Jude 13 ; " torment in fire and brimstone,"
Rev. xiv., 10 ; " the smoke of their torment ascendeth for ever
and ever, and they have no rest day nor night," Rev. xiv., 11. —
Kitto's Bib. Ency.
6. What do the Scriptures teach as to the nature of future
punishments ?
The terms used in Scripture to describe these sufferings are
evidently figurative, yet they certainly establish the following
points. ThesQ. sufferings will consist, 1st, in the loss of all good,
whether natural, as granted through Adam, or gracious, as offered
through Christ. 2d. In all the natural consequences of unre
strained sin, judicial abandonment, utter alienation from God,
and the awful society of lost men and devils, 2 Thess. L, 9. 3d.
In the positive infliction of torment, God's wrath and curse de
scending upon both the moral and physical nature of its objects.
The Scriptures also establish the fact that these sufferings must
be, 1st, inconceivably dreadful in degree. 2d. Endless in dura
tion. 3d. Various in degree, proportionately to the deserts of
the subject, Matt, x., 15 ; Luke xii., 48.
7. What is the usage of the words, didv, eternity, and diuvwg,
eternal, in the New Testament, and the argument thence derived
establishing the endless duration of future punishment ?
1st. The Greek language possesses no more emphatic terms
with which to express the idea of endless duration than these.
2d. Although they are sometimes employed in the New Testa
ment to designate limited duration, yet, in the vast majority of
instances, they evidently designate unlimited duratioa. 3d. They

464 HELL.
are used, to express the endless duration of God. (1.) dithv is
thus used, 1 Tim. L, 17, and as applied to Christ, Rev. L, 18.
(2.) diuviog is thus used, Rom. xvi., 26, and as applied to the
Holy Ghost, Heb. ix., 14./ 4th. They are used to express the
endless duration of the future happiness of the saints. (1.) diuv
is thus used, John vi., 57, 58 ; 2 Cor. ix., 9. (2.) diuviog is thus
used, Matt, xix., 29 ; Mark x., 30 ; John iii., 15 ; Rom. ii., 7.
5th. In Matt, xxv., 46, the very same word is used in a single
clause to define at once the duration of the future happiness of
the saints, and the misery of the lost. Thus the Scriptures do -
expressly declare that the duration of the future misery of the
lost is to be in precisely the same sense unending, as is either the
life of God, or the blessedness of the saints.
8. What evidence for the truth on this subject is furnished by
the New Testament usage of the word didiog ?
This word, formed from del, always, for ever, signifies, in clas
sical Greek, eternal. It occurs only twice in the New Testament,
Rom. L, 20, " even his eternal power and Godhead," and Jude 6,
"Angels reserved in everlasting chains." But lost men share the
fate of lost angels, Matt, xxv., 41 ; Rev. xx., 10. Thus the same
word expresses, the duration of the Godhead and of the sufferings
of the lost.
9. What other evidence do the Scriptures furnish on this sub
ject ?
1st. There is nothing in the Scriptures which, even by the
most remote implication, suggests that the sufferings of the lost
shall ever end.
2d. The constant application to the subject of such figurative
language as, " fire that shall not be quenched," " fire unquench
able," " the worm that never dies," " bottomless pit," the neces
sity of paying the " uttermost farthing," " the smoke of their tor
ment arising for ever and ever," Luke iii., 17 ; Mark ix., 45, 46 ;
Rev. xiv., 10, 11, is consistent only with the conviction that God
wills us to believe on his authority that future punishments are
literally endless. It is said of those who commit the unpardon
able sin that they shall never be forgiven, " either in this world
Dor in that which is to come," Matt, xii., 32.

ETERNITY OF SUFFERING. 465
1 1*0. What are two views on this subject, which have been held
by different parties in opposition to the faith of the whole Chris
tian church, and the clear teaching of God's word ?
The only two classes of theories possible as alternatives to the
orthodox doctrine on this subject, are those, 1st, which involve
the idea of the total destruction of being (annihilation) as an ele
ment of the "second death." 2d. Those which maintain the
future restoration of the sinner after an indefinite period of aton
ing and purifying suffering in proportion to his guilt.
In refutation of the former of these theories, which has been
rendered respectable chiefly by the adventitious circumstance that
it is countenanced by Archbishop Whately, "View of Sc. Rev.
Concerning a Future State," we argue, 1st, the Scriptures never
express the idea contended for, but consistently use • language
which has naturally and almost universally conveyed an opposite
idea. 2d. The Scriptures plainly assert (1.) that the future state
is one of conscious suffering, (2.) that this conscious suffering is
to. continue for ever — " worm dieth not," " everlasting fire," " un
quenchable fire," " weeping and gnashing of teeth," " the smoke
of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have
no rest day nor night." See above, question 9.
In refutation of the latter opinion, that the lost will be re
stored after an indefinite period of suffering, we argue, 1st, it has
no foundation in Scripture. 2d. It is directly refuted by all
the positive evidence we have above presented in establishing the
orthodox doctrine. 3d. The atonement of Christ and the sancti
fying work of the Holy Ghost are the exclusive means of salva
tion. (1.) These have been finally rejected by the lost. (2.)
They are never applied in hell. 4th. The essential nature of sin
determines it when left to itself to multiply itself and its conse
quent miseries at a fearful ratio. 5th. Suffering per se has no
cleansing power ; penal evils, when sufficient, may satisfy justice
for past sin, but they can not cleanse the heart, nor prevent re
newed transgressions. 6th. This essential insalvabUity of the losi
sinner will be in the highest degree aggravated by his circum
stances ; banished from God, subject to his curse, in unutterable
torments, without grace and without hope, and surrounded with
the society of all the workers of abomination gathered from the
whole universe.

466 HELL.
11. What objection is urged against this doctrine derived
from, the justice of God ?
The justice of God demands thai the punishment should be
exactly proportioned to the guilt of the subject. But it is ob
jected, 1st. No sin of any finite creature can deserve an infinite
punishment. 2d. All everlasting punishment is infinite, but the
infinite does not admit of degrees, yet the guilt of different sin
ners is various. 3d. The moral difference between the lowest
saint saved, and ,the most amiable sinner lost, is imperceptible,
yet their fate differs infinitely.
To the first objection we answer. The human mind not being
able to conceive of the infinite, only confuses itself when it at
tempts to deal with its negative conception of the indefinite as a
reality. Every sin of man against the infinite God is declared
by Scripture, and is felt by every enlightened conscience to be,
worthy of instant and final expulsion from the divine presence,
which necessarily leads to an absolutely endless increase both of
sin and misery, Gal. iii., 10 ; James ii., 10. The same is proved
by the infinite sacrifice justice demanded for the propitiation of
sin. " If they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done
in the dry ?" Luke xxiii., 31.
The second objection is a dishonest cavil. It is very plain
that sufferings may be at once infinite in duration, and various
as to degree.
To the third objection we answer. 'That although there may
be little difference as to their respective personal demerits between
the feeblest saint and the most moral reprobate, yet there is
rightly made an infinite difference in their treatment, because of
their essentially different relations to Christ. The feeblest and
the loftiest saint are alike justified upon an equal foundation ;
each has the whole of Christ, and nothing more.
«
12. What objection drawn from the benevolence of God has
been urged against this doctrine ?
It has been objected that God is essentially benevolent, and
that it is inconsistent with his -nature to inflict any suffering upon
his creatures which is not necessary as a raeans to the end of their
attaining some higher good. We answer : 1st, God is just as

ETERNITY OF SUFFERING. 467
well as benevolent, and one of the elements of his infinite perfec
tion can not be inconsistent with another. 2d. We have con
stant experience that God does in principle involve his "creatures
in sufferings which are not to the individual subjects thereof the
means of any conceivable advantage. 3d. It would follow that
Christ was sacrificed in vain if those who reject him, and who
faU of aU share in his grace, are not eternally punished. 4th.
The very benevolence of God, as concerned for the general good
of the universe, concurs with his justice in demanding the execu
tion of the full penalty of the law upon all unbelievers.
13. What argument for the future restoration of all rational
creatures to holiness and happiness is founded upon Rom. v., 18,
19 ; 1 Cor. xv, 22-28 ; Eph. L, 10 ; Col. L, 19, 20 ?
In regard to Roms v., 18, it is argued that the phrase " all
men" must have precisely the same extent of application in the
one clause as in the other. We answer, 1st, the phrase " all
men" is often used in Scripture in connections which necessarUy
restrict the sense, John iii., 26; xii., 32. 2d. In this case the phrase
" all men" is evidently defined by the qualifying phrase, ver. 17,
"who have received abundance of grace and the gift of righteous
ness." 3d. This contrast between the " all men" in Adam and
the "all men" in Christ is consistent with the analogy of the
whole gospel.
In regard to 1 Cor. xv., 22, the argument is the same as
that drawn from Rom. v., 18. From verses 25-28 it is argued
that the great end of Christ's mediatorial reign must be the resto
ration of every creature to holiness and blessedness. To this we
answer, 1st, this is a strained interpretation put upon these words,
which they do not necessarily bear, and which is clearly refuted
by the many direct testimonies we have cited from Scripture
above. 2d. It is inconsistent with the scope of Paul's subject in
this passage. He says that from eternity to the ascension God
reigned absolutely. From the ascension to the restitution of aU
things God reigns in the person of the God-raan as Mediator.
From the restitution to eternity God wUl again reign directly
as absolute God.
The ultimate salvation of aU creatures is argued also from

468 HELL.
Eph. L, 10 ; Col. L, 19, 20. In both passages, however, the " aU
things" signify the whole company of angels and redeemed men,
who are gathered under the dominion of Christ. Because, 1st,
in both passages the subject of discourse is the church, not the
universe ; 2d, in both passages the " all things" is limited by the
.qualifying phrases, "the predestinated," "we who first trusted
in Christ," " the accepted in the beloved," " if ye continue in the
faith," etc., etc. See Hodge's Commentaries on Romans, 1st
Corinthians and Ephesians.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.
SACRAMENTS.
1. What is etymology, and what the classical and patristic
usage of the word " sacramentum ?"
. 1st. It is derived from sacro, are, to make sacred, dedicate to
gods or sacred uses.
2d. In its classical usage it signified (1.) that by which a per
son binds himself to another to perform any thing. (2.) Thence a
sum deposited with the court as pledge, and which, if forfeited,
was devoted to sacred uses. (3.) Also an oath, especiaUy a sol
dier's oath of faithful consecration to his country's service. — Ains-
worth's Die.
3d. The fathers used this word in a conventional sense as
equivalent to the Greek uvaTrjpiov, a mystery, i. e., something un
known until revealed, and hence an emblem, a type, a rite hav
ing some latent spiritual meaning known only to the initiated,
or instructed. The Greek fathers applied the term nvarrjpiov to the Christian
ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, inasmuch as these
rites had a spiritual significance, and were thus a form of revela
tion of divine truth.
The Latin fathers used the word " sacramentum" as a Latin
word, in its own proper sense, for any thing sacred in itself, or
having the power of binding, or consecrating men, and in addition
they used it as the equivalent of the Greek word \ivarr\piov, i. e.,
in the entirely different sense of a revealed truth, or a sign or
symbol revealing a truth otherwise hidden. This fact has given
to the usage of this word " sacramentum," in the scholastic the
ology, an injurious latitude and indefiniteness of meaning. Thus

470 SACRAMENTS.
in Eph. iii, 3, 4, 9 ; v., 32 ; 1 Tim. iii., 16 ; Rev. L, 20, the
word uvorripiov truly bears the sense of " the revelation of a truth
undiscoverable by reason," and it is translated in such passages
in the English version, mystery, and in the Latin vulgate, " sac
ramentum." Thus the Romish church uses the same word in two
entirely different senses, applying it indifferently to baptism and
the Lord's supper " as binding ordinances," and to the union of
believers with Christ as a revealed truth, Eph. v., 32. And hence
they absurdly infer that matrimony is a sacrament.
2. What is the definition of a sacrament, as given by the Fa
thers, the Schoolmen, the Romish Church, the Church of England,
and in our own Standards ?
1st. Augustin's definition is " Signum rei sacrae," or " Sacra
mentum est invisibilis gratiae visibile signum, ad nostram justifi-
cationem institutum."
2d. The schoolmen defined, . " Sacramentum invisibilis gratias
visibilem formam.
3d. The Council of Trent defines them, " A sacrament is
something presented to the senses, which has the power, by divine
institution, not only of signifying, but also of efficiently convey
ing grace " — Cat. Rom., Part IL, Chap. I., Q. 6.
4th. Church of England, in the 25th article of religion, affirms
that." Sacraments instituted by Christ are not only the badges
and tokens of the profession of Christian men, but rather they be
certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and of God's
good will towards us, by the which he doth work inwardly in us,
and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our
faith in him."
5th. The Wesminster Assembly's Larger Cat., Q. 162 and
163, .affirms that a " Sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by
Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit to those who are
within the covenant of grace the benefits of his mediation, to in
crease their faith and all other graces, to oblige them to obedi
ence, to testify and cherish their love and communion with one
another, and to distinguish them from those that ^re without."
" The parts of a sacrament are two, the one an outward and
sensible sign used according to Christ's own appointment ; the
othei an inward spiritual grace thereby signified."

THEIR NUMBER. 471
3. On what principles is such a definition to be constructed ?
1st. It is to be remembered that the term " sacrament" does
not occur in the Bible.
2d. From the extreme latitude with which this term has been
used, both in the sense proper to it as a Latin word, and in that
attributed to it as the conventional equivalent of the Greek word
pvaT7]piov, it is evident that no definition of a gospel ordinance
can be arrived at by a mere reference either to the etymology or
ecclesiastical usage of the word " sacramentum."
3d. The definition of a class of gospel ordinances can be prop
erly formed only by a comparison of all the Scriptures teach
concerning the origin, nature, and design of those ordinances
universally recognized as belonging to that class, and thus by
determining those essential elements which are common to each
member of the class, and which distinguish them as a class from
all other divine "ordinances.
4th. Those ordinances which are " universally recognized" as
sacraments are baptism and the Lord's supper.
4. How many sacraments -do Romanists make, and how may
the controversy betiveen them and the Protestants be decided ?
The Roman church teaches that there are seven sacraments,
viz., baptism, confirmation, the Lord's supper, penance, extreme
unction, orders, marriage.
We maintain, however, that only baptism and the Lord's
supper can be properly embraced under either the Protestant or
the Catholic definitions of a sacrament, as given above, ques
tion 2.
1st. Confirmation, penance, and extreme unction are not di
vine institutions, having no warrant whatever in«Scripture.
2. That marriage instituted by God in Paradise, and ordination
to the gospel ministry instituted by Christ, although both divine
institutions, are evidently not ordinances of the same kind with
baptism and the Lord's supper, and do not meet the conditions
of either definitions of a sacrament, since they neither signify nor
convey any inward grace.
5. What two things are included in every sacrament ?
1st. "An Outward visible sign used according to Christ's own

472 SACRAMENTS
appointment ; 2d, an inward spiritual grace thereby signified.—
L. Cat, Q. 163.
The Romanists, in the language of the schoolmen, distinguish
between the matter and the form of a sacrament. The matter is
that part of the sacrament subjected to the senses, and significant
of grace, e. g., the water, and the act of applying the water in
baptism, and the bread and wine, and the acts of breaking the
bread, and pouring out the wine in the Lord's supper. The form
is the divine word used by the minister in administering the ele
ments, devoting them thus to the office of signifying grace.
6. What, according to the Romanists, is the relation between
the sign and the grace signified ?
They hold that in consequence of the divine institution, and
in virtue of the " power of the Omnipotent which exists in them,"
the grace signified is contained in the very nature of the sacra
ments themselves, so that it is always conferred, ex opere operato,
upon every receiver of them who does not oppose a positive obstacle
thereto. Thus they understand the " sacramental union," or re
lation between, the sign and the grace signified to he physical, or
that which subsists between a substance and its properties, i. e.,
the virtue of conferring grace is, in the sacraments, as the virtue
of burning is in fire. — CouncU of Trent, Sess. 7, Cans. 6 and 8.
Cat. Rom., Part IL, Chap. I., Q. 18. Bellarmine de Sacram. 2, 1.
7. What is the Zuinglian doctrine on this subject ?
Zuingle, the reformer of Switzerland, held a position at the
opposite extreme to that of the Romish church, viz., that the
sign simply represents by appropriate symbols, and symbolical
actions, the grace to which it is related. Thus the sacraments
are only effective means of the objective presentation of the truth
symbolized. 8. In what sense is the word " exhibit" used in our standards
in reference to this subject ?
Compare Con. of Faith, Chap. XXVII., Sec. 3, and Chap.
XXVIII., Sec. 6, and L. Cat. Q. 162.
This word is derived from the Latin ward "exhibeo," which
bore the twofold sense of conveying and of disclosing. ¦ It is evi-

THEIR DESIGN. 473
dent that the term " exhibit" has retained in our standards the
former sense of conveying, conferring. As in medical language,
" to exhibit a remedy" is to administer it.
9. What is the common doctrine of the reformed churches
as to the relation of the sign to the grace signified ?
The reformed confessions agree in teaching that this relation
is, 1st, simply moral, i. e., it is established only by the institution
and promise of Christ, and it depends upon the right administra
tion of the ordinance, and upon the faith and knowledge of the
recipient. And, 2d, that it is real, that is, when rightly adminis
tered, and when received by the recipient with knowledge and
faith they do really, because of the promise of Christ, seal the
grace signified, and convey it to the recipient, i. e., the recipient
does receive the grace with the sign.
This doctrine, therefore, includes, 1st, the Zuinglian view,
that the outward visible sign truly signifies the grace. And, 2d,
that they are, as ordinances of God's appointment, seals attached
to the promise to authenticate it, as the natural phenomenon of
the rainbow was made a seal of God's promise to Noah in virtue
of the divine appointment. 3d. That as seals thus accompanying
a divine promise by divine authority, they do actually convey the
grace they signify to those for whom that grace is intended, and
who are in a proper spiritual state to receive it, " as a key con
veys admission, a deed, an estate, the ceremony of marriage the
rights of marriage." See Turrettin, L. XIX., question 4 ; Conf.
Faith, Chap. XXVII. ; L. Cat., questions 162, 163 ; Cat. Gene.,
sec. 5th, de Sacramentis ; Conf. Faith of the French Church, arti
cle 34 ; Old Scotch Conf, section 21.
10. What is the design of the sacraments ?
1st. That they should signify, seal and exhibit to those within
the covenant of grace the benefits of Christ's redemption, and
thus as a principle means of grace edify the church, Matt, iii., 11 ;
Gen. xvii., 11, 13 ; 1 Cor. x., 2-21 ; xi., 23-26 ; xii., 13 ; Rom.
ii., 28, 29 ; iv, 11 ; vi., 3, 4 ; Gal. iii., 27 ; 1 Pet. iii., 21.
2d. That they should be visible badges of membership in the
church, to put a visible difference between the professed followers

474 SACRAMENTS.
of Christ and the world, Gen. xxxiv., 14 ; Ex. xii., 48 ; Eph. ii.,
19 ; Conf. Faith, Chap. XXVII., section 1.
11. What is the Romish doctrine as to the efficacy of the sac
raments ?
In consistency with their view of the relation of the grace sig
nified to the sign, (see above, question 6,) they hold that the sac
raments, in every case of their legitimate administration, convey
the grace- they signify to every recipient not opposing a positive
resistance, not depending upon the faith of the receiver, but ex
opere operato, by the inherent grace-cOnferring virtue of the sac
rament itself. The external action of the sacrament they hold to
be the sole active and proximate instrumental cause in conferring
the grace of justification.
" By the sacraments all true righteousness is commenced, or
having been commenced, is increased, or having been lost, is re
stored." — Coun. Trent, Sess. 7, Procemium, and canons 6, 7, 8 ;
Bellarmine de Sacram. 2, 1.
12. How may this doctrine be disproved ?
That the sacraments have not the power of conveying grace
to all, whether they are included within the covenant of gratce or
not, or whether 'they possess faith or not, is certain, because —
1st. They are seals of the gospel covenant (see below, question
14). But a seal merely ratifies a covenant as a covenant. It can
convey the grace promised only on the supposition that the condi
tions of the covenant are fulfilled. But salvation and every spir
itual blessing is by that covenant declared to, depend upon the
condition of faith.
2d. Knowledge and faith are required as the prerequisite con
ditions necessary to be found in all applicants, as the essential
qualification for receiving the sacraments, Acts ii., 41 ; viii., 37 ;
x., 47 ; Rom. iv., 11.
3d. Faith is essential to render the sacraments efficacious,
Eom. ii., 25-29 ; 1 Cor. xi., 27-29 ; 1 Pet. iii., 21.
4tii. Many who receive the sacraments are notoriously without
the grace they signify. Witness the case of Simon Magus, Acta
viii., 9-21, and of many of the Corinthians and Galatians, and of
the majority of nominal Christians in the present day.

THEIR EFFICACY. 475
5th. Many have had the grace without the sacraments. Wit
ness Abraham, the thief upon the cross, and Cornelius the centu
rion, and a multitude of eminent Christians among the Society
of Friends. .
6th. This doctrine blasphemouslj ties down the grace of the
ever living and sovereign God, and puts its entire disposal into
the hands of fallible and often wicked men.
7th. This doctrine is an essential element of that ritualistic
and priestly system which prevailed among the Pharisees, and
against which the whole New Testament is a protest.
8th. The uniform effect of this system has been to exalt the
power of the priests, and to confound all knowledge as to the
nature of true religion. As the baptized, as a matter of fact, do
not always or generally bear the fruits of the Spirit, all ritualists
agree in regarding these fruits as not essential to salvation.
Where this system prevails vital godliness expires.
, 13. What efficacy is attributed to the sacraments by the Re
formed churches ?
That they signify, seal, and actually confer the blessings of
Christ's redemption, but that this efficacy is not in the sacra
ments themselves, nor in any virtue derived from the piety or
intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by
the working of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ, by
whom they were instituted, and that this efficacy is confined to
those who are within the covenant of grace, and in case of adults,
to the worthy recipients. — Conf. Faith, Chaps. . XXVII. and
XXVIII. ; L. Cat, question 162 ; S. Cat., question 92.
14. How may the correctness of the Protestant doctrine be
proved ?
1st. As far as this doctrine stands opposed to the Romish
heresy, it is established by the arguments presented above, under
question 12.
2d. As far as this doctrine stands opposed to the meager Zu-
inglian or rationalistic view, as stated above, question 7, it may
be established as follows. (1.) That the sacraments are not only
signs of the grace of Christ, but also seals of the gospel &' --=nant

176 SACRAMENTS.
offering us that grace upon the condition of faith, "is evident from
the fact that Paul says that circumcision is the seal of the right
eousness of faith, Rom. iv., 11. And that the apostle regarded
baptism in the same light is evident from Col. ii., 11. In refer
ence to the Lord's supper, the Saviour said, ' this cup is the new
covenant in my blood,' i. e., the new covenant was ratified by his
blood. Of that blood the cup is the appointed memorial, and it
is therefore both the memorial and the confirmation of the cove
nant itself. .... The gospel is represented under the form
of a covenant. The sacraments are the seals of that covenant.
God, in their appointment, binds himself to the fulfillment of his
promises ; his people, by receiving them, bind themselves to trust
and serve him. This idea is included in the representation given
(Rom. vi., 3, 4), in the formula of baptism, and in all those pas
sages in which a participation of Christian ordinances is said to
include a profession of the gospel." (2.) As seals attached to the
covenant, it follows that they actually convey the grace signified,
as a legal form of investiture, to those to whom, according to the
terms of the covenant, it belongs. Thus a deed, when signed and
sealed, is said to convey the property it represents, because it is
the legal form by which the intention of the original possessor is
publicly expressed, and his act ratified. It is on this ground that
in Scripture, as in common language, the names and attributes
of the graces sealed are ascribed to the sacraments by which they
are sealed and conveyed to their rightful possessors. — Conf. Faith,
Chap. XXVII., section 2. They are said to wash away sin, to
unite to Christ, to save, etc., Acts ii., 38 ; xxii., 16 ; Rom. vi., 2, 6 ;
1 Cor. x., 16 ; xii., 13 ; Gal. iii., 27 ; Titus iii., 5.— Way of Life.
15. What is the Romish doctrine of " intention" as connected
with this subject ?
Dens (Vol. V., p. 127) says, " To the valid performance of
the sacrament is required the intention upon the part of the
officiating minister of doing that which the church does. The
necessary intention in the minister consists in an act of his will,
by which he wills the external action with the intention of doing
what the church does ;" that is, of performing a valid sacrament.
Otherwise, although every external action may be regularly per
formed, the whole is void. See Coun. Trent, Sess. 7, canon 11,

THEIR NECESSITY. 477
This leaves the recipient entirely at th'e mercy of the minister,
since the validity of the whole service depends upon his secret
intention, and is evidently one of the devices of that antichris-
tian church to make the people dependent upon the priesthood.
16. Wliat is the sense in which Protestants admit "intention"
to be necessary ?
They admit that in order to render the outward service a valid
sacrament, it must be performed with the ostensible professed
design of complying thereby with the command of Christ, and of
doing what he requires to be done by those who accept the gospel
covenant. 17. What doctrine do the ritualists maintain as to the neces
sity of the sacraments ?
The Romanists distinguish, 1st, between a condition absolutely
necessary to attain an end, and one which is only highly conveni
ent and helpful in order to it. And, 2d, between the necessity
which attaches to essential means, and that obligation which
arises from the positive command of God. Accordingly, they
hold that the several sacraments are necessary in different re
spects. Baptism they hold to be absolutely necessary, either its actual
reception, or the honest purpose to receive it, alike for infants and
adults, as the sole means of attaining salvation.
Penance they hold to be absolutely necessary in the same
sense, but only for those who have committed mortal sin subse
quently to their baptism.
Orders they hold to be absolutely nocessary in the same sense,
yet not for every individual, as a means of personal salvation,
but in respect to the whole church as a community.
Confirmation, the Eucharist, ard Extreme Unction are
necessary only in the sense of having been commanded, and of
being eminently helpful
Marriage they hold to be necessary only in this second sense,
and only for those who enter into the conjugal relation. — Cat.
Rom., Part IL, Chap. I., Q. 13.
Puseyites, and high churchmen generally, hold the dogma of

478 sacraments.
baptismal regeneration, and of course the consequence that bap
tism is absolutely necessary as the sole means of salvation.
18. What is the Protestant doctrine as to the necessity of th
sacraments ?
lst.^That the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper
were instituted by Christ, and that their perpetual observance is
obligatory upon the church upon the ground of the divine precept.
This is evident (1.) from the record of their institution, Matt,
xxviii., 19 ; 1 Cor. xi., 25, 26 ; (2.) from the example of the
apostles, Acts ii. 41 ; viii., 37 ; 1 Cor. xi., 23-28 ; x, 16-21.
2d. That nevertheless the grace offered in the gospel covenant
does not reside in these sacraments physically, nor is it tied to
them inseparably, so that, although obligatory as duties, and
helpful as means to those who are prepared to receive them, they ¦
are in no sense the essential means, without which salvation can
not be attained. This is proved by the arguments presented
above, under question 12.
19. What sacraments impress a " character" according to
the Romanists, and what do they mean by that term ?
They hold that the effects of the sacraments are twofold,
1st, sanctifying grace, which is an effect common to them all.
2d. The "character" they impress, which is an effect peculiar to
three, baptism, confirmation, and holy orders. This " sacramen
tal character" (from the Greek word xapanrrip, a mark, or device, ,
engraved or impressed by a seal) is 'a distinctive and indelible
impression stamped on the soul, " the twdfold effect of which is,
that it qualifies us to receive or perform something sacred, and,
distinguishes one from another." It is upon this account that
baptism and confirmation are never repeated, and that the au
thority and privUeges of the priesthood can never be alienated. —
Cat. Rom., Part IL, Chap. I., Q. 18 and 19 ; Council Trent,
7, can. 9.
This is. an idle conceit, altogether unsupported by Scripture.

CHAPTER XXXIX.
baptism, its Nature and design, mode, subjects, efiicacy,
and necessity.^
The nature and design of baptism.
1. How is baptism defined in our standards ?
Con. of Faith, Chap. XXVIII. L. Cat., Q. 165. S. Cat.,
Q.94 The essential points of this definition are, 1st, it is a washing
with water. 2d. A washing in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost. 3d. It is done with the design to " signify and seal
our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the
covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the 'Lord's."
2. What is essential to the " matter" of baptism ?
As to its "matter," baptism is essentially a washing with
water. No particular mode of washing is essential, 1st, because
no such mode is specified in the command. See below, questions
7-17. 2d. Because no such mode of administration is essential
to the proper symbolism of the ordinance. See below, question
6. On the other hand, water is necessary, 1st, because it is com
manded. 2d. Because it is essential to the symbolism of the rite.
It is the natural symbol of moral purification, Eph. v., 25, 26 ;
and it was established as such in the ritual of Moses.
3. What is necessary as to the form of words in which bap
tism is administered ?
It is essential to the validity of the ordinance that it should
be administered "in the name of the Father, and of the Son,. and
»f the Holy Ghost." This is certain, 1st, because it is included

480 BAPTISM.
in the command, Matt, xxviii., 19. 2d. From the significancy of
the rite. Besides being a symbol of purification, it is essentially,
as a rite of initiation into the Christian church, a covenanting
ordinance whereby the recipient recognizes and pledges his allegi
ance to God in that character and in those relations in which he
has revealed himself to us in the Scriptures. The formula of
baptism, therefore, is a summary statement of the whole Scrip
ture doctrine of the Triune Jehovah as he has chosen to reveal
himself to us, and in all those relations which the several. Persons
of the Trinity graciously sustain in the scheme of redemption to
the believer. Hence the baptism of all those sects which reject
the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity is invalid.
The frequent phrases, to be baptized in " the name of Jesus
Christ," or "in the name of the Lord Jesus," or "in the name of.
the Lord," (Acts ii. 38 ; x., 48 ; xix., 5,) do not at all present
, the form of words which the apostles used in administering this
sacrament, but are simply used to designate Christian baptism in
distinction from that of John, or to indicate the uniform effect of
that spiritual grade which is symbolized in baptism, viz., union
with Christ, GaL iii., 27.
4 What is the meaning of the formula " to baptize in the name
(elg rb ovofia) of any one" ?
To be baptized "in the name of Paul," (elg rb bvojxa,) 1 Cor.
L, 13, or " unto Moses," (elg rbv Mavorjv,) 1 Cor. x., 2, is, on the
part of the baptized, to be made the believing and obedient dis
ciples of Paul and Moses, and the objects of their care, and tho
participants in whatever blessings they have to bestow. To be
baptized in the name of the Trinity, (Matt, xxviii., 19,) or " in
the name of the Lord Jesus," (Acts xix., 5,) or "into Jesus
Christ," (Rom. vi., 3,) is by baptism, or rather by the grace of
which ritual baptism is the sign to be united to Christ, or to the
Trinity through Christ, as his disciples, believers in his doctrine,
heirs of his promises, and participants in his spiritual life.
5. What is the design of baptism ?
Its design is —
1st. Primarily, to signify seal and convey to those to whom
|( they belong the benefits of the covenant of grace. Thus (1.) It

EMBLEMATIC IMPORT OF BAPTISM. 481
symbolizes " the washing of regeneration," " the renewing of the
Holy Ghost," which unites the believer to Christ, and so makes
him a participant in Christ's life and all other benefits, 1 Cor. xii.j
13 ; GaL iii., 27 ; Titus iii., 5. (2.) Christ herein visibly seals
his promises to those who receive it with faith, and invests them
with the grace promised.
2d. Its design was, secondarily, as springing from the former,
(1.) to be a visible sign jff our covenant to be the Lord's, i. e., to
accept hissalyation, and to consecrate ourselves to his service.
(2.) AndTTience, to be a badge of our public profession, our sepa
ration from the world, and our initiation into the visible church.
As a badge it marks us as belonging to the Lord, and consequently
a distinguishes us from the world, b symbolizes our union with
our fellow-Christians, 1 Cor. xii., 13.
6. What is the emblematic import of baptism ?
In every sacrament there is a visible sign representing an in
visible grace. The sign represents the grace in virtue of Christ's
authoritatively appointing it thereto, but the selection by Christ
of the particular sign is founded on its fitness as a natural em
blem of the grace which he appoints it to represent. Thus in the
Lord's supper the bread broken by the officiating minister, and the
wine poured out, are natural emblems of the body of Christ broken,
and his blood shed as a sacrifice for our sins. And in like man
ner in the sacramgni-of— baptism the application of water to the
person of the recipient js_a natural emblem ofthe_i' .washing of
regeneration," Titus iii., 5. Hence we are said to be " born of
water~and of the Spirit," John iii., 5, i. e., regenerated byjdie
Holy_Spirit, of which new birth baptism with water is the em
blem ; and to be baptized "by one Spirit into one body," i. e., the
spiritual body of Christ ; and to be " baptised into Christ," so as
" to have put on Christ," Gal. iii., 27 ; and to be " baptized into
his death," and to be " buried with him in baptism . . . sc
that we should walk with him in newness of life," Rom. vi., 3, 4,
because the sacrament of baptism is the emblem of that spiritual
regeneration which unites us both federally and spiritually to
Christ, so that we have part with him both in his life a,nd in his
death, and as he died unto sin as a sacrifice, so we die unto sin
in its ceasing to be the controling principle of our ^natures, and as
31

482 BAPTISM.
he rose again in the resumption of his natural life, we rise to the
possession and exercise of a new spiritual life.
Baptist interpreters, on the other hand, insist that the Bible
teaches that the outward sign in this sacrament, being the immer
sion of the whole body in water, is an emblem both of purifica
tion and of our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. Dr.
Carson says, p. 381, " The immersion of the whole body is essen-
tiaLto baptism, not because nothing but immersion can be an
emblem of purification, but because immersion is the thing com
manded, and because that, without immersion, there is no em
blem of death, burial and resurrection, which are in the emblem
equaUy with purification." He founds his assumption that the
outward sign in the sacrament of baptism was designed to be an „
emblem of the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer in
union with Christ, upon Rom. vi., %3, 4, and Col. ii., 12.
We object to this interpretation, 1st, in neither of these pas
sages does Paul say that our baptism in water is an emblem of
our burial with Christ. He is evidently speaking of that spir
itual baptism of which water baptism is the emblem ; by which
spiritual baptism we are caused to die unto sin, and live unto
holiness, in which death and new life we are conformed unto the
death and resurrection of Christ. We are said to be " baptised into
Christ," which is the work of the Spirit, not "into the name of
Christ," which is the phrase always used when speaking of ritual
baptism, Matt, xxviii., 19 ; Acts ii., 38 ; xix., 5. 2d. Tp bo
" baptized into his death" is a phrase perfectly analogous to bap
tism " into repentance," Matt, iii., 11, and " into remission of
sins," Mark L, 4, and " into one body," 1 Cor. xii., 13," i. e., in
order that, or to the effect that we participate in the benefits of
his death.
3d. The Baptist interpretation involves an utter confusion in
reference to the emblem. Do they mean that the outward sign
of immersion is an emblem of the death, burial, and resurrection
of Christ, or of the spiritual death, burial and resurrection of the
believer ? But the point of comparison- in the passages them
selves is plainly " not between our baptism and the burial and
resurrection of Christ, but between our death to sin and rising to
holiness, and the death and resurrection of the Redeemer."
4th. Baptists agree with us that baptism with water is an em-

MODE OF BAPTISM. 483
blem of spiritual purification, i. e., regeneration, but insist that
it is also an emblem (in the mode of immersion) of the death of
the believer to sin and his new fife of holiness. — Dr. Carson, p.
143. But what is the distinction between regeneration and a
death unto sin, and life unto holiness ?
5th. Baptists agree with us that water baptism is an emblem
of purification. But surely it is impossible that the same action
should at the same time be an emblem of a washing, and of a
burial and a resurrection. One idea may be associated with the
the other in consequence of their spiritual relations, but it is
impossible that the same visible sign should be emblematical of
both. 6th. Our union with Christ through the Spirit, and the spirit
ual consequences thereof, are illustrated in Scripture by many
various figures, e. g., the substitution of a heart of flesh for a
heart of stone, Ezek. xxxvi., 26 ; the building of a house, Eph.
ii., 22 ; the ingrafting of a limb into a vine, John xv., 5 ; the
putting off of filthy garments, and the putting on of clean, Eph.
iv., 22-24 ; as a spiritual death, burial and resurrection, and as a
being planted in the likeness of his death, Rom. vi., 3-5 ; as the
application of a cleansing element to the body, Ezek. xxxvi., 25.
No'w baptism with water represents aU tiiese, because it is an em
blem of spiritual regeneration, of which aU of these are analogical
illustrations. Hence we are said to be "baptized into one body,"
1 Cor. xii., 13, and by baptism to "have put on Christ," Gal. iii.,
27. Yet it would be absurd to regard water baptism as a literal
emblem of all these, and our Baptist brethren have no scriptural
warrant for assuming that the outward sign in this sacrament is
an emblem of the one analogy more than of the other. See Dr.
Armstrong's " Doctrine of Baptisms," Part IL, Chap. II.
The mode of baptism.
7. What are the words which, in the original language of
Scripture, are used to convey the command to baptize ?
The primary word pdn-rw occurs four times in the New Testa- •
ment, (Luke xvi., 24, John xiii., 26, Rev. xix., 13,) but never in
connection with the subject of Christian baptism. Its classical
meaning was, 1st, to dip ; 2d, to dye. I

484 BAPTISM.
The word pa^ri^b), in form, though not in usage, the frequent
ative of pdnru, occurs seventy-six times in the New Testament,
and is the word used by the Holy Ghost to convey the command
to baptize. Its classical meaning was dip, submerge, sink. Be
sides these, we have the nouns of the same root and usage,
Pam-iopa occurring twenty-two times, translated baptism, and
Bairnouog occurring four times, translated baptism, Heb. vi., 2,
and washing, Mark vii., 4, 8 ; Heb. ix., 10. The only question
with which we are concerned, however, is as to the scriptural
, usage of these words. It is an important and universally recog
nized principle, that the biblical and classical usage of the same
word is often very different. This effect is to be traced to the
influence of three general causes.
1st. The principal classics of the language were composed in
the Attic dialect. But the general language used by the Greek-
speaking world at the Christian era was the " common, or Heli
lenic dialect of the later Greek," resulting from the fusion of. the
different dialects previously existing.
2d. The language of the writers of the New Testament was
again greatly modified by the fact that their vernacular was a
form of the Hebrew language (Syro-Chaldaic) ; that their con
stant use of the Septuagjnt translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
had largely influenced their usage of the Greek language, espe-
ciaUy in the department of religious thought and expression ; and
that, in the very act of composing the New Testament Scrip
tures, they were engaged in the statement of religious ideas, and
in the inauguration of religious institutions which had their types
and symbols in the ancient dispensation, as revealed in the sacred
language of the Hebrew Scriptures.
3d. The New Testament writings are a revelation of new ideas
and relations, and hence the words and phrases through which
these new thoughts are conveyed must be greatly modified in re
spect to their former etymological sense and heathen usage, and
t(. for the full depth and compass of meaning belonging to them
in their new application we must look to the New Testament
¦ itself, comparing one passage with another, and viewing the lan
guage used in the light of the great things which -it brings to our
apprehension." As examples of this contrast between the scriptural and clas-

• MODE OF BAPTISM. 485
sica] usage of a word, observe, dyyeXog, angel ; irpeoPvrepog. pres
byter or elder ; eKK,Xr\oia, -church ; HaaiXela tov 6eov, or ruv
ovpavuv, kingdom of God, or of heaven ; iraXiyyeveaia, regenera
tion ; %dpig, grace, etc., etc. — Fairbairn's " Herm. Manual,"
Part I., section 2.
8. What is the position of the Baptist churches as to the mean
ing of the Scriptural word Panrifa, and by what arguments do
they seek to prove that immersion is the only valid mode of bap
tism ?
" That it always signifies to dip, never expressing any thing
but mode." — Carson on Baptism, p. 55. They insist, therefore,
upon always translating the word J3anTi£u and &d-nna\m by the
words immerse and immersion.
They argue that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism,
1st, from the constant meaning of the word fia-nrifa. 2d. From
the symbolical import of the rite, as emblematic of burial and
resurrection. 3d. From the practice of the apostles. 4th. From
history of the early church.
9. What is the position occupied upon this point by all other
Christians ?
1st. It is an established principle of scriptural usage that the
names and attributes of the things signified by sacramental signs
are attributed to the signs, and on the other hand that the name
of the sign is used to designate the grace signified. Thus, Gen.
xvii., 11, 13, the name of covenant is given to circumcision ;
Matt, xxvi., 26-28, Christ called the bread his body, and the wine
his blood ; Titus iii., 5, baptism is called the washing of regenera
tion. Thus also the words baptize and baptism are often used
to designate that work of the Holy Ghost in regeneration, which
the sign, or water baptism, signifies, Matt, iii., 11 ; 1 Cor. xii.,
13 ; Gal. iii., 27 ; Deut. xxx., 6. It follows consequently that
these words are often used in a spiritual sense.
2d. These words when relating to ritual baptism, or the sign
representing the thing signified, imply the application of water in
the name of the Trinity, as an emblem of purification or spiritual
regeneration, and never, in their scriptural usage, signify any
thing whatever as to the mode in which the water is. applied.

486 baptism.
I have answered, under question 6, above, the second baptist
argument, as stated under question 8. Their first and third argu
ments, as there stated, I will proceed to answer now.
«
10. How may it be proved from their scriptural usage that
the toords Pann^u and j3dTrriap,a do not signify immersion, but
washing to effect purification, without any reference to mode ?
1st. The word occurs four times in the Septuagint translation
of the Old Testament, in three of which instances it refers to bap
tism with water. 2 Kings v., 14 — The prophet told Naaman to
"wash and be clean," and " he baptized himself in Jordan, and
he was clean." Eccle. xxxiv, 25 — " He that baptiseth himself
after the touching of a dead body." This purification according
to the law was accomplished by sprinkling the water of separa
tion, Num. xix., 9, 13, 20. Judith xii., 7, Judith " baptized her
self in the camp at a fountain of water." Bathing was not per
formed among those nations by immersion ; and the circumstances
in which Judith was placed increase the improbability in her case.
It was a purification for she " baptized herself," and " so came
in clean." 2d. The question agitated between some of John's disciples
and the Jews, John iii., 22-30, and iv., 1-3, concerning baptism
is called a question concerning purification, nepl K,adapiafj,ov.
3d. Matt, xv., 2 ; Mark vii., 1-5 ; Luke xi., 37-39. The
word Qanrifa is here used (1.) for the customary washing of the
hands before meals, which was designed to purify, and was habit
ually performed by pouring water upon them, 2 Kings iii., 11 ;
(2.) it is interchanged with the word v'mru, which always signi
fies a partial washing ; (3.) its effect is declared to be to purify,
KaOapi&iv • (4.) the baptized or washed hands are opposed to the
unclean, uoivaig
4th. Mark vii., 4, 8, " Baptism of pots and cups, brazen ves
sels, and of tables," nXivai, couches upon which Jews reclined at
their meals, large enough to accommodate several persons at once.
The object of these baptisms was purification, and the mode could
not have been immersion in the case of the tables, couches, etc.
5th. Heb. ix., 10, Paul says the first tabernacle " stood only
in meats, and drinks, and divers baptisms." In verses 13, 19, 21,
he specifies some of these " divers baptisms" or washings, " For

. MODE OF BAPTISM 487
/
if the blood of buUs and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprink
ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," and
" Moses sprinkled both the book and all the people, and the tab
ernacle, and aU the vessels of the ministry." — Dr. Armstrong's
" Doc. of Bapt.," Part I.
11. What argument in favor of this view of the subject
may be drawn from what is said of baptism with the Holy
Ghost? Matt, iii., 11 ; - Mark L, 8 ; Luke iii., 16 ; John L, 26, 33 ;
Acts i., 5 ; xi., 16 ; 1 Cor. xii., 13.
If the word fia-nrifa only means to immerse, it would be inca
pable of the figurative use to which, in these passages, it is actu
ally subjected. But if, as we claim, it signifies to purify, to
cleanse, then water baptism, as a washing, though never as an
immersion, may fitly represent the cleansing work of the Holy
Ghost. See next question.
12. What argument may be drawn from the fact that the bles
sings symbolized by baptism are said to be applied by sprinkling
and pouring ?
The gift of the Holy Ghost was the grace signified, Acts ii.,
1-4, 32, 33; x, 44-48; xi., 15, 16. The fire which did not
immerse them, but appeared as cloven tongues, and " sat upon
each one of them," was the sign of that grace. Jesus was him
self the baptizer, who now fulfilled the prediction of John the
Baptist that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with
fire. This gift of the Holy Ghost is set forth in such terms as
"came from heaven," "poured out," "shed forth," "fell on
them." These very blessings were predicted in the Old Testament by
similar language, Is. xliv., 3 ; Iii., 15 ; Ezek. xxxvi., 25-27 ; Joel
ii., 28, 29. Hence we argue that if these spiritual blessings were
predicted in the Old Testament by means of these figures of
sprinkling and pouring, and if in the New Testament they were
symbolically set forth under the same form, they may, of course,
be symbolized by the church now by the same emblematical
actions.

488 baptism.
13. What argument may be drawn from the mode of purifica
tion adopted under the Old Testament ?
The rites of purification prescribed by the Levitical law were
in no case commanded to be performed by immersion in the case
of persons. Washing and bathing is prescribed, but there is no
indication given by the words used, or otherwise, that these were
performed by immersion, which was not the usual mode of bathing
practiced in those countries. The hands and feet of the priests,
whenever they appeared to minister before the Lord, were washed,
Ex. xxx., 18-21, and their personal ablutions were performed at
the brazen laver, 2 Chron. iv, 6, from which the water poured
forth through spouts or cocks, 1 Kings vii., 27-39. On the other
hand, purification was freely ordered to be effected by sprinkling
of blood, ashes, or water, Lev. viii., 30 ; xiv., 7, and 51 ; Ex.
xxiv., 5-8 ; Num. viii., 6, 7 ; Heb. ix., 12-22. Now, as Chris
tian baptism is a purification, and as it was instituted among the
Jews, familiar with the Jewish forms of purification, it follows
that a knowledge of those forms must throw much light upon the
essential nature and proper mode of the Christian rite.
14. How may it be shown from 1 Cor. x., 1, 2, and from 1
Pet. iii., 20, 21, that to baptize does not mean to immerse ?
1 Cor. x., 1, 2. The Israelites are said to have been " bap
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Compare Ex. xiv.,
19-31. The Israelites were baptized, yet went over dry-shod.
The Egyptians were immersed, yet not baptized. Dr. Carson,
p. 413, says, Moses " got a dry dip."
1 Pet. iii., 20, 21. Peter declares that baptism is the anti
type of the salvation of the eight souls in the ark. Yet their sal
vation consisted in their not being immersed.
15. Was the baptism of John Christian baptism ?
John was the last Old Testament prophet, Matt, xi., 13, 14
He came " in the spirit and power of Elias," Luke L, 17, in the
garb, with the manners, and teaching the doctrine of the ancient
prophets. He preached that the " kingdom of heaven was at
band," and pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God. His baptism

MODE OF BAPTISM. 489
was a purification, emblematic of repentance, which Christ had
some to give, Acts v., 31.
It was not Christian baptism, because, 1st, it was not adminis
tered in the name of the Trinity. 2d. It was not a rite of initia
tion, into any church, John himself belonging to tho old economy. '
3d. Those who had only received John's baptism were rebaptized
by Paul, Acts xviii., 24-26 ; xix., 1-7.
16. What argument as to the proper mode of baptism is to be
drawn from the record of the baptisms performed by John ?
1st. John's baptism was not the Christian sacrament, but a
rite of purification administered by a Jew upon Jews, under
Jewish law. From this we infer (1.) that it was not performed
by immersion, since the Levitical purification of persons was not
performed in that way ; yet (2.) that he needed for his purpose
either a running stream as Jordan, or much water as at ^Enon
(or the springs), because under that law whatsoever an unclean
person touched previous to his purification became unclean, Num.
xix., 21, 22, with the exception of a " fountain or pit in which is
plenty of water," Lev. xi., 36, which he could not find in the
desert in which he preached. After the gospel dispensation was
introduced we hear nothing of the apostles baptizing in rivers, Or
needing " much water" for that purpose.
2d. In no single instance is it stated in the record that John
baptized by immersion. AU the language employed applies just
as naturally and as accurately to a baptism performed by affusion
(the subject standing partly in the water, the baptizer pouring
water upon the person with his hand.) The phrases " baptized
in Jordan," " coming out of the water," would have been as accu
rately applied in the one case as in the other. That John's bap
tism was more probably performed by affusion appears (1.) from
the fact that it was a purification performed by a Jewish prophet
upon Jews, and that Jewish washings were performed by affusion.
The custom was general then, and has continued to this day.
(2.) This mode better accords with the vast multitudes bap
tized by one man, Matt, iii., 5, 6 ; Mark i., 5 ; Luke iii., 3-21.
(3.) The very earliest works of Christian art extant represent the
baptism of Christ by John as having been performed by affusion.—
Dr. Armstrong's " Doctrine of Baptisms," Part IL, Chap. III.

490 BAPTISM.
17. What evidence is afforded by the instances of Christian
baptism recorded in the New Testament ?
1st. It has been abundantly shown above that the command
to baptize is a command to purify by washing with water, and
it hence follows that even if it could be shown that the apostles
baptized by immersion, that fact would not prove that particular
mode of washing to be essential to the validity of the ordinance,
unless it can be proved also that, according to the analogies of
gospel institutions, the mere mode of obeying a command is made
as essential as the thing itself: But the reverse is notoriously the
fact. The church was organized on certain general principles,
and the public worship of the gospel ordained, but the details as
to the manner of accomplishing those ends are not prescribed.*
Christ instituted the Lord's supper at night, reclining on a couch,
and with unleavened bread. Yet in none of these respects is the
" mode" essential.
2d. But, in fact, there is not one instance in which the record
makes it even probable that the apostles baptized by immersion,
and in the great majority of instances it is rendered in the last
degree improbable.
(1.) The baptism of the Eunuch by Philip, Acts viii., 26-39,
is the only instance which even by appearance favors immersion.
But observe a the language used by Luke, even as rendered iri
our version, applies just as naturally to baptism performed by
affusion as by immersion, b The Greek prepositions, elg, here
translated into, and en, here translated out of, are in innumerable
instances used to express motion, toward, unto and from, Acts
xxvi., 14 ; xxvii., 34, 40. They probably descended from the
chariot to the brink of the water. Philip is also said to have
"descended to" and to have "ascended from the water," but
surely he was not also immersed, c The very passage of Isaiah,
which the Eunuch was reading, Is. IiL, 15, declared that the
Messiah, in whom he believed, should " sprinkle many nations."
d Luke says the place was " a desert," and no body of water suf
ficient for immersion can be discovered on .that road. (2.) Every
other instance of Christian baptism recorded in the Scriptures
bears evidence positively against immersion, a The baptism of
three thousand in Jerusalem on one Occasion on the day of Pen-

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 49]
tecost, Acts ii., 38-41. b The baptism of Paul, Acts ix., 17, 18 ;
xxii., 12-16. Annanias said to him " standing up, be baptized,"
dvaardg pdnnaai, and, "standing, up he was baptized." c The
baptism of Cornelius, Acts x., 44-48. d The baptism of the
jailor, at Philippi, Acts xvi., 32-34 In all these instances bap
tism was administered on the spot, wherever the convert received
the gospel. Nothing is said of rivers, or much water, but vast
multitudes at a time, and individuals and families were baptized
in their houses, or in prisons, wherever they happened to be at
the moment.
Subjects of baptism.
18. Who are the proper subjects of baptism ?
Conf. Faith, Chap. XXVIII., section 4 ; L. Cat., question
166 ; S. Cat., question 95.
All those, and those only, who are members of the visible
church, are to be baptized. These are, 1st, they who make a
credible profession of their faith in Christ ; 2d, the chUdren of
one or both believing parents.
19. What in the case of adults are the prerequisites of bap
tism ?
Credible profession of their faith in Jesus as their Saviour.
This is evident, 1st, from the very nature of the ordinance as
symbolizing spiritual gifts, and as sealing our covenant to be the
Lord's, -See below, Chap. XL., question 23. 2d. From the
uniform practice of the apostles and evangelists, Acts ii., 41 ;
viii., 37.
20. What is the visible^ church, to which baptism is the
initiating rite ?
1st. The word church, lKK,Xr\oia, is used in Scripture in the
general sense of the ccjopanv^flGiidZs^ieaple^^
world, and_bound to him in covenajatjelations.
2d. The true spiritual church, therefore, in distinction to the
phenominal church organized on earth, consists of the whole com-
pany^pJLtheelect, who are included in the eternal covenant of

492 BAPTISM.
grace formed between the Father and the second Adam, Eph. v.,
27 ; Heb. xii., 23.
3d.' But the visible church universal consists of "all those
throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with
their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the
house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary pos
sibility of salvation," Conf. Faith, Chap. XXV., section 2. This
visible kingdom, Christ, as Mediator of the covenant of grace, has
instituted, as an administrative provision, for the purpose of ad
ministering thereby the provisions of that covenant ; and this
kingdom, as an outward visible society of professors, he established
by the covenant he made with Abraham, Gen. xii., 1-3 ; Xvii.,
1-14. 4th. Christ has administered this covenant in three successive
modes or dispensations. (1.) From Abraham to Moses, during
which he attached to it the ratifying seal of circumcision. (2.)
From Moses to his' advent, (for the law which was temporarily
added did not make the promise of none effect, but rather admin
istered it in a special mode, Gal. iii., 17,) he added a new seal,
the passover, emblematic of tfie atoning work of the promised
seed, as set forth in the clearer revelation then vouchsafed. (3.)
From Christ to the end of the world, when the promise being
unfolded in an incomparably fuller revelation, the original seals
are superseded by baptism and the Lord's supper. See below,
question 21.
5th. That the Abrahamic covenant was designed to embrace
the visible church of Christ, and not his mere natural seed in
their family or national capacity, is plain. (1.) It pledged sal-.
vation by Christ on the condition of faith.. Compare Gen. xii., 3,
with Gal. iii,, 8, 16 ; Acts iii., 25, 26. (2.) The sign and seal
attached to it symbolized jpjritual blessings, and sealed justifica
tion^ faith, Deut. x., 15, 16 ; xxx., 6 ; Jer. iv., 4 ; Rom. ii.,
28, 29 ; iv., 11. (3.) This covenant was made with him as the
representative of the visible church universal, a "It was made
with him as the " father of many nations." Paul said it consti
tuted him the " heir of the world," " the father of all them that
believe," Rom. iv., 11, 13, and that aU believers in Christ now,
Jew or Gentile, are " Abraham's seed and heirs accprding to the
promi^te," Gal. iii., 29. b It contained a provision for the intro-

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 493
duction to its privileges of those who were not born of the natu
ral seed of Abraham, Gen. xvii., 12 Multitudes of such prose
lytes had been thus introduced before the advent of Christ, and
many such were present in Jerusalem as members of the church
under its old form on the day of Pentecost, " out of every nation
under heaven," Acts ii., 5-11.
6th. That the church thus embraced in this administrative
covenant is not the body of the elect, as such, but the visible
church of professors and their children, is evident, because, (1.)
the covenant contains the offer of the gospel, including the setting
forth of Christ, and the offer of his salvation to all men (all the
families of the earth) on the condition of faith, Gal. iii., 8. But
this belongs to the visible church, and must be administered by
means of inspired oracles and a visible ministry. (2.) As an in
disputable fact, there wasjrach a visible society under the old
dispensation ; and under the new dispensation all Christians,
whatever theories they may entertain, attempt to realize the ideal
of such a visible society, for Christian and ministerial commu
nion. (3.) Under both dispensations Christ has committed to
his church, as to a visible kingdom, written records, sacramental
ordinances, ecclesiastical institutions, and a teaching and ruling
ministry. Although these are all designed to minister the pro
visions of the covenant of grace, and to effect as their ultimate
end the ingathering of the elect, it is evident that visible signs
and seals, a written word and a visible ministry, can, as such,
attach only to a visible church, Rom. ix., 4 ; Eph. iv., 11. (4.)
The same representation of the church is given in the New Tes
tament, in the parable of the tares, etc., Matt, xiii., 24-30, and
47-50 ; xxv., 1-13. It was to consist of a mixed community of
good and evil, true and merely professed believers, and the sepa
ration is not to be made until the " end of the world."
7th. This visible church from the beginning has been trans
mitted and extended in a twofold manner. (1.) Those who are
born "strangers from the covenants of promise," or " aliens from
the commonwealth of Israel," Eph. ii., 12, were introduced to
that relation only by profession of faith and conformity of life.
Under the old dispensation, these are called proselytes, Acts ii.,
10 ¦ Num. xv. 15. (2.) All born within the covenant had part
in all of the benefits of a standing in the visible church by inheri-

494 BAPTISM.
tance. The covenant was with Abraham and his " seed after
him, in all their generations, as an everlasting covenant," and
consequently they received the sacrament which was the sign
and seal of that covenant. Hence the duty of teaching and train
ing was engrafted on the covenant, Gen.'xviiL, 18, 19 ; and the
church made a school, or training institution, Deut. vi., 6-9. In
accordance with this, Christ commissioned his apostles to disciple
all nations, baptizing and teaching them, Matt, xxviii., 19, 20.
Thus the church is represented as a flock, including the lambs with
the sheep, Is. xl., 11, and as a vineyard in which the scion is
trained, the barren tree cultivated, and. if incurable, cut down,
Is. v. 1-7 ; Luke xiii., 7, 8.
21. How may it be shown that this visible church is identical
under both dispensations, and what argument may be thence de
rived to prove that the infant children of believers should be bap
tized ? ,
1st. The church, under both dispensations, has the same na
ture and design. The Old Testament church, embraced in the
Abrahamic convenant, rested on the gospel offer of salvation by
faith, Gal. iii., 8 ; Heb. xi. Its design was to prepare a spiritual
seed for the Lord. Its sacraments symbolized and sealed the
same grace as those of the New Testament church. Thus the
passover, as the Lord's supper, represented the sacrifice of Christ,
1 Cor. v., 7. Circumcision, as baptism, represented " the put
ting off the body of the sins of the flesh," and baptism is called by
Paul " the circumcision of Christ," Col. ii., 11, 12. Even the
ritual pf the Mosaic law was only a symbolical revelation of the
gospel. 2d. They bear precisely the same name. iKicX7]aia nvp'iov, the
church of the Lord, is an exact rendering in Greek of the Hebrew
n irr; bnp: translated in our version the " congregation of the Lord."
Compare Ps. xxii.,22, with Heb. ii., 12. Thus Stephen called
the congregation of Israel before Sinai " the church in the wilder
ness." Compare Acts vii., 38, with Ex. xxxii. Thus also Christ
is the Greek form of the Hebrew Messiah, and the elders of the
New Testament church are indenticabin function and name with
those of the synagogue.
3d. There is no evidence whatever furnished by the apostolical

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 495
records that the ancient church was abolished and a new and a differ
ent one organized in its place. The apostles never say one word about
any such new organization. The preexistence of such a visible
society is everywhere taken for granted as a fact. Their disciples
were always added to the "church" or "congregation" previously
existing, Acts ii., 47. The Mosaic ritual law, by means of which
the Abrahamic character of the church had been administered for
about fifteen hundred years, was indeed abolished. But Paul
argues that the introduction of this law, four hundred and thirty
years after, could not make the promise of none effect, Gal. iii.,
17, and consequently the disannulling of the law could only give
place to the more perfect execution of the covenant, and develop
ment of the church embraced within it.
4th. There is abundant positive evidence that the ancient
church, resting upon its original charter, was not abolished by
the new dispensation. (1.) Many of the Old Testament prophe
cies plainly declare that the then existing visible church, instead
of being abrogated by the advent of the Messiah, should thereby
be gloriously strengthened and enlarged, so as to embrace the
Gentiles also, Is. xlix., 13-23, and Ix., 1-14. They declare also
that the federal constitution, embracing the child with the parent,
shall continue under the new dispensation of the church, after
" the Redeemer has come to Zion," Is. fix., 21, 22. Peter, in
Acts iii., 22, 23, expounds the prophecy of Moses, Deut. xviii,,
15-19, to the effect that every soul which will not hear that prophet
(the Messiah) shall be cut off from among -the people, i. e., from
the church, which of course implies that the church from which
they are cut off continues. (2.) In precise accordance with these
prophecies Paul declares that the Jewish church was not abro
gated, but that the unbelieving Jews were cut off from their own
olive tree, and the Gentile branches grafted in in their place ; and he
foretells the time when God will graft the Jews back again into
their own stock and not into another, Rom." xi., 18-26. He says
that the alien Gentiles are made fellow-citizens with believing
Jews in the old household of the faith, Eph. ii., 11-22. (3.) The
covenant which constituted the ancient church also constituted
Abraham the father of many nations. The promise of the covenant
was that God would "be a God unto him and to his seed after
him." This covenant, therefore, embraced the " many nations"

496 BAPTISM.
with their father Abraham. Hence it never could have been ful
filled until the advent of the Messiah, and the abolishment of the
restrictive law. Hence the Abrahamic covenant, instead of hav
ing been superseded by the gospel, only now begins to have its
just accomplishment. Hence, on the day of Pentecost, Peter
exhorts all to repent and be baptized, because the Abrahamic
covenant still held in force for all Jews and for their children, and
for all those afar off, i. e., Gentiles, as many as God should call,
Acts ii., 38, 39. Hence also Paul argued earnestly that since the
Abrahamic covenant is still in force, therefore, from its very terms,
the Gentiles who should believe in Christ had a right to a place
in that ancient church, which was founded upon it, on equal terms
with the Jews. " In thee shall all nations be blessed, so then,"
says Paul, " they which be of faith are blessed with faithful
Abraham," and all who believe in Christ, Jew or Gentle indis
criminately, " are" to the full intent of the covenant, " Abraham's
seed, and heirs according to the promise," Gal. iii., 6-29, which
promise was, " I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after
THEE." The bearing of this argument upon the question of infant
baptism is direct and conclusive.
1st. Baptism now occupies the same relation to the covenant
and the church which circumcision did. (1.) Both rites repre
sent the same spiritual grace, namely, regeneration, Deut. xxx.,
6 ; Col. ii., 11 ; Rom. vi., 3, 4. (2.) Baptism is now what cir
cumcision was, the seal, or confirming sign, of the Abrahamic
covenant. Peter says, " be baptized for the promise is to you
and to your children," Acts, ii., 38, 39. Paul says explicitly that
baptism is the sign of that covenant, " for as many as have been
baptized into Christ are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
the promise," Gal. iii., 27, 29 ; and that baptism is the circum
cision of Christ, Col. ii., 10, 11. (3.) Both rites are the appointed
forms, in successive eras, of initiation into the church, which we
have proved to be the same church under both dispensations.
2d. Since the church is the same, in the absence of all explicit
command to the contrary, the members are the same. Children
of believers were members then. They ought to be recognized
as members now, and receive the initiatory rite. This the apostles
took for granted as self-evident, and universally admitted' ; an

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 497
explicit command to baptize would have implied doubt in the
ancient church rights of infants.
3d. Since the covenant, with its promise to be " a God to the
believer and his seed," is expressly declared to stand firm under
the gospel, the believer's seed have a right to the seal of that
promise. — Dr. John M. Mason's "Essays on the Church."
22. Present the evidence that Christ recognized the church
standing of children.
1st. Christ declares of little children (Matthew, -naidia, Luke
Ppe<j>r], infants) that " of such is the kingdom of heaven," Matt.
xix., 14 ; Luke xviii., 16. The phrase " kingdom of God and
of heaven" signifies the visible church under the new dispensation,
Matt, iii., 2 ; xiii., 47. '
2d. In his recommission of Peter, after his apostasy, our Lord
commanded him as under shepherd to feed the lambs, as well as
the sheep of the flock, John xxi., 15-17.
3d. In his general commission of the apostles, he commanded
them to disciple nations (which are always constituted of fami
lies) by baptizing, and then teaching them, Matt, xxviii., 19, 20.
23. Show that the apostles always acted on the principle that
the child is a church member if the parent is.
The apostles were not settled pastors in the midst of an estab
lished Christian community, but itinerant missionaries to an un
believing world, sent not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, 1
Cor. L, 17. Hence we have in the Acts and Epistles the record
of only ten separate instances of baptism. In two of these, viz.,
of the eunuch and of Paul, Acts viii., 38 ; ix., 18, there were no
families to be baptized. In the case of the three thousand on the
day of Pentecost, the people of Samaria, and the disciples of John
at Ephesus, crowds were baptized on the very spot on which they
professed to believe. Of the remaining five instances, in the four
cases in which the family is mentioned at all, it is expressly said
they were baptized, viz., the households of Lydia of Thyatira, of
the jailer of Philippi, of Stephanas, and of Crispns, Acts xvi., 15,
32 33 • xviii. 8 ¦ 1 Cor.'L, 16. In the remaining instance of Cor
nelius, the record implies that the family was also baptized.
32

498 BAPTISM.
Thus the apostles in every case, without a single recorded excep
tion, baptized believers on the spot, and whenever they had fami
lies, they also baptized their households, as such.
They also addressed children in their epistles as members of
the church. Compare Eph. L, 1, and Col. L, 1, 2, with Eph. vi.,
1-3, and Col. iii., 20. And declared that even the children of
only one believing parent were to be regarded " holy," or conse
crated to the Lord, i. e., as church members, 1 Cor. vii., 12-14
24 What argument mag be inferred from the fact that the
blessings symbolized in baptism are promised and granted to
children ?
, Baptism represents regeneration in union with Christ. In
fants are born children of wrath, even as others. They can not
-be saved, therefore, unless they are born again, and have part in
the benefits of Christ's death. They are evidently, from the na
ture of the case, in the same sense capable of being subjects of
regeneration as adults are. " Of such is the kingdom of heaven,"
Matt, xxi., 15, 16 ; L,uke L, 41, 44.
25. What argument may be drawn from the practice of the
early church ?
The practice of infant baptism is an institution which exists
as a fact, and prevails throughout the universal church, with the
exception of the modern Baptists, whose origin can be definitely
traced to the Anabaptists of Germany, about A. D. 1537. Such
an institution must either have been handed down from the apos
tles, or have had a definite commencement as a novelty, which
must have been signalized by opposition and controversy. As a
fact, however, we find it noticed ift the very earliest records as a
universal custom, and an apostolical tradition. This is acknowl
edged by Tertullian, born in Carthage, A. D. 160, or only sixty
years after the death of the apostle John. Origen, born of Chris
tian-parents in Egypt, A. D. 185, declares that it was "the usage
of the church to baptize infants," and that " the church had re
ceived the tradition from the apostles." St. Augustin, born A. D.
354, declares that this " doctrine is held by the whole church,
not instituted by councils, but always retained."

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 499
26. How is the objection, that faith is a prerequisite to bap
tism, and that infants can not believe, to be answered ?
The Baptists argue, 1st, from the commission of the Lord,
" Go preach — he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ;
he that believeth not shall be damned," Mark xvi., 16, that in
fants ought not to be baptized because they can not believe. 2d.
From the nature of baptism, as a sign of a spiritual grace and
seal of a covenant, that infants ought not to be baptized since
they are incapable of understanding the sign, or of contracting
the covenant. .,,
We answer, 1st, the requisition of faith evidently applies
only to the adult, because faith is made the essential prerequisite
of salvation, and yet infants are saved, though they can not be
lieve. 2d. Circumcision was a sign of a spiritual grace ; it re
quired faith in the adult recipient, and it was the seal of a cove
nant ; yet, by God's appointment, infants were circumcised. The
truth is that faith is required, but it is the faith of the parent
acting for his child. The covenant of which baptism is the seal
is contracted with the parent, but as it embraces the child the
seal is properly applied to it also.
27. How can we avoid the conclusion that infants should be
admitted to the Lord's supper, if they are admitted to baptism ?
The same reason and the same precedents do not hold in re
lation to both sacraments. 1st. Baptism~r£eogrfizes^and_seais
church membership, while the Lord's supper is a commemorative
act. 2d. Iu the action of baptism the subject is passive, and in
that of the Lord's supper active. 3d. Infants were never admitted
to the Passover until they were capable of comprehending jthe
nature of the service. 4th. The apostles baptized households,
but never admitted households as such to the supper.
28. Whose children ought to be baptized ?
" Infants of such as are members of the visible church," S.
Cat., Q. 95 ; that is, theoretically, " infants of one' or both be-
lievingjoarents," Con. of Faith, Chap. XXVIII., sec. 4 ; and
practically, " of parents, one or both of them professing faith in
Ohrist."  L. Cat., Q. 166. Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, the

500 BAPTISM.
Protestants of the continent, the Presbyterians of Scotland (and
formerly of this country), act upon the principle that every bap
tized person, not excommunicated, being himself a member of the
visible church, has a right to have his child regarded and treated as
such also.
It is evident, however, from the following principles, that only
the children of those who are professors .of a personal faith in'
Christ ought to be baptized. 1st. The example of the apostles.
They baptized the households only of believers. 2d. Faith is the
condition of the covenant. If the parent is destitute of faith, the
transaction is a mockery. 3d. Those who, having been baptized
in infancy, do not by faith and obedience discharge their baptismal
vows when they are of mature age, forfeit their own birthright,
and of course can not plead its benefits fpr 'their children.
The efficacy of baptism.
29. What is the Romish and High Church doctrine as to the
efficacy of baptism ?
The Romish doctrine, with which the high church doctrine
essentially agrees, is, 1st, that baptism confers the meritsof Christ
and the power of the Holy Ghost, and therefore (1.) it cleanses
from inherent corruption ; (2.) it secures the remission of the
penalty of sin ; (3.) it secures the infusion of sanctifying grace ;
(4) it unites to Christ ; (5.) it impresses upon the soul an in
delible character ; (6.) it opens the portals of heaven. — Cat. Rom.,
Pt. IL, Chap. IL, Q. 32-44 2d. That the efficacy of the ordi
nance is inherent in itself in virtue of the divine institution. Its
virtue does not depend either on the merit of the officiating min
ister, nor on that of the recipient, but in the sacramental action
itself as an opus operatum. In the case of infants, the only con
dition of its efficiency is the right administration of the ordinance.
In the case of adults its efficiency depends upon the additional
condition that the recipient is not in mortal sin, and does not re
sist by an opposing will. — Dens De Baptismo, N. 29.
30. What is the Lutheran doctrine on this subject J
The Lutherans agreed with the Reformed churches in repudi
ating the Romish doctrine of the magical efficacy of this sacra-

EFFICACY OF BAPTISM, 501
ment as an opus operatum. But they went much further than the
Reformed in maintaining the sacramental union between the sign
and the grace 'signified. Luther, in his Small Cat., Pt. IV., sec.
2, says baptism, " worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death
and the devil, and confers everlasting salvation on all who believe,"
and, in sec. 3, that " it is not the water indeed which produces
these effects, but the word of God which accompanies, and is con
nected with the water, and our faith, which relies on the word of
God connected with the water. For the water without the word
is simply water and no baptism. But when connected with the
word of God, it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and
a washing of regeneration."
31. What was the Zuinglian doctrine on this subject ?
That the outward rite is a mere sign, an objective represen
tation by symbqlof the truth, having no efficacy whatever beyond
that due to the truth represented.
32. What is the doctrine of the Reformed churches, and of our
own among the number, on this subject ?
They aU agree, 1st, that the Zuinglian view is incomplete.
2d. That besides being a sign, baptism is also the_geaLof
grace, and therefore, a present and sensible conveyance and con
firmation of grace to the believer who has the witness in himself,
and to all the elect a seal of the benefits of the covenant of grace,
to be sooner or later conveyed in God's good time.
3d. That this conveyance is effected, not by the bare opera
tion of the sacramental action, but by the Holy Ghost, which
accompanies his own ordinance.
4th. That in the adult the reception of the blessing depends
upon faith.
5th. That the benefits conveyed by baptism are not peculiar
to it but belong to the believer before or without baptism, and
are often renewed to him afterwards.
Our Conf. Faith, Chap. XXVIII., sections 5 and 6, affirms,
" 1st. ' That by the right use of this ordinance the grace
promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred
by the Holy Ghost to such, (whether of age or infants,) as that
grace belongeth unto.'

502 BAPTISM.
" 2d. That baptism does not in all cases secure the blessings
of the covenant.
" 3d. That in the cases in which it does the gift is not con
nected necessarUy in time with the administration of the ordi
nance. "4th. That these blessings depend upon two things : (1.) the
right use of the ordinance ; (2.) the secret purpose of God." —
Dr. Hodge.
The necessity of baptism.
33. What is the Romish and Lutheran doctrine as to the ne
cessity of baptism ?
They hold that the benefits conveyed by baptism are ordi
narily conveyed in no other way, and consequently, baptism is
absolutely necessary in order to salvation, both for infants and
adults. — Coun. Trent, Sess. 7, canon 4 ; Cat. Rom., Part IL,
Chap. IL, question 28 ; Bellarmine Bapt., 1, 4 ; Augsburg Conf.,
article 9. The Papists except from this absolute necessity mar
tyrs, and those who, desiring, can not obtain baptism.
34. What is the doctrine on this point of the Reformed
churches ?
They all agree that the necessity of baptism arises simply
from the command of Christ to baptize ; and that the grace sig
nified belongs to all within the covenant, (whether adult or in
fant,) and would be attained by them with or without the sign
and seal. — Conf. Faith, Chap. XXVIII., section 5 ; Calvin's
Institutes, 4, 16, 26.
35.. What opinion has prevailed as to lay baptism ?
The Romanists and Lutherans believing in the absolute neces
sity of baptism as a means of salvation, have consequently always
aUowed the validity of baptism administered by laymen in cases
of necessity. The Reformed, on the other hand, not believ
ing the ordinance to be necessary to salvation, have uniformly
agreed that baptism is to be regarded valid only when adminis
tered by a regularly ordained minister.

CHAPTER XL.
the lord's supper.
1. What are the various phrases used in Scripture to desig
nate the Lord's supper, and their import ?
1st. "Lord's Supper," 1 Cor. xi., 20. The Greek word
deiirvov, translated supper, designated the dinner, or principal
meal of the Jews, taken towards or in the evening. Hence this
sacrament received this name because it was instituted at that
meal. It was called the " Lord's," because it was instituted by
him, to commemorate his death, and signify and seal his grace.
2d. " Cup of blessing," 1 Cor. x., 16. The cup was blessed
by Christ, and the blessing of God is now invoked upon it by the
officiating minister, Matt, xxvi., 26, 27.
3d. "Lord's. Table," 1 Cor. x., 21. Table here stands by a
usual figure for the provisions spread upon it. It is the table at
which the Lord invites his guests, and at which he presides.
4th. " Communion," 1 Cor. x., 16. In partaking of this sac
rament, the fellowship of the believer with Christ is established
and exercised in a mutual giving and receiving, and consequently
also the fellowship of believers with one another, through Christ.
5th. " Breaking of bread," Acts ii., 42. , Here the symbolical
action of the officiating minister is put for the whole service.
2. By what other terms was it designated in the early church ?
1st. " Eucharist," from iv%apiareu, to give thanks. See Matt.
xxvi., 27. This beautifully designates it as a thanksgiving ser
vice. It is both the cup of thanksgiving, whereby we celebrate
the grace of God and pledge our gratitude to him, and the cup
of blessing, or the consecrated cup.

504 the lord's supper.-
2d. " Iivvagig," a coming together, because the sacrament was
administered in the public congregation.
3d. " Aeirovpyla," a sacred ministration, applied to the sacra
ment by way of eminence. From this word is derived the Eng
lish word liturgy.
4th. " Qvaia," sacrifice offering. " This term was not applied
to the sacrament in the proper sense of a propitiatory sacrifice.
But (1.) because it was accompanied with a collection and obla
tion of alms ; (2.) because it commemorated the true sacrifice of
Christ on the cross ; (3.) because it was truly a eucharistical sac
rifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. xiii., 15 ; (4.) because, in
the style of the ancients, every religious action, whereby we con
secrate any thing to God for his glory and our salvation, is called
a sacrifice." 5th. 'Aydnn. The Agapae, or love feasts, were meals at which
all the communicants assembled, and in connection with which
they received the consecrated, elements. Hence the name of the
feast was given to the sacrament itself-
6th. MvaTrjpiov, a mystery, or a symbolical revelation of truth,
designed for the special benefit of initiated Christians. This was
applied to both sacraments. In the Scriptures it is applied to all
the doctrines of revelation, Matt, xiii., 11 ; C°L i-3 26.
7th. Missa, mass. The principal designation used by the
Latin church. The most probable derivation of this term is from
the ancient formula of dismission. When the sacred rites were
finished the deacons called out, " Ite, missa est," go it is dis
charged. — Turrettin, L. 19, Q. 21.
1 ¦
3. How is this sacrament defined, and ibhat are the essential
points included in the definition ?
See L. Cat, Q. 168 ; S. Cat., Q. 96.
The essential points of this definition are, 1st, the elements,
bread and wine, given and received according to the appointment
of Jesus Christ. 2d. The design of the recipient of doing this in
obedience to Christ's appointment, in remembrance of him, to
show forth his death till he come. 3d. The promised presence of
Christ in the sacrament by his Spirit, " so that the worthy re
ceivers are not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but, by faith,

, BREAKING OF BREAD. 505
made partakers of Christ's body and blood, with all his benefits,
to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace."
i
4 What kind of bread is to be used in the sacrament, and
what is the usage of the different churches on this point ?
Bread of some kind is essential, 1st, from the command of
Christ ; 2d, from the significancy of the symbol ; since bread, as
the principal natural nourishment of our bodies, represents his
flesh, which, as living bread, he gave for the life of the world,
John vi., 51. But the kind of bread, whether leavened or un
leavened, is not specified in the command, nor is it rendered essen
tial by the nature of the service. Lutherans and many Baptists
maintain that the use of unleavened bread is essential. The
Romish church uses unleavened bread, although she does not
affirm it to be essential. — Cat. Rom., Pt. II. , Chap. IV., Q. 13.
The Greek church uses leavened bread.
5. What is the meaning of the term blvog, wine, in the New
Testament, and how does it appear that wine and, no other liquid
must be used in the Lord's supper ?
It is evident from the usage of this word in the New Testa
ment that it was designed by the sacred writers to designate the
fermented juice of the grape, Matt, ix., 17 ; John ii., 3-10 ; Rom.
xiv., 21 ; Eph. v., 18 ; 1 Tim. iii., 8 ; v., 23 ; Titus ii., 3.
The Romish church contends, on the authority of tradition,
that water should be mingled with the wine. But this has not
been commanded, nor is it involved in any way in the symbolical
significancy of the rite. That wine and no other liquid is to be
used is clear from the record of the institution, Matt, xxvi., 26-
29, and from the usage of the apostles.
6. How does it appear that breaking the bread is an impor
tant part of the service ?
1st. The example of Christ in the act of institution, which is
particularly noticed in each inspired record of the matter, Matt.
xxvi., 26 ; Mark xiv., 22 ; Luke xxii., 19 ; 1 Cor. xi:, 24
2d. It is prominently set forth in the reference made by the
apostles to the sacrament in the epistles, 1 Cor. x., 16. The en
tire service is designated from this one action.

506 THE lord's supper. »
3d. It pertains to the symbolical significancy of the sacrament,
(1.) It represents the breaking of Christ's body for us, 1 Cor. xi.,
24 (2.) It represents the communion of believers, being many in
one body, 1 Cor. x.-, 17.
' 7. What is the proper interpretation of 1 Cor. x., 16, and in
what sense are the elements to be blessed or consecrated ?
The phrase to bless is used in Scripture only in three senses,
1st, to bless God, i. e., to declare his praises, and ¦ to utter our
gratitude to him. 2d. To confer blessing actually, as God does
upon his creatures. 3d. To invoke the blessing of God upon any
person or thing.
The " cup of blessing which we bless" is the consecrated cup
upon which the minister has invoked the divine blessing. . As the
blessing of God is invoked upon food, and it is thus consecrated
unto the end of its natural use, 1 Tim. iv., 5, so the elements are
set apart as sacramental signs of an invisible spiritual grace, to
the end of showing forth Christ's death, and of ministering grace
to the believing recipient, by the invocation by the minister of
God's blessing in the promised presence of Christ through his
Spirit, 8. What is the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation ?
Transubstantiation means " conversion of substance," and is
used by the Romanists to designate their dogma that when the
words of consecration are pronounced by the priest the whole
substance of the bread is changed into the very body of Christ
which was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right
hand of the Father in heaven, and the whole substance of the
wine is changed into the blood of Christ, while only the species
or visible appearance of the bread, and wine remain, accidents
without a substance ; and that, together with his real flesh and
blood, the entire person of the God-man, humanity and divinity,
is really physically present. — Council of Trent, Sess. 13., Cans. 1
and 2 ; Cat: Rom., Pt. IL, Chap. IV., Q. 22.
Almost • immediately after the apostolic age the --Christian
church began to leave the simplicity -of the gospel, and to exalt
the outward symbols and services of religion above the spiritual
truth which they represented. Thus gradually the New Testa-

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 507
ment ministry became a priesthood, and more and more supersti
tious views were entertained as to the efficacy and necessity of the
sacraments, and as to the. manner in which the literal body and
blood of Christ is physically present in the supper. The .doctrine
in its present form, however, was first defined and affirmed by
Paschasius Radbert, abbot of Corbey, A. D. 831. After many con
troversies it was first decreed as an article of faith and a univers
ally recognized dogma of the church, and designated by the term
transubstantiation, at the instance of Innocent IIL, by the fourth
Lateran Council, A. D. 1215. — Mosheim Eccl. Hist., Cen. IX, Pt.
IL, Chap. IIL, and Cen. XIII., Pt. IL, Chap. III.
9. Present an outline of the argument against this Popish doc
trine ?
1st. The Romanists seek to establish their doctrine by three
arguments, (1.) Scripture, (2.) tradition, (3.) decisions of councils.
But we have above, (Chap. V.), proved that the Scriptures are
the only rule of faith and judge of controversies. Their scriptural
authority is nothing more than the language used by Christ in
instituting the sacrament, Matt, xxvi., 26. They claim that the
word " is" must be understood literally. Protestants insist, on
the contrary, that this word, from the plain sense of the passage,
and from the analogy of Scripture usage in many other passages,
simply means represents, symbolizes. — See Gen. xii., 26, 27 ; Ex.
xii., 11 ; Dan. vii., 24 ; Rev. L, 20.
2d. Paul caUs one of the elements bread, as well after as be
fore its consecration, 1 Cor. x, 16 ; xi., 26-28. #
3d. This doctrine is inconsistent with their own definition of
a sacrament. They agree with Protestants and with the fathers
in distinguishing, in every sacrament, two things, viz., the sign
and the thing signified. See above, Chap. XXXVIIL, question
2. But the doctrine of transubstantiation confounds these to
gether. 4th. The senses, when exercised in their proper sphere, are as
much a revelation from God as any other. No miracle recorded
in the Bible contradicted the senses, but, on the contrary, the re
ality of the miracle was established by the testimony of the senses.
See the transubstantiation of water into wine, John ii., 1-10, and
Luke xxiv. 36^3. But this doctrine flatly contradicts our senses,

508 THE lord's supper.
since we see, smeU, taste and touch the bread and wine as weU
after their consecration as before.
5th. Reason also, in its proper sphere, is a divine revelation,
and though it may be transcended, never can be contradicted by
any other revelation, supernatural or otherwise. See above, Chap.
IL, question 11. But this doctrine contradicts the principles of
reason (1.) with respect to the nature of Christ's body, by sup--
posing that, although it is material, it may be, without division,
wholly present in heaven, and at many different places on earth
at the same time. (2.) In maintaining that the body and blood
of Christ are present in the sacrament, yet without any of their
sensible qualities, and that all the sensible qualities of the bread
and wine are present, while the bodies to which they belong are
absent. But qualities have no existence apart from the bodies
to which they belong.
6th. This doctrine is an inseparable part of a system of priest
craft entirely antichristian, including the worship of the host, the
sacrifice of the mass, and hence the entire substitution of the priest
and his work in the place 6f Christ and his work. It also blas
phemously subjects the awful divinity of our Saviour to the con
trol of his sinful creatures, who at their own will call him down
from heaven, and withhold or communicate him to the people.
10. What is the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation ?
Consubstantiation (literally constituting of the same sub
stance) was the term used by Luther to designate his doctrine,
that while the bread and wine continue the same that they were
before, and what they appear to our senses to be, the body and
blood of Christ are nevertheless literally and corporeally present
in a miraculous manner, in, with, and under the sensible ele
ments. This view agrees with that of the Romanists, in asserting —
1st. A real corporeal and local presence of the body and blood
of Christ in the sacrament.
2d. That they are received by the mouth.
3d. That they are received equaUy by the believer and un
believer. But it differs from the Romish doctrine, in denying —

CONSUBSTANTIATION. 509
1st. That the bread and wine are changed.
2d. That the union of the person of Christ with the elements
is effected by the power of the officiating priest.
3d. In confining the presence of Christ's person within and
under the elements to the very moment of the sacramental cele
bration. It follows that although this doctrine is false, absurd,
and injurious, it is by no means so fatally dangerous as that of
transubstantiation. It does not lead to the idolatrous worship
of the host, to the denial of the cup to the laity, nor to the anti-
christian sacrifice of the mass.
11. What is the doctrine of the Reformed churches as to the
nature of Christ's presence in the supper ?
On account of the controversy on the subject of the real pres
ence which raged immediately after the Reformation, between the
Lutherans and the Reformed, and between Calvin and the imme
diate followers of Zuingle, the early Reformed Confessions were
composed generally under the bias of an effort to compromise
radically distinct views, and hence a want of definiteness and con
sistency in their statements upon this subject has resulted. In
aU essentials, however, they agree, and immediately after the age
of controversy, the language of all the confessions subsequently
composed, and of theological writers, became both distinct and
uniform. They agree in holding —
1st. That the human nature of Christ is confined to heaven.
2d. That the presence of his body and blood in the sacrament
is not physical, nor local, nor to our bodily senses, but only by
its gracious influences to the mind, and by the power of the Holy
Ghost. 3d. That they are received only by the true believer, not by
the mouth, but only spirituaUy, in the exercise of faith. See
Consensus Tigminus, article 21 ; Helv. Conf, Chap. XXL— Bib.
Rep., April, 1848.
12. What is meant by the body and blood of Christ as received
in the sacrament ?
"The whole- church united in saying that believers received
the body and blood of Christ. They agreed in explaining this

510 THE LORD'S SUPPER.
to mean that they received the virtue, efficacy, or vigor of his
body and blood. But some understood thereby, the virtue of his
body as broken, and his blood as shed, i. e., their sacrificial effi
cacy. Others said, that besides this, there was a mysterious vir
tue in the body of Christ, due to its union with the divine nature,
which* virtue was by the Holy Spirit conveyed to the believer."
The first view, or that which limits the reception of Christ's body
and blood to their sacrificia.. efficacy, is the true one, and the only
one which maintained its ground in the faith of the Reformed
churches. — Bib. Rep., April, 1848.
13. What is meant by feeding upon the body and blood of
Christ, as used in the Reformed confessions ?
" All the Reformed agree as to the following particulars :
" 1st. This eating was not with the mouth in any manner.
" 2d. It was only by the soul that they were received.
" 3d. It was by faith, which is declared to be the hand and
mouth of the soul.
" 4th. It was by or through the power of the Holy Ghost."
" But this receiving Christ's body is not confined to the Lord's
supper ; it takes place whenever faith in him is exercised." — Bib.
•Rep., April, 1848.
14. What is the Zuinglian doctrine as to the relation be
tween the sign and the thing signified in the supper ?
The bread and wine in this view are regarded as simply signs,
symbolizing the body and blood of Christ sacrificially broken and
shed. There is no other presence of Christ than as he is thought
of and believed in by the soul.
15. In what sense and on what ground do the Romanists re
present the eucharist as a sacrifice ?
" The sacrifice of the mass is an external oblation of the body
and blood of Christ offered to God in recognition of his supreme
Lordship, under the appearance of bread and wine visibly exhibited
by a legitimate minister, with the addition of certain prayers and
ceremonies prescribed by the church for the greater worship of
God and edification of the people." — Dens, Vol. V, p. 358.

SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 511
With respect to its end it is to be distinguished into, 1st,
Latreuticum, or an act of supreme worship offered to God. 2d.
Eucharisticum, thanksgiving. 3d. Propitiatorium, atoning for
sin, and propitiating God by the offering up of the body and
blood of Christ again. 4th. Imperatorium, since through it we
attain to many spiritual and temporal blessings. — Dens, Vol. v.,
p. 368. The difference between the eucharist as a sacrament and a
sacrifice is very great, and is twofold ; as a sacrament it is per
fected by consecration, as a sacrifice all its efficacy consists in its
oblation. As a sacrament it is to the worthy receiver a source of
merit, as a sacrifice it is not only a source of merit, but also of
satisfaction, expiating the sins of the living and the dead. — Cat.
Rom., Pt. IL, Chap. IV, Q. 55 ; Council Trent, Sess. 22.
They found this doctrine upon the authority of the church,
and absurdly appeal to Mai.. L, 11, as a prpphecy of this perpetu
ally recurrent sacrifice, and to the declaration, Heb. vii., 17, that
Christ is " a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec," who,'
say they, discharged his priestly functions in offering bread and
wine to Abraham, Gen. xiv., 18.
16. How may this doctrine be refuted ?
1st. It has no foundation whatever in 'Scripture. Their ap
peal to the prophecy in Malachi, and to the typical relation of
Melchizedec to Christ, is self-evidently absurd.
2d. It rests wholly upon the fiction of transubstantiation,
which was disproved above, question 9.
3d. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross, was perfect, and from
its essential nature excludes all others, Heb. ix., 25-28 ; x., 10-
14, and 18, 26, 27.
4th. It is inconsistent with the words of institution pronounced
by Christ, Luke xxii., 19, and 1 Cor. xi., 24-26. The sacrament
commemorates the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and conse
quently can not be a new propitiatory sacrifice itself. For the
same reason the essence of a sacrament is different from that of a
sacrifice. The two can not coexist in the same ordinance.
5th. It belonged to the very essence of all propitiatory sacri
fices as well to the typical sacrifices of the Old Testament, as to
the all perfect one of Christ, that fife should be taken, that blood

512 THE LORD'S STOPPER.
should be shed, since it consisted in vicariously suffering the pen
alty of the law, Heb. ix., 22. But the Papists themselves call
the mass a bloodless sacrifice, and it is wholly without pain or
death. 6 th. A sacrifice implies a priest to present it, but the Christian
ministry is not a priesthood. See above, Chap. XXL, question 21.
17. What is the Lutheran view as to the efficacy of the sacra
ment ?
The Lutheran view on this point is that the efficacy, of the
sacrament resides not in the signs, but in the word of God con
nected with them, and that it is operative only when there is true
faith in the receiver. It, however, lays stress upon the virtue of
, the literal body and blood of Christ 'as present in, with, and un
der, the bread and wine. This body and blood, being physically
received equally by the believer and unbeliever, but being of gra
cious avail only in the case of the believer. — Luther's Small Cat.,
Part V.
18. What is the view of the Reformed churches upon this sub
ject ?
They rejected the Romish view which regards the efficacy of
the sacrament as inhering in it physically as its intrinsic property,
as heat inheres in fire. They rejected also the Lutheran view as
far as it attributes to the sacrament an inherent supernatural
power, due indeed not to the signs, but to the word of Gjpd which
accompanies them, but which, nevertheless, is always operative,
provided there be faith in the receiver. And, thirdly, they re
jected the doctrine of the Socinians and others, that the sacra
ment is a mere badge of profession, or an empty sign of Christ
and his benefits. It is declared to be an efficacious means of
grace ; but its efficacy, as such, is referred neither to any virtue
in it, nor in him that administers it, but solely to the attend
ing operation of the Holy Ghost (virtus Spiritus Sancti ex-
trinsecus accedens), precisely as in the case of the word. It has
indeed the moral objective power of significant emblems and seals
of divine appointment, just as the word has its inherent moral
power ; but its power to convey grace depends entirely, as in the
case of the word, on the cooperation of the Holy Ghost. Hence

THE CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION. 513
the power is in no way tied to the sacrament. It may be exerted
without it. It does not always attend it, nor is it confined to the
time, place, or service. — Bib. Ref, April, 1848 ; see Gal. Conf,
Arts. 36 and 37 ; Helv. ii., c. 21 ; Scotch Conf., Art, 21 ; 28th
and 29th Articles of Church of England ; also our own standards,
Conf. Faith, Chap. XXIX., sec. 7.
19. What do our standards teach as to the qualifications for
admission to the Lord's supper ?
1st. Only those who are truly regenerated by the Holy Ghost
are qualified, and only those who from their own profession and
walk are to be presumed regenerate are to be admitted.
. 2d. Wicked 'and ignorant persons, and those who know them
selves not to be regenerate, are not qualified, and ought not to be
admitted by the church officers. — Conf. Faith, Chap. XXIX.,
section 8 ; L. Cat., question 173.
3d. But since many who doubt as to their being in Christ are
nevertheless genuine Christians, so if one thus doubting unfeign-
edly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity,
he ought to labor to have his doubts resolved, and, so doing, to
come to the Lord's supper, that he may be further strengthened. —
L. Cat., question 172.
4th. " Children born within the pale of' the visible church,
and dedicated to God in baptism, when they come to years of
discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady,
and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord's body, they
ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come
to the Lord's supper." " The years of discretion in young Chris
tians can not be precisely fixed. This must be left to the pru
dence of the eldership." — Direct, for Worsh., Chap. IX.
20. What is the practice which prevails in the different
churches on this subject, and on what principles does such prac
tice rest ?
1st. The Romanists make the condition of salvation to be union
with and obedience to the church, and, consequently, admit all to
the sacraments who express their desire to conform and obey.
" No one " however, " conscious of mortal sin, and having an
opportunity of recurring to a confessor, however contrite he may

514 THE lord's supper.
deem himself, is to approach the holy eucharist, until he is puri
fied by sacramental confession." — Coun. Trent, sess. 13, canon 11.
The Lutherans agree with them in admitting all who conform to
the external requirements of the church.
2d. High Church prelatists, and others who regard the sacra
ments as in themselves effective means of grace, maintain that
even those who, knowing themselves to be destitute of the fruits
of the Spirit, nevertheless have speculative faith in the gospel,
and are free from scandal, and desire to come, should be ad
mitted. 3d. The faith and practice of all the evangelical churches is
that the communion is designed only for believers, and therefore,
that a credible profession of faith and obedience should be re
quired of every applicant. (1.) The Baptist churches denying
altogether the right of infant church membership, receive all ap
plicants for the communion as from the world, and therefore
demand positive evidences of the new birth of aU. (2.) All the
Pedobaptist churches, maintaining that all children baptized in
infancy are already members of the church, distinguish between
the admission of the children of the church to the communion,
and the admission de novo to the church of the unbaptized alien
from the world. With regard to the former, the presumption is
that they should come to the Lord's table when they arrive at
" years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear to be
sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the
Lord's body." In the case of the unbaptized worldling, the pre
sumption is that they are aliens until they bring a credible pro
fession of a change.
21. How may it be proved that the Lord's supper is not de
signed for the unrenewed ?
It can, of course, be designed only for those who are spirit
ually qualified to do in reality what every recipient of the sacra
ment does in form, and professedly. But this ordinance is essen
tially —
1st. A profession of Christ.
2d. A solemn covenant to accept Christ and his gospel, and
to fulfill the conditions of discipleship.
3d. An act of spiritual communion with Christ.

CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION. 515
The qualifications for acceptable communion, therefore, are
such knowledge, and such a spiritual condition as shall enable
the recipient intelligently and honestly to discern in the emblems
the Lord's body as sacrificed for sin, to contract with him the
gospel covenant, and to hold fellowship with him through the
Spirit. 22. What have the church and its officers a right to require
of those whom they admit to the Lord's supper ?
" The officers of the church are the judges of the qualifications
of those to be admitted to sealing ordinances." " And those so
admitted shall be examined as to their knowledge and piety." —
Direct, for Worsh., Chap. IX. As God has not endowed any of
these officers with the power of reading the heart, it follows that
the qualifications of which they are the judges are simply those
of competent knowledge, purity of life, and credible profession of
faith. It is their duty to examine the applicant as to his knowl
edge, to watch and inquire concerning his walk and conversation,
to set before him faithfully the inward spiritual qualifications re
quisite, for acceptable communion, and to hear his profession of
that spiritual faith and purpose. The responsibility of the act
then rests upon the individual professor, and not upon the ses
sion, who are never to be understood as passing judgment upon,
or as indorsing the validity of his evidences. ,
23. What is the difference between the Presbyterian and the
Congregational churches upon this point ?
There exists a difference between the traditionary views and
practice of these two bodies of Christians with respect to the abil
ity, the right, and the duty of church officers, of forming and
affirming a positive official judgment upon the inward spiritual
character of applicants for church privileges. The Congregation-
alists understand by " credible profession" the positive evidence
of a religious experience which satisfies the official judges of the
gracious state of the applicant. The Presbyterians understand
by that phrase only an inteUigent profession of true spiritual
faith in Christ, which is not contradicted by the life.
Dr. Candlish, in the Edinburgh Witness, June 8th, 1848,
says " The principle (of communion), as it is notorious that the

516 THE LORD'S SUPPER,
Presbyterian church has always held it, does not constitute the
pastor, elders, or congregation, judges of the actual conversion of
the applicant ; but, on the contrary, lays much responsibility
upon the applicant himself. The minister and kirk session must
be satisfied as to his competent knowledge, credible profession,
and consistent walk. -They must determine negatively that there
is no reason for pronouncing him not to be a Christian, but they
do not undertake the responsibility of positively judging of his
conversion. This is the Presbyterian rule of discipline, be it
right or wrong, differing materially from that of the. Congrega-
tionalists. In practice there is room for much dealing with the
conscience under either rule, and persons destitute of knowledge
and of a credible profession are excluded."

_ APPENDICES

I. The Apostles' Creed, so caUed, but known to have assumed
its present form only graduaUy. It has, however, been in sub
stantially its present form the creed of the whole Christian
church ever since the close of the second century. The clauses
which were the latest added to the creed are, " he descended into
heU," " the communion of saints," and " the life everlasting."
See Mosheim, Cen. I., Part IL, Chap. III. ; Bingham's Christ.
Ant., Book X., Chapter III.
I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and
earth ; and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord ; who was
conceived by the Holy Ghost ; born of the Virgin Mary ; suf
fered under Pontius Pilate ; was crucified, dead and buried : he
descended into hell ; the third day he rose again from the dead,
he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God
the Father almighty ; from thence he shall come to judge the
quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy cath
olic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness "of sins, the
resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
II. The Nicene Creed, as it was actually enacted by the
Council of Nice, A. D. 325.
We believe in one God the Father almighty, the maker of all
things, visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, begotten of the Father ; only begotten, (that is,)
of the substance of the Father ; God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God ; begotten, not made ; of the same sub-

518 Appendix.
stance with the Father ; by whom all things were made, that
are in heaven and that are in earth ; who for us men, and for
our salvation, descended, and was incarnate, and became man ;
suffered, and rose again the third day ; ascended into the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and the dead : and in the Holy
Spirit. But those who say, that there was a time when he was
not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was
made out of nothing, or affirm that he is of any other substance
or essence, or that the Son of God is created, and mutable or
changeable, the Catholic church doth pronounce accursed.
III. The creed set forth by the Council of Constantinople,
called by Theodosius the Great, A. D. 381, and the second oecu
menical council. This is the creed used in the Catholic, Lu
theran, and English churches, and erroneously styled the Nicene
Creed, a true version of which I have given above, from which
this Constantinopolitan creed differs chiefly in being much more
full and definite in the article concerning the Holy Ghost. It
was for the purpose of condemning errors concerning the person
ality and divinity of the third Person of the Trinity, which had
prominently emerged since the Council of Nice, that the Council
of Constantinople enacted these additional definitive clauses. —
Mosheim, Cen. IV., Part IL, Chap. V.
I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven
and earth, and of all things visible and invisible ; and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, begotten of his
Father before all worlds ; God of God, Light of Light, very God
of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the
Father ; by whom all things were made ; who for us men, and
for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by
the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was
crucified, also for us, under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was
buried ; and the third day he rose again according to the Scrip
tures ; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand
of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both
the quick and the dead ; whose kingdom shall have no end. And
1 believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who pro
ceedeth from, the Father and' the Son (this phrase " filioque" was
added to the creed of Constantinople by the council' of the western

APPENDIX. 519
church held at Toledo, A. D., 589), who, with the Father and
the Son together, is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the
prophets. And I believe one Catholic and apostolic church, I
acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins ; and I look for
the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
IV. The Athanasian Creed, so called, vulgarly ascribed to the
great Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, from about A. D. 328
to A. D. 373, and the leader of the orthodox party in the church
in opposition to the arch heretic, Arius. " But the best and latest
critics, who have examined the thing most exactly, make no ques
tion but that it is to be ascribed to a Latin author, Vigilius
Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the
fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution." — ¦
Bingham's Christian Antiquities, Bk, X., Chap. IV.
1. Whosoever wishes to be saved, it is above all necessary for
him to hold the Catholic faith. 2. Which, unless each one shall
preserve perfect and inviolate, he shall certainly perish for ever.
3. But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in
trinity, and trinity in unity. 4 Neither confounding the persons,
nor separating the substance. 5. For the person of the Father is
one, of the Son another, and of the Holy Ghost another. 6. But
of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost there is one
divinity, equal glory and coetemal majesty. 7. What the Father
is, the same is the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 8. The Father is
uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Gfiost uncreated. 9. The
Father is immense, the Son immense, the Holy Ghost immense.
10. The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eter
nal. 11. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal.
12. So there are not three (beings) uncreated, nor three immense,
but one uncreated, and one immense. 13. In like manner the
Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Ghost is
omnipotent. 14. And yet there are not three omnipotents, but
one omnipotent. 15. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God,
the Holy Ghost is God. 16. And yet there are not three Gods,
but one God. 17. Thus the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and
the Holy Ghost is Lord. , 18. And yet there are not three Lords,
but one Lord. 19. Because we are thus compelled by Christian
verity to confess each person severally to be God and Lord ; sc

520 APPENDIX.
we are prohibited by the Catholic religion from saying that there
are three Gods or Lords. 20.' The Father was made from none,
nor created, nor begotten. 21. The Son is from the Father alone,
neither made, nor created, but begotten. 22. The Holy Ghost is
from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor be
gotten, but proceeding. 23. Therefore there is one Father, not
three fathers, one Son, not three sons, one Holy Ghost, not three1
Holy Ghosts. 24. And in this trinity there is nothing first or
last ; nothing greater or less. 25. But all the three coetemal
persons are coequal among themselves ; so that through all, as is
above said, both unity in trinity, and trinity in unity is to be
worshiped. 26. Therefore, he who wishes to be saved must
think thus concerning the trinity. 27. But it is necessary to
eternal salvation that he should also faithfully believe in the in
carnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 28. It is, therefore, true
faith that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is
both God and man. 29. He is God, generated from eternity from
the substance of the Father ; man, born in time from the sub
stance of his mother. 30. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting
of a rational soul and human flesh. 31. Equal to the Father in
respect to his divinity, less than the Father in respect to his hu
manity. 32. Who, although he is God and man, is not two but
one Christ. 33. But one, not from the conversion of his divinity
into flesh, but from the assumption of his humanity into God.
34 One not at all from confusion of substance, but from unity
of person. 35. For as a rational soul and flesh is one man, so
God and man is one Christ. 36. Who suffered for our salvation,
descended into hell, the third day rose from the dead. 37. As-
' cended to heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father
omnipotent, whence he shall come to judge the living and the
dead. 38. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their
bodies, and shall render an account for their works. 39. And
they who have done well shaU go into life eternal ; they who
have done evU into eternal fire. 40. This, is the Catholic faith,
which, unless a man shall faithfully and firmly believe, he can
not be saved.

APPENDIX 521

B.

As the system of doctrine commonly designated Calvinism,
from its ablest expounder, the illustrious reformer of Geneva, was
in fact first clearly defined and advocated by the great St. Augus-
tin, bishop of Hippo, in Northern Africa, during the last years
of the fourth and the first of the fifth century, so that antagonist
system, now generally known as Arminianism, from the fact that
its most able and prominent modern advocates, the Remonstrants,
of Holland, were led, in the order of time, by James Arminius,
professor of theology in the University of Leyden, from 1602 to
1609, was really in the first instance set forth by John Cas-
sianus, an Eastern monk settled in Marseilles, in France, during
the first half of the fifth century. The advocates of this system
were at first called Massilians (from Massilia, Marseilles), and
afterwards, by the schoolmen, Semipelagians.
During the controversies which immediately preceded the
General Synod of Dort? in Holland, A. D. 1618 and 1619 (when
the churches of England, Scotland, Holland, the Palatinate, and
Switzerland, united in condemning, by their representatives, this
doctrine, and in reasserting Calvinism as the faith of the Reformed
churches), the Remonstrants set forth their position, as contrasted
with the established doctrine of the Protestant churches, in five
propositions. These are known as the five points of contro
versy between the disciples of Arminius and of Calvin. These,
as given by Mosheim, Cent. XVII., Sec. IL, Part IL, Chap. III.,
are as follows :
1st. " That God, from all eternity, determined to bestow- salva
tion on those who, as he foresaw, would persevere unto the end
in their faith in Jesus Christ, and to inflict everlasting punish
ment on those who should continue in their unbelief, and resist,
to the end of life, his divine succours.
2d. " That Jesus Christ, by his death and sufferings, made an
atonement for the sins of mankind in general, and of every indi
vidual in particular ; that, however, none but those who believe
in Mm can be partakers of that divine benefit.
3d. " That true faith can not proceed from the exercise of our
natural faculties and powers, or from the force and operation of

522 APPENDIX.
free will, since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is
incapable of thinking or doing any good thing ; and that there
fore it is necessary to his conversion and salvation that he be re
generated and renewed by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which
is the gift of God through Jesus Christ.
4th. " That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost,
which heals the disorders of a corrupt nature, begins, advances,
and brings to perfection every thing that can be called good in
man ; and that, consequently, all good works, without exception,
are to be attributed to God alone, and to the operation of his
grace ; that, nevertheless, this grace does not force the man to act
against his inclination, but may be resisted and rendered ineffec
tual by the perverse will of the impenitent sinner.
5th. " That they who are united to Christ by faith are there
by furnished with abundant strength and succor sufficient to en
able them to triumph over the seductions of Satan, and the allure
ments of sin ; nevertheless they may, by the neglect of these suc
cors, fall from grace, and, dying in such a state, may finally
perish. This point was stated at first doubtfully, but afterwards
positively as a settled doctrine."
It must be remembered that this statement was put forth dur
ing the early stages of this controversy, while the Remonstrants
were deprecating all ecclesiastical investigation of their divergen
cies from the creeds of the national church, and before, in fact,
their system had been thoroughly elaborated by their own teachers.
The fundamental positions set forth in these five points led by
logical necessity to that rationalistic anti-evangelical system ma
tured by the later Remonstrant theologians, and presenting un
scriptural views upon almost every question concerning Christi
anity, as concerning our federal relation to Adam, original sin,
predestination, providence, redemption, free will, grace, faith, re
generation, justification, sanctification, perseverance, good works,
etc., etc. THE END.

INDEX.

Aaronic Priesthood, 296.
Ability and Liberty, 265.
" natural and moral, 266.
'• and Arminian view, 266.
" " Pelagian view, 266.
Absolution, Romish claims, 379.
" Protestant objections against,
380.
Acceptance of the Gospel and inability,
267.
Active obedience of Christ, 300.
" " Christ's, Righteousness
and Justification* 387.
Acts of God as future, 110.
" Christ classified, 290.
" " in one or both natures, 290.
" God classified, 163.
" " as past, 110.
" " as present, 110.
Act of sin, conditions, of, 234.
Adam's first sin, nature of! 235.
" " God concerned in ? 235.
" " and nature of his poster
ity, 253.
" " the sin of the race ? 244.
" " " " objec
tions to, 245.
Adam and his posterity, union of, 240.
Adam's sin imputed, 239.
" " obligation to repent of, 243.
" " Arminian view of, 239.
" " Pelagian view of, 238, 253,
255, 256.
" state, one of covenant, 228.
Adam totally depraved? 237.
Adam's sin, orthodox view of, 239.
Administration of Covenant of Grace, 2.76,
278.
Admission into Christ's kiDgdom, terms
of, 324.
Adonai, 102.
Adopted, the, Sons of God, 400.
Adoption, 398.

Adoption, relation of, to Justification, Re
generation, and Sanctifica
tion, 398. %
" relation of, to the Persons of
the Trinity, 400.
Advent, Christ a Mediator before, 277.
Affections of renewed heart, 350.
Agassiz, and Development, 24.
Agency of God in good acts of men, 212.
" " in the material world, 210.
Alexander's Moral Science, 44.
All, Christ's dying for, 317.
Amount of our knowledge of God from
different sources, 31.
Amyraut and God's Decrees, 178.
Ancient Covenant and Immortality, 433.
Angels, 196, 197, 198, 199.
" apparitions of, 199.
" fallen, 261.
Anglican criterion of doctrine, 363.
Ante-mundane generation of the Son, 145.
Answers to objections v. Inspiration, 76.
Apocrypha what? 93.
" how connected -with Scrip
tures, 93.
" Romish plea for, 93.
•' Protestant objections to, 94.
Apollinarian heresy, 286.
Apostle's Creed, 517.
Apostolical and Apocryphal writings,
their differences, 98.
A priori Argument for the Being of God,
15.
" and ontological, meaning of these
phrases, 16.
Arguments of Orthodox Theists, 15.
" of Romanists for Church
Authority, 84.
" of Romanists, Replies to, on
Church Authority, 85.
Arianism, what? 160.
Arians, 131.
Aristotle, influence of, 39.

524

INDEX.

Arminian ground of Election, 179.
" view of God's Decrees, 178.
" view of Will of God, 117.
Arminius and Calvin, 521.
Arnold (Dr.) and Inspiration, 70.
Article of Faith and opinion? 363.
Ascension of Christ, when? 331.
" " views of, 331.
Assurance and Faith, 366.
" not essential to Faith, 367.
" attainable, 367.
" grounds of, 367.
Athanasian Creed, 519.
" " and Sonship of Christ, 146.
Atheism, what? 32.
" how far possible, 32.
Atheists, 187.
Atomists, ancient, 187.
Atonement, the, 299.
" and Satisfaction, 299.
" design of, 315.
" " Governmental " scheme,
301, ,309.
" extent of, 312.
" neeessity for, 309.
" perfection of, 310.
" orthodox view of, 302, 307.
" Socinian view of, 300.
attributes of God, 101, 102.
" " classified, 103.
" " how proved, 14.
" " unlimited, 11.
Auricular Confession, Protestant objec
tions against, 379.
Authoritative Theology, its source, 40.
Authority of the Church not a ground of
Faith, 358.
Baptism, ,477.
" nature and design of, 479, 480.
" form of words, 479.
" matter of, " essential to," 479.
" emblematic import of, 481.
- " necessity for, 502.
" Romish, Lutheran,and Reformed,
views, 502.
" lay, 502.
" efficacy of, 500.
" Romish doctrine on, 500.
" Lutheran " " 500.
" Zwinglian " " 501.
," Reformed " " 501.
" Scripture evidenco as to mode,
490.
" subjects of, 491.
" of adults, 491.
" initiating rite of visible Ohurch,
491.
" mode of, 483.

Baptism of Christ, 142.
" with the Holy Ghost, 487.
Baptismal Regeneration, 344.
Baptist interpretations, 482, 485.
" " opposing views,
485.
Baptize "in name" of any one, 480.
"Bear iniquity," meaning of, 305.
Being of God, 11.
" " involves two questions, 14.
Believers, subjects of illumination, 349.
" Priests? 298.
" united with Christ, 369, 370,
371, 372.
Benevolence of God, 123.
" " and election, 182.
Benevolent, God known to be, 124.
Bible, chief contents of, 44.
Bible Hand-Book, Angus', 53.
Birth of Messiah, Prophecies respecting,
282.
Blessings symbolized in Baptism promised
and granted to children, 498.
Blunt's Undesigned Coincidences, 53.
Bodies, how related to space, 108.
Bodily parts ascribed to God, 103.
Body and Blood of Christ, how received ?
509, 510.
Body sanctified, in what sense, 405.
Bondage of Corruption, 260.
Books of Scripture, dates and authors, 51.
" . " mutually related, 67.
Calvin and Arminius, 521.
Calvinism, 521.
" and Rom. ix., 180, 184.
Calvinistic ground of Predestination, 179.
" objections to Arminian scheme,
179.
Camero, and God's Decrees, 178.
Canon of Scripture, 90.
" Old Testament, completed and
when? 91.
" New Testament, settled by
whom? 95.
" NewTestament,settledwhen?95.
" Romish and Protestant views of,
90.
Carlyle and Pantheism, 36.
" Rationalism, 40.
Carpenter, Dr., and Development, 24.
Cause, idea of, whence ? 20.
." the Nature of, 20.
" and Law, their relation, 28.
Certainty and Freedom, 262.
Chalmers, Dr., 193.
Cherubim, what ? 196.
Children, Church standing of, 497.
" to be baptized, 499.

INDEX.

525

Christ, the Person of, 281.
Christ's person and early heresies, 286.
Christ not personally a sinner, 307.
" two natures in one person, 284.
" the only Mediator, 292.
Christ's work, and Holy Ghost, gift of,
314.
Christ a Priest for ever? 319.
Christ's work, and general offer of the
Gospel, 316.
Christ not made Son of God, 151.
Christ's human nature and worship, 285.
" delivering up his Kingdom; 326.
" Session at the right hand of the
Father, 332.
" dying for those who perish? 317.
" Kingdom as distinct from the
Universe, 322.
" presence in the Supper, view of
Reformed Churches, 509.
" body and blood, how received?
' 509, 510.
Christian Theology, Departments of, 48.
Christianity, evidences of, 49.
power of its doctrines, 61.
" effects of, on nations, 62.
" opposes false systems, 63.
" and polytheism, 36.
Church, authority of, Romish views, 83.
" and State, Romish view of their
relation, 324.
" " Erastian view, 324.
" " Reformed Church's
view, 324.
' ' identical under both dispensations,
494.
" purchased by Christ, 307.
" redeemed by Christ, 307.
" standing of children, 497.
Cicero and Theology, 38.
Clarke, Dr. S., and his a priori argument,
16.
" objections to his reasoning on a
priori argument, 17.
Coleridge, 18.
Common Grace and Efficacious Grace, 337.
"Communion of Saints," 373.
Complacency, Love of, 123.
Completeness of Scripture, 81.
Comte, on Cause and Design, 27.
Concert not evident in New Testament
writers, 60.
Concord, Formula of, 288.
"Concursus," doctrine of, 213.
" Condignity" and "Congruity," merit of,
409.
Conditional Decrees, objections to, 167,
168.
Conditions of Act of Sin, 234.

Confession, Romish Doctrine of, 379.
Confirmation, 477.
Conflagration of the earth, 457.
Congregational and Presbyterian views of
the Lord's Supper, 515.
Conscience, what? 220.
" and Moral Accountability, 29.
" and Future State, 432.
" Argument from, 206.
" infallible? 221.
" indestructible? 221.
" and the Being of God, 29.
Constantine, Conversion of, 64.
Constantinople, Council of, Creed of, 518.
Consubstantiation, 287, 508.
Contingent events known to God, 113.
Conversion and Regeneration, 347.
Conviction and Regeneration, 349.
" without Regeneration, 350.
Coptic Version, ] 00.
Corrupt habit, is itself sin, 249.
Corruption of Nature propagated ? 257.
Cosmological Argument for the Being of
God, 15, 19.
" Counsels" of Christ, Romish Doctrine of,
407.
Cousin, on Intuition of the Infinite, 19.
Covenant, essentials of, 228.
" and Sovereignty, 230.
" Promise of, 231.
" Seal of, 231.
" of Works, 228.
" of "Works, Condition of, 230.
'¦ and Justice, 230.
" of God with Israelites, 279.
" administration of, under the
Law and after Advent of
Christ, 279.
Create, no Creature can, 191.
Creation of the "World, 186.
" rational prpofs of, 188.
" theories against, 186.
" proof from Scripture, 188.
" and Persons of the Trinity, their
relation, 190.
" and Immutability, not opposed,
111.
Death, and state of Soul after, 430. *
" and Sin, how related, 430.
" Penalty of Disobedience, 231.
Decrees of God, 163.
" " Eternal, 164,
" " relate to all Events, 164
" Universal, and Providence, 164.
" of Godf one Purpose,, 165.
" Providence and Prophecy, 165.
" of God, Free, in what sense, 166.
" " Sovereign, 166.

526

INDEX.

Decrees, Absolute' and Conditional, the
difference, 166.
" of God, Efficacious, 168.
*' " and certainty ofeTents, 168.
" and Free-agency, 169.
" certainty and fate, 169.
" and use of means, 171, 172.
" of God, and yet God not the
author of sin, 171.
" not discouraging, 172.
" practical use of, 173.
Decretive Will of God, 117.
Deistical view of God, 11.
Deists on Revelation, 48.
Deity of the Messiah and Malachi iii. 1, 2,
136.
" of Christ, New Testament evidence,
136, 137.
Demoniacs, 201, 202.
" deranged, were they? 202.
Departments of Christian Theology, '48.
Dependence, sense of, and the Being of
God, 29.
" on God, feeling of, 14.
Dependent causes and their cause, 28.
Depraved condition of heart sinful, 234.
Depravity and Divine Influence, 268.
" from one sin, 237.
Des Cartes' argument on the Being of God,
18.
" objections to his argument on
Being of God, 18.
Design implying intelligence, 25.
" argument from, objections to, 26.
of Scripture, 81. '
Desires, conflicting, 262.
Development Theory, what? 22.
Difficulties of Romish view on True
Church and Rule of Faith, 89.
" Direction," meaning of, 69.
Discrepancies between Science and Scrip
ture, how to be treated, 194.
Distributive Justice and Immortality, 432.
Divine Presence, Modes of, 108.
Dogmatic, or Systematic Theology, 48.
Dort, Synod of, 521.
Dualism, what ? 106.
Duties of the State to the Church, 325.
\' " Church to the State, 326.
Early Church and Baptism, 498.
" success of Christianity, 63.
Earth, Conflagration of, 457.
Effectual calling, 333.
Efficacious Grace and the elect, 338.
" " given on account of
Christ, 338.
" " immediate and super
natural, 338.

Efficacious Grace, why so called, 339.
" " in what sense irresist
ible, 339, 340.
" " congruous with our na
ture, 340.
Efficacy of Lord's Supper, Lutheran view,
512.
" " " Reformed view,
512.
Effect of Adam's sin onhimself, 237.
El, 101.
Elect, salvation of, certain, 314.
Election, 313.
" New Testament, use of the term,
175.
" assurance ofjand the grounds,183.
to whom referred in Scripture,
175.
" the objects of, 175.
" and Lutherans, 179.
" and general offer of the Gospel,
182.
" Elevation," meaning of, 69.
Eloah, 101.
Elohim, 101.
Elyon, 102.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, and Pantheism,,
36.
Epicurean System of Creation, 187.
Errors of Schelling and Cousin, 19.
Essence of the Soul and Regeneration,
346.
" Eternal," usage of the term, 463.
Eternal Generation, Scripture doctrine of,
147.
" " ' of the Son, 145.
" Punishment and Justice of God,
466.
" " and Benevolence of
God, 466.
" Sonship, and Matt. xi. 27 j Luke
x. 22, 148.
" " and John i. 1-14, 149.
" " and John v. 22 ; x.
33-37, 149.
" " and Acts xiii. 32, 33, 151.
" " Romans i. 3, 4 ; viii. 3,
149.
" " and Col. i. 15-21, 150.
Heb. i. 5-8, 150.
" " and names, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, 148.
Eternity, what? 109.
" and Immensity, 28.
" relation of, to time, 109.
Eucharist, 477.
" a sacrifice, Romish tenet, 510.
" " how refuted, 511.
Eutychian heresy, 287.

INDEX.

527

Events past, as they regard God, 110.
" future, as they regard God, 110.
Evidence to which Scriptures appeal, 65.
" of Christianity, 49.
" for Christianity, cumulative, 65.
" that God has revealed Truths as
objects of Faith, 358.
Exaltation of Christ, what ? 329.
Exegetical Theology, 48.
"Exercise Scheme" and Regeneration,
344.
Experience of Christians, an evidence, 61.
Extent of the atonement, 312.
External Call through the Word, 333,
334.
" " addressed to non-elect as
well as the elect, 334.
" Evidences, 49.
Extreme Unction, 477.
Faith, 352.
" an act of the Understanding, 353.
" Will, 353.
" a condition of Salvation? 277, 278.
" Rule of, 78.
" and Justification, their relation,
390.
" " Hope, 362.
" " Knowledge, 354, 355.
" " Love, 362.
" " Assurance, 366.
" of believers, its basis, 65.
" and Reason, 45.
" " Trust, 360, 361.
" Knowledge and Commands to be
lieve, 357.
" instrumental cause of Justification,
390.
" justifying, object of, 391.
" fruits of, 365.
" leads to good Works, 368.
" of Christians vain, when ? 330.
Fall Scripture statements about, 241.
" and Rom. v. 12-21, and 1 Cor. xv.
21, 22, 241.
" the history of, 241.
Fallen Spirits, how designated, 200.
" •' their powers, 200.
" " their residence, 201.
Fichte, and Idealism, 34.
" ," Pantheism, 34.
"Filioque," and Greek Church, 156.
Finite mind unable to embrace the In
finite, 28.
Five Points, (Arminianism and Calvinism),
521.
Footprints of the Creator, (H. Miller), 22.
"Formula of Concord," 288.
Foreknowledge, eternal, 167.

Foreknowledge and knowing beforehand,
174.
" and Freedom of Moral
Agents, 113.
Founder of Christianity, his character, an
evidence of its origin, 60.
Free Agent, meaning of the term, 220.
Freedom and Certainty, 262.
" of Moral Agents and Fore
knowledge of God, 113.
French Theologians and God's Decrees,
178.
Fruits of Faith, 365.
Fulfilment of Prophecies, 57,
Future Punishments, 463.
" " Scripture evidence,
464.
" " two views opposed to
Faith of the Church,
on, 465.
" State, and Conscience, 432.
Gaussen, on Theology, 38.
" Gehenna" Scripture, use of the term, 435.
Gemaras, The, 95.
General Providence, involves a particular
Providence, 209.
Genuineness of a Book, what ? 90.
" of New Testiment, proofs of,
96.
Geological argument against the Eternity
of the World, 22.
Geologists and the Globe's age, 191.
German Transcendentalists, 18.
Gibbon's account of the Progress of Chris
tianity, 64.
Gift of the Son, Arminian view, 312.
" " Orthodox view, 312.
God, idea of, how far traditional, 13.
" knowledge of, from Revelation, 30.
" idea of, due to Revelation, 13.
" is one, in what sense? 104, 133.
" is a Spirit, 106.
" infinite, 11.
" is one and indivisible, 105.
" is eternal, meaning of the term, 109
" immutable, Scripture proof, 110.
" Intelligence of, 111.
" omnipotent, 116.
" idea of, in what sense innate, 12.
" can He be defined ? 11
" how known by man? 11.
" as defined by Westminster divines
12.
" idea of, speculative, 13.
" how related to Space, 108.
" relation of, to Time, 109.
" immutable proof from Reason, 110.
" punishes sin, why? 120.

528

INDEX.

God the author of sin because of our
sinful nature ? 257.
Goodness of God infinite, 123.
" and Justice consistent, 125.
Good works, the fruit of Faith, 368.
" " what? 407. ,
" " ,of unrenewed men, 408.
" " in what sense necessary to
Salvation? 408.
" " Arminian theory on this sub
ject,- 409.
" " do not merit Salvation, 411.
" " of.believers, 411. ,
" Governmental" view of Atonement,/301.
" " " objec-
r tions to, 301.
Grace of God, what? 123.
" Covenant of, 270, 273.
" " Administration of, 276.
" " Calvinistic views, 271.
Arminian views, 276.
" parties to Covenant of, 273.
" and Sign in Sacraments, .Romish
doctrine, 472.
" " Zwiuglian doctrine, 472.
" " doctrine in Westminster
Confession, 472.
" " " Reform. Chnrches,
473.
Gratuitous election and Justice of God, 1 81.
Greek and Latin Churches on Procession
of the Holy Ghost, 156.
" Philosophy and Pantheism, 35.
Ground of Imputation of Adam's sin, 240.
" of Gospel offer, 316.
" Hades," Scripture use of the term, 435,
464.
Hamilton's Discussions, (Sir William), 19.
" " on adequate Ideas
of God, 29.
" Harden men," in what sense ? 184.
Harmony of Creation, a proof of Divine
Unity, 105.
Heaven and Hell, 459.
" as a place, 460.
" Blessedness of, 460. .
"He descended into Hell," meaning of,
' 327.
Hereditary Depravity, 252.
Heresies in early Church, 286.
Hero Worship and Pantheism, 36.
Historical Argument for Being of God, 15,
30.
" , " against the Eternity
of the World, 21.
" Faith, 358.
Hitchcock on Religion of Geology,
191.

Hobbes and Locke, their Philosophy, 39
Holiness of God, what? 127.
" God's Love of, 121.
Holy Ghost a Person, 138, 139, 140.
" " an Energy? 138.
" " truly God, 138, 140, 141.
" " Baptism with, 487.
" " Sin against, 258.
"Holy" Spirit, why term used? 153.
" " same relation to Father and
Son, 157.
" " office in Redemption, 157.
Horas Paulinas, Paley's, 53.
Hope and Faith, 362.
Human' Mind finite, 11.
" Passions ascribed to God, 103.
Humanity of Christ, 283, 286.
Hume, on Intelligence and Design, 26.
Humiliation of Christ, 327.
Hylozoism, what? 34.
Hypostasis, meaning of the term in New
Testament, 130.
" Ecclesiastical use of the term,
130.
Idealism, what? 34.
Identity, what? 445.
" of the Body, 441, 443.
Immensity of God, 107.
" and Omnipresence, their differ-'
ence, 107.
Immortality and general Consent of man
kind, 433.
" and Old Testament teaching,
433, 434
" and New Testament teach
ing, 433, 434.
" and Ancient Covenant, 433.
Immersion not taught in 1 Cor. x. 1, 2,
and 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, 488.
" not the Scriptural usage of
"Baptizo" and " Baptismn,"
486.
Immutability of God, 110.
Implicit and explicit Faith, 354.
Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, 387
" ground of, 388.
" factor, 388.
" effects of, 389.
" and Justification, 242.
" and Divine Justice, 243.
" mediate, 243.
" difficulties of rejecting it, 242. •
"Impute," Hebrew and Greek usage of
the term, 239.
Inability and the Will 260.
" and Experience, 268.
" and Scripture proofs, 267.
" and Responsibility, 26J5.

INDEX.

529

Inability and use of Means, 269.
" and Commands and Threatenings,
269.
Incarnation, a fundamental doctrine, 288.
" the, and Immutability not
opposed, 111.
Infant Baptism and Identity of the Church
under both dispensations,
494.
" " and Corruption, 255.
Infants and Regeneration, 351.
" " the Lord's Supper, 499.
Inferiority of the Son, and Luke i. 35 ex
plained, 152.
Infinite Power, 116.
" Perfection, a proof of Divine
Unity, 105.
Innate idea of God, how far natural, 12.
Inspiration, Nature of, 67.
" Extent of, 69.
" True doctrine of, 70.
" and Revelation, the difference
of, 67.
" and InMibility, 67.
" and Illumination, the differ
ence of, 68.
" a priori argument in favor of,
72.
" promised, 73.
" Claim for, confirmed, 73.
" Old Testament writers, claim
confirmed, 74.
" x views of, objections to, 69.
Inspired Writers, assertions of, 72.
Instrumental cause of Justification, 390.
Intelligence of God, infinite, 111.
" Intention," Romish doctrine of, 476.
" Protestant sense of, 477.
Intercession of Christ, 319, 320.
" necessary to Priesthood, 320.
" and work- of the Holy Ghost,
320.
" grounds of assent to Truth,
358.
Intermediate state of the Soul, views on,
436.
Internal Call and External Call, 334.
" " Pelagian view, 335.
" " Semi-Pelagian view, 335.
" " Arminian view, 335.
" " Lutheran view, 336.
" " Synergistic view, 336.
" " Reformed Church's view,
336.
" " Romish opinions on, 336.
" Evidences, 49.
Invitations of God and his sincerity,
126.

Jah, 101.
Jehovah of Old Testament, the Second
Person of the Godhead, 134.
Jesus is Divine, 133.
Jews' expectation of a Divine Messiah,
133.
" general Conversion of, 453.
. " Restoration of, to Palestine, 453.
" oppose Christianity, 63.
John's Baptism, Christian ? 488.
", " mode of administration,
489..
Judicial hardening, 184.
Judge of the world, who? 455.
Judgment, the subjects of, 455.
" final, the principles of, 456.
Justice and Goodness consistent, 225.
" of God, absolute, 120.
" " distributive, 120.
" " infinite, 120.
" " punitive, 120, 121.
" " rectoral, 120.
" " relative, 120.
Justified die, why ? 430.
Justification and Faith, their relation, 390.
" Romish and Protestant dis
putes on, 396.
" objections to Romish views,
397.
James ii. 14-26, on, 386.
" defined by Rftmish theologi
ans, 395.
'¦ New Testament, sense of the
term, 382, 384, 386.
" fruits of, 392.
" more than pardon, 393.
" and governmental view of
Atonement, 394.
" Arminian view of Atonement,
394.
Justifying Faith, object of, 391.
Justin Martyr, Testimony of, 64.
Kant and Rationalism, 39.
" Kingdom of Christ," 322.
" " spiritual, 323.
" Kingdom of God," 322.
"Kingdom of Heaven," 459.
Kingship of Christ, 321,322.
Knowing and Understanding, 355.
Knowledge and Faith, 354, 355.
" essential to Faith, 356.
Language inspired, 71.
La Place and the Nebular Hypothesis, 22
23.
Latin Vulgate, 100.
Lay Baptism, 502,
Law, what? 24.

530

INDEX,

"Law of Nature," what? 211.
Law, the Penalty of,- 304
" of God and Punitive Justice, 122.
" Christ made under, 327.
" " underwent the curse of, 327.
" and Cause, their relation, 27.
Leibnitz and Rationalism, 39.
Leslie's "Short Method with the Deists,"
52.
Liberty and Ability, 265. .
" lost, 260.
" of Indifference," 263.
Licentiousness no fruit of Justification,
392.
Life of St. Paul, (Conybeare and Howson),
53.
" Limbus Patrum," and 1 Pet. iii. 19-21,
328.
Limits of Religious Thought, (Mansel's), 15.
Logical demonstration of the Being of God,
14.
" Logos Prophoricos," sense of, 145.
Lord's Supper, 503.
" " other designations in early
Church, 503.
" " how defined, 504
" " Bread used in ? 505.
" " Wine (ilvog) used in ? 505.
" " Bread to be broken, 505.
" " Elements blessed, in.. what
< sense, 506.
" " qualifications for, 513.
" " not for unrenewed, 514,
515.
" " and Infants, 499.
Love and Faith, 362.
Lutherans and Election, 179.
Man, original state of, 216, 223.
" holy, as created, 225.
" born in sin, why ?, 242.
" free, when ? 260.
Manes, who ? his views, 286.
Mansel's " Limits of Religious Thought,"
19.
Man's Nature, elements of, 223.
Marriage, 477.
Materialism, what? 33.
" Pantheism and Idealism, their
relation to each other, 36.
" Material Cause," what? 211.
" Body Of Christ rose from the
dead, 441.
" " " objections to,
answered, 442.
Materialists, their idea of the universe, 26.
Mediate Imputation, 243.
Mediator, sense of the term, 289.
" and two natures, 289.

Mediator of Covenant of Grace, 274
" before the advent, 277.
Mediatorial Kingdom, extent of, 321.
" Office of Christ, 289.
" Work and Holy Ghost, 292. "
" " parts of, 315.
" Headship of Christ to continue
. forever, 326.
Melchizedec, 297.
Mercy of God, what? 123.
Merit, different senses of the term, 409,
410.
Micah v. 2 ancftbe Messiah, 136.
Michaelis and Inspiration, 70. #
Millenium, Scripture doctrine on, 450.
Miller (Hugh) and Development, 24 ,
Ministry, Christian, not a Priesthood, 297.
Messiah, characteristics of, in' Old Testa
ment, 282.
" Work oft done by Christ, 283.
" and Gen. xlix. 10, and Dan. ix.
24-27, 281.
" Psalm ii. and ex. ; 135.
" the, and Psalm xiv.,, 135.
" the, and Isaiah ix. 6, 135.
Miracle, what? 53.
Miracles, Now Testament, 53,. 55.
" their evidential force, 55.
" and Inspiration, their connexion,
73.
" Hume's Argument against, 54.
Mishna, the, 95.
Moral argument for Being of God, 15.
" Attributes of God, 104.
" Character before action, 226.
" " of Christianity, an evi
dence of its origin, 59.
" Responsibility, 221, 265.
Modes of the Divine Presence, 108.
Morell, 18.
" Tendency to Spiritualism, 42.
Mortal and venial sins, 258.
Mosaic Record and Geology, 193.
Motive and Will, 261, 262. •
Mundane Generation of the .Son, 145.
Names of God in Scripture, 101.
Nations, effect on, of Christianity, 62.
Natural and Revealed Theology, 38.
" Attributes of God, 104
Nebular Hypothesis, what? 22, 188.
Necessary Existence, proof of Divine
Unity, 105.
Necessity for Regeneration, 351.
Neo-Platonism, effect of, 39.
Nestorian heresy, 287.
New Haven view of Regeneration, 344.
Newman and Paiker, 42.
New Obedience and Regeneration, 350.

INDEX.

531

New Obedience and mere Morality, 350.
New Testament evidence for Inspiration
of Old Testament, 75.
" " Text, Sources of, 100.
" " and Deity of Christ, 136.
Nice, Council of, 131-, 166.
Nicene Creed, 017.
" " and Sonship of Christ, 146.
Obedience, virtue of, 231.
" of Christ free, 387.
Object of Faith, Christ in all his offices,
365.
Objects of Divine Knowledge, how classi
fied? 112.
Objection to views of Inspiration, 69, 75,
" to Arminian view of Will of
God, 117, 118.
" of Romanists on Authority of
Scripture, 87.
"Offering for Sin," Christ an, 306.
Offices of Christ threefold, 293, 294, 295,
296.
Old Testament, Genuineness of, 92.
" " Text,. Sources of, 99. •
Omnipotence belongs to God, 116.
Omnipresence of the Divine Essence, 108.
One God only, Scripture proof, 105.
Only-Begotten and Christ's Sonship, 149.
Ontologieal and a priori meaning of these
phrases, 16.
Orders, 477.
Origen, Testimony of, 64.
Origin of Universal idea of God, 12.
Original Righteousness natural, 224.
" " man's, 224.
" Sin, 247.
" " why so called ? 248.
" " and disease of nature, 249. '
" " affecting the entire man,
250. '
" " and universality of death,
254.
" " and corruption of soul, 248.
" " and want of original right
eousness, 249.
" " and sensuous nature, 249.
" " and history of the Fall, 252.
Orthodox Theists and the Being of God,
15.
" at Nice, 131.
" doctrine of Atonement, 311.
Paley's Evidences, 53.
Pantheism, what? 35.
Pantheists, 187.
Pantheist idea of God, 11.
Pantheism and Polytheism, 36.
" and Hindooism, 35.

Pantheism and ScheHing, 34.
" and Fichte, 34
" how refuted, 36.
"Paradise, Scripture use of the term,
435.
Parker and Emerson, 40.
Parties to Covenant of Works, 229.
Peace, a fruit of Justification, 392.
Pelagian view of man's state, 225.
Penance, Romish doctrine of, 378.
" not a Sacrament, 379, 477.
Penal, Christ's sufferings were ? 303.
Penalty of the Law, 304.
" for Disobedience, 231.
Perfection, Pelagian theory disproved, 420.
" Romish " " 420.
" Oberlin " " 420.
" Arminian " " 421.
" Scripture declarations on, 423.
" and Experience of Christians,
423,
" practical effects of,' 424.
Perfectionism, '412.
" and Pelagianism, 412.
and Romish view, 413.
" and early Arminianism,
414
" and Wesley's doctrine, 415,
416, 417.
" Oberlin's views, 417.
" Points of agreement and
disagreement on these
views, 418.
Perfectionists, their arguments and replies,
419.
Perseverance of the Saints, 425.
" " Romish doctrine on,
426.
" " Arminian, 426.
" and Free Agency, their rela
tion, 426.
" and supposed influence on
morality, 427.
" and warnings and exhorta
tions, 427.
" Scripture statements, 428.
" " examples, 428.
Personal guilt, and Ezek. xviii. 20, 243.
Personality, involves what? 130.
" and the doctri ne of the Trinity,
130.
Person of Christ, True doctrine of, 283,
284, 285, 133.
Personal advent-of Christ still future, 447.
" , " " Matt. xxiv. and
xxv., 448.
" " " in the days of
the Apostles, 449.
Perspicuity of Scripture, 81, 82.

532

INDEX.

Peshito Version, 100.
Philosophy and Theology, their relations,
38.
Piscator on Justification, 393.
Plato and Theology, 38.
Plenary Inspiration, what ? 70.
Pliny, Testimony of, in first century, 64
Polytheism, what? 106.
" and Christianity, 36.
Power of God Infinite, 116.
" " Limited, in what sense?
116.
Powers vested iu the Church, 323.
Practical Theology, 48.
Practice, Rule of, 78.
Preceptive Will of God, 117.
Predestination, 174
Pre-existence of Christ proved, 134.
" Pre-Millennialism," 450.
" arguments against,
451.
" Scripture passages on
this subject, 452.
Preservation, Divine, what? 205.
Priestly and Sensationalism, 39.
Pritchard and Development, 24.
Private Judgment required by Romish
system, 88.
Probation, meaning of term, 230.
Procession of the Holy Ghost, 152, 154.
" and Generation, 154, 155.
Promises to believers, 277.
Proof that Scriptures are the final judge,
86.
" Property" as applied to doctrine of the
Trinity, 157.
Prophet, sense of the term, 293.
Prophecy, what? 56.
" essential features of, 56.
" evidence of, 56.
" fulfilment of, 56.
Protestants, their position, 40.
" and Romanists on perspicuity
of Scripture, 81.
Protestant doctrine as to fundamentals,
364
Providence, 204.
" general principles, 210.
" refers to free acts of men,
209.
" includes individuals, 209.
" general affairs of men, 209.
" and general history of the
world, 207.
'¦ and intelligence as evinced
in operations of nature,
207.
" Prophecies, Promises and
Threatenings, 208.

Providence extends to the natural world,
208.
" and sinful acts of men, 210,
212.
" and Scripture teaching, 214.
" and anomalous distribution
of happiness and woe, 215.
" and moral and physical evil,
214.
Providential Government and God's Per
fections, 206.
Punitive Justice and Holiness, 121.
" " and Death of Christ, 122.
" " and God's Law, 122.
Purification, Old Testament, and Baptism,
488.
Puseyite party in Church of England, 344
Quakers and Inspiration, 70.
Qualifications for the Lord's Supper, 513,
515.
Quotations from the Old Testament in the
New, 74
" " and Deity of
Christ, 136.
" Ratio insita," Fathers on, 145.
" prolate," " " 145.
Rationalists, their position, 40, 41, 43.
Reason, meanings of the term, 41.
" and Faith, 45.
" in Religion, legitimate use of, 45.
Redemption, Scripture statements, 255,
313.
References of Christ to Old Testament, 75.
" of Apostles to Old Testament,
75.
Regeneration, 344, 345.
" Pelagian view of, 343.
" Eomish " 343.
" Exercise scheme, 344
New Haven view, 344.
" necessity for, 351.
" proofs of, 348.
and Conversion, 347.
" and Infants, 351.
Relation of Persona in the Trinity, 143.
" of God to Space, 107.
" " to the Universe, 204
" of Books in Scripture to each
other, 57.
Remonstrants and Atonement, 311.
Repentance, 375.
" a grace or gift, 375.
" fruits of evidences of, 376.
" essentials of, 376.
" evidences of; 377.
" relations of, to Faith, Conver
sion and Regeneration, 377.

INDEX.

533

Repentance, Reformer's doctrine of, 378.
Replies to Romish arguments, on Church
authority, 85.
Reply to Hume on Design and Intelli
gence, 27.
" to Gibbon, 64
" to Comte on Cause and Design, 27.
Reprobate, future condition of, 462.
Reprobation, 183.
" objection to, 184.
" practical use, 184.
Responsibility and Inability, 268.
Restoration of all to happiness and Scrip
tures in support thereof? 467.
Resurrection, 440.
" Old Testament passages
on, 440.
" New Testament passages
on, 440.
" and phrase, "Natural Body,"
440.
" " " "Spiritual Body,"
440.
" simultaneous and general,
441.
" as held by the Jews, 445.
" rejected by early Heretics,
446.
" as held by Swedenborg, 446.
" and modern Rationalists,446.
" of Christ, proved, 329.
" " by whose power?
330.
" " secures that of be
hevers, 442.
" and scientific objections, 442,
443, 444.
Revelation (Supernatural) possible, 43.
" probable, 50.
" (Supernatural) necessary, 45.
Righteousness, Christ's, imputed, 387.
" of God," New Testament
sense of the term, 383.
Ritualists and the Sacraments, 477.
' Romanists, their position, 40.
Romish views, unsound, 40.
" " of man's state, 225.
" " as to object of Faith, 365.
" Rule of Faith, 78.
" Priests as Mediators, 291.
" view of Saints, and Angels as
Mediators, 291.
Rule of Faith, 78.
" " term includes, 80.
" of Practice, 78.
Sabellianism, what? 161.
Sacraments, 469.
" necessity for, 478.

Sacraments, Romish, Presbyterian, and
Church of England, defini
tions of, 470.
" Romish, their number, 471.
" included in every Sacrament,
471.
¦' the design of, 473.
" efficacy of Romish view, 474,
478.
" Reformed Churches view of,
475.
Sacred writers, inspired as historians, 71.
" " " as religious teach
ers, 71.
Saddai, 102.
Sadducees, Christ's argument against, on
Immortality, 434.
Saints, to judge the world, 456.
" Blessedness of, terms descriptive
of, 459.
Samaritan Pentateuch, 99.
"Same substance," what? 131.
Sanctification, 402.
" author of, 405.
" more than reformation,
403.
" and holy exercises, 404.
" relation of, to Regeneration
and Justification, 404
" Sacraments, effects of, in,
406.
Truth, effects of, in, 406.
" Faith, " " 407.
Satan a person, 200.
" names of, 199.
" relation of, to this world, 200.
Satisfaction, penal and pecuniary, 303.
" of Christ, 300.
" and Grace, 308.
" Romish doctrine cf, 380
Protestant objections against,
381.
Saving Faith, its evidence, 359.
" " its object, 363, 364.
Schelling, on Intuition of the Inflnite, 19,
" and Pantheism, 34 36.
Schleiermacher, 18.
"Scientia Media," what? 114.
" " object of the theory,
114.
" " and the Jesuit Doc
tors, 114.
" " arguments against,
114.
Scriptures, the, genuine and authentic,
51, 52.
" only Rule of Faith, 78.
" on Rule of Faith, 80, 83.
" a Judge, and Rule, 83.

534

INDEX.

Scriptural Argument for Being of God,
15.
Second Advent of Christ, 447.
" " and general Judgment,
. 447.
" " declared to be unknown
in different Scriptures,
449.
moral effect of, 458.'
" Self-determining power of the Will, 263.
Self-existence of God, and the Son being
God from the Father, 148.
Semi-Arians, 131.
" their views, 160.
Sending of the Son, 149.
Sense of Justice, instinctive, 121.
Seraphim, what? 197.
" Sheol," Old Testament teaching on, 433.
" Short Method with the Deists," 52.
Sign and thing signified, Zwinglian doc
trine, 510.
" Similar Substance," what? 131.
Simplicity, meaning of term applied to
God, 106.
Sin, nature of, 233.
" meanings of the term, 233.
" voluntary, 234
" God's hatred of, 121.
" punished by God, why? 120.
" and the Goodness of God, 124.
" Forgiveness of, by God, 124.
" arising in a holy soul, 236.
" Prevalence of, 253.
" God the Author of? 170.
" God not the Author of, 171.
" Original, 247.
Sinful nature and responsibility, 257.
Sins of believer*, all included in Justifica
tion? 389.
" " different views on, 389.
Sin, the Punishment of Sin, 258.
" against the Holy Ghost, 258.
Sincerity of God's Invitations, 126.
Smith, Dr. John Pye, 193.
Socinianism, what? 161.
Socinians and Inspiration, 70.
"Son," Hebrew use of the term, 143.
Son, an official title of Christ? 150.
" subject-to the Father, explained, 152.
" inferior to the Father, explained,
152.
Sonship of Christ, views of, 144, 146.
" and Psalm ii, 151.
" and Rom. i. 151.
" Sons of God," Scripture term, 144.
Soul, Faculties of, 216, 217.
" passive in Regeneration, 347.
'' Immateriality of, evidence for, 431.
" Immortality of, 431.

Soul, Immortality and distributive Justice
of God, 432.
Souls of believers, at death pass into glory,
437.
•' " after death, Romish view,
437.
" " " " Romish view,
replied to, 437.
Sources of Theology, 37.
" of Old Testament text, 99.
" of New Testament text, 100.
" of knowledge that Scripture is
inspired, 72.
Space and God, how related, 107, 108.
" and Spirits, how related, 108.
" and Bodies, how related, 108.
Special Questions in Mark and Luke, 98.
Spinosa and Pantheism, 35.
Spirit, Etymology of the term, 152.
" of Christ, the Holy Ghost called,
154.
" Spirit of God," Christ called, 154
Spirit renews by the Truth, 341.
" Spirit," why this term used to Third
Person of the Trinity, 153, 154.
Spirits, how' related to Space, 108.
Spiritualism of Newman and Parker, 42.
Sprinkling and Baptism, 487.
Sovereignty of God, what? 127.
" " rests on, 127.
limited? 127.
" of Christ, and Sovereignty of
God, 321.
State, the idea and design of, 325.
Strata of Lampsacus, on Life and Intel
lect, 34
Sub-lapsarianism, what ? 177.
Subordination of Persons in the Trinity,
158.
" Subsistentia," meaning of the term, 129.
" Substantia," meaning of the term, 129.
Substitute, Christ a, 305.
" Qualifications for, 305.
Succession of changes without a cause
absurd, 21.
Sufferings of Christ, their value, 304.
Sufficient Grace, ArmiDian view, 341.
" Suggestion," meaning of, 69.
" Superintendence," meaning of, 69.
Supernatural Illumination, 348.
Supernaturalism in Scriptures, evidence
of, 58.
Supra-lapsarianism, what? 176.
" " objections to, 176.
and Eph. iiL 9, 10,
177.
Surety of Covenant of Grace, 275.
Synod of Dort, 521.
Syriac Vorsion, 100.

INDEX.

535

Tacitus, Testimony of, ii. first century,
64
Talmud, the, 94.
Targums, the, 100.
Teleological argument for the Being of
God, 15, 25.
Temporary Faith, 359.
Tertullian, Testimony of, 64.
Theology, what ? 37.
" and Religion, 37.
" Natural and Revealed, 38.
" and Philosophy, their relations,
38.
Things possible, technical designation of
the Knowledge of such, 112.
" present, Foundation of Knowledge
of such, 112.
" future, Foundation of Knowledge
of such, 112.
" actual, past, Foundation of Knowl-
. edge of such, 112.
" actual, technical designation of
the Knowledge of such, 112.
*' possible, how known ? 1 12.
Thoughts inspired, 71.
Threats of God unfulfilled and Divine
Truth, 126.
Time, what? 109.
" and Space, 28.
" relation of, to Eternity, 109.
Toledo, Assembly at, 156.
Total Depravity, what? 251.
Tradition unsafe as Rule of Faith, 79.
Transcendental Philosophers, 18.
Transubstantiation, 506. argument against,
507.
Trinity, the Holy, 129, 132.
" of Persons, taught in Scripture,
141, 142, 143.
" Doctrine of, essential to the Gos
pel, 162.
Tritheism, what? 161.
Trust and Faith, 360, 361.
Truth, a Divine Attribute, 125.
" Infinite, God's, 125.
" Agency of, in Sanctification, 406.
" wanting, no renewal by Spirit,
341.
" of God and unfulfilled threats,
126.
Types pointing to Christ, 56.
Tzebaoth, 103.

Union of Adam and his posterity, 240.
" of Christ and his people, 315.
Unity of God, 104
" (Divine) and Incarnation, 160.
" and Personal Distinctions,
.159.
Universal Conscience and Being of God,
29.
"' idea of God, origin of, 12.
Universe requires to be upheld, 205.
Unregeneracy and Moral Desires, 266.
Use of terms First, Second, and Third,
(the Trinity), 159.
Universality of death and original sin,
254.
Vestiges of the Natural History of Crea
tion, 22, 23.
Vicarious, Christ's sufferings, 305.
Vicious character ? 222.
Virtue, essential nature of? 222.
Virtuous character ? 222.
Visible Church, Design of, 325.
" Judge in Controversies, Romish
and Protestant views of, 88.
Will, the, what? 218.
" term, how used? 260.
" how exercised, 219.
" and Motive, 261.
" the, and human Inability, 260.
" the, of God, 116.
" " " Preceptive, 117.
" " " Arminian view of, 117.
" " " Necessary, in what
sense, 117.
" " " Free, in what sense,ll7..
" " " Decretive, 117.
" " " Absolute and Condi
tional, 118.
" " " Eternal, in what sense?
119:
" " the Rule of Righteous
ness? 119.
Wisdom and Knowledge, their difference,
115.
Works, Covenant of, 228, 229.
" and Pelagian view of Justification,
385.
" not a ground of Justification, 385.
World, Creation of, 186.
" an effect, how proved ? 20.
" the Sins of, Christ dying for, 317.

08867 7555

" '
¦ ¦ ¦
. ¦ -
¦¦¦:¦¦¦., • ' ¦- ' .:. ¦ ¦¦-..:¦:..¦¦
:.:. ' .<;., ."¦ ¦'¦:::;-; .-"."- -% '-¦'¦;.,:¦¦